meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt/Tanakh/Commentary/Or HaChaim/Torah/Or HaChaim on Exodus/English/merged.txt"}
text: Or HaChaim on Exodus
  אור החיים על שמות
  merged
  
  This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
  -Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009
  -
  -Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk
  -
  -YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash
  -
  -Sefaria Community Translation
  -
  
  Or HaChaim on Exodus
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ואלה שמות בני ישראל, And these are the names of the children of Israel, etc. The reason that the Book of Exodus commences with the conjunctive letter ו is to teach that all these people were righteous, just like their parents. The word ואלה also is employed to show continuity with the people who had preceded them. In this instance the preceding people were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, all of whom were outstandingly righteous. The generation mentioned at the opening of the Book of Exodus too were righteous people.
  Another reason for the letter ו in this instance is to remind us that the years of exile of the Jewish people were computed as having already begun during the time of Abraham, not merely after the arrival of Jacob in Egypt (compare <i>Tanchuma</i> Shemot 4).
  Still another reason for the Torah writing that letter is to tell us that just as the earlier generations perceived that they were in exile and accepted their fate without resentment, so the generation of which we read here also accepted their destiny without complaint.
  Perhaps this will help us understand why the Torah bothered to list the names of the tribes when we have been well aware of their names since the Book of Genesis, and particularly since the list of the seventy people who descended to Egypt with Jacob. While Rashi claims that the Torah's repeating these names after their deaths is evidence of how fond G'd was of them, this is hardly more than a homiletical explanation. Besides, if Rashi were correct then the Torah should have recorded these names after verse six in which we heard that the members of that generation had all died. Verse seven should then have commenced with the words: ואלה שמות בני ישראל.
  According to our approach the Torah informs us of the reason why the names appear once more, i.e. that they had all willingly accepted their destiny to endure exile as distinct from Esau who had decided to leave the land of Canaan by moving to Mount Seir (Genesis 36,8). <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 82,13, attributes Esau's move to the decree of G'd mentioned to Abraham in Genesis 15,13 that Abraham's descendants would become strangers in a foreign land. Esau wanted to escape that obligation and that is why he moved away voluntarily at that time. הבאים מצרימה, who arrived in Egypt; they came in order to endure exile; את יעקב, together with Jacob; "with Jacob," i.e. in the same spirit as Jacob, to discharge their duty to become exiles. The Torah wants to prove that the Israelites did not move to Egypt for other reasons and that is why it writes that they came איש וביתו, everyone with his respective family, i.e. they prepared for a lengthy stay; otherwise they would have left their families in the land of Canaan.
  באו, they had come. The Torah draws our attention to the difference between הבאים, and באו. We have explained already in Genesis 46,7 that not all of Jacob's family were of one mind about the timing of the descent to Egypt. Some volunteered, others had to be more or less coerced. The Torah again alludes to this distinction when describing the descent of the people who accompanied Jacob.
  The division may also have been different. All those who are named came to Egypt of their own initiative. They might even have come without Jacob (if, for instance their father had died before the end of the famine). However, all those whom the Torah has not named again only came as part of the entourage of Jacob; they would never have left ארץ ישראל unless their founding father had taken such an intitiative. This is why the Torah repeated: "they came with Jacob, each one with his family."
  There is yet another possibility. The word הבאים is to prove that those people were not forced to go to Egypt with Jacob. Proof: When they returned to the land of Canaan with the funeral cortege of Jacob, they all returned to Egypt. Had their original descent been involuntary, why would they have chosen to remain in Egypt 15 years after the end of the famine? The Torah therefore gives all these people credit for accepting G'd's decree to be strangers in a foreign land though they could have resisted implementation of that decree at that time.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ויהי כל נפש…ויוסף היה במצרים. And the total number of persons…plus Joseph who was in Egypt already." Why does the Torah introduce this paragraph with the word ויהי which always introduces a painful experience? If the Torah refers to the exile, this was not the place to mention this seeing that the negative aspects of the exile did not commence till over 90 years later. Furthermore, why does the Torah have to tell us again that Joseph was already in Egypt?
  Perhaps we have here an oblique reference to the comment in <i>Sotah</i> 36 that it had been planned originally that Joseph would become the founding father of twelve tribes and that it was only due to the attempts of Potiphar's wife that he forfeited this opportunity as per Genesis 49,24. We know already that but for that unfortunate circumstance Joseph himself would have founded twelve tribes. The Torah expresses regret over that missed opportunity and that as a result the number of Israelites who descended to Egypt were only 70. Had Joseph become the founding father by fathering twelve tribes in the land of Canaan, many more Israelites would have been the basis of what was to become the Jewish nation. The Torah streses ויוסף היה, "and Joseph was already in Egypt," i.e. prematurely, before he could complete the task assigned to him as founder of the nation.
  Perhaps the Torah wants to put Joseph and family on a par with the other members of Jacob's family who descended to Egypt at the invitation of Pharaoh and Joseph by phrasing it thus: כל נפש…ויוסף היה במצרים, "all the persons …including Joseph who happened to be in Egypt already at that time." They were all righteous though some had been born in Egypt, etc. The Torah uses the word נפש for persons in the singular to show that they all formed a single spiritual unit. This is a tremendous compliment for Joseph whose life-experience was so totally different from that of his brothers and who had been mistreated by them. The Torah testified that Joseph was in no way less of an Israelite or part of the common heritage than his brothers who had remained in the land of Canaan all these years. If anything, Joseph was the prime example that given the proper strength of character, one could maintain one's spiritual integrity even after having lived in Egypt for many years and having occupied a position of power and prominence in that society. I have already mentioned this aspect of Joseph when I explained why Jacob was willing to die happy the moment he had made visual contact with Joseph in Genesis 46,30.
  
  Verse 6
  
  -8. וימת יוסף…ובני ישראל פרו, And Joseph died…and the Israelites were fruitful, etc. Why did the Torah have to repeat again that Joseph died? We have heard this at the end of פרשת ויחי. Why do we have to be told that all the other brothers and that whole generation of Israelites who had come to Egypt died? What is the connection between the respective deaths of the brothers and that of the generation and the proliferation of the בני ישראל in the next verse? If this was only a description of the manner in which the Jewish population explosion in Egypt occurred, the Torah should have written: ויפרו וישרצו בני ישראל, instead of ובני ישראל פרו וישרצו. The grammar is wrong here.
  Actually, the two verses must be read in conjunction as describing the beginning of Jewish servitude and its causes. There were a total of four causes that brought about the enslavement of the Jewish people. The first cause was Joseph's death. Had Joseph lived on for some time the Egyptians would never have ruled over his countrymen. The Torah therefore informs us that as long as Joseph was alive the Israelites lived a serene and comfortable life.
  The second cause leading to enslavement of the Jewish people was the death of Joseph's brothers. As long as even a single one of these brothers remained alive the Egyptians honoured them as our sages derive in <i>Sotah</i> 13 from Genesis 50,14 which hints that after the Egyptians had become aware of the honour paid by Canaanite kings to Jacob's bier, they began to honour all of Jacob's' sons, something they had not done previously.
  The third cause leading to enslavement of the Jewish people was the death of the entire generation of Jewish immigrants, the sixty-six persons who had been born in the land of Canaan. All of these people were regarded as invited guests by the Egyptians, and there was no question of discriminating against them legally. This may also have been due to their being perceived as more intelligent than the local population so that they could outwit anyone planning to take advantage of them.
  The fourth and final cause leading to the enslavement of the Jewish population was their unusual fertility. Any of the causes that had restrained the Egyptians from planning some way of keeping the Jewish population increase at bay had now been removed. When we keep this in mind we understand why the Torah wrote: "and the children of Israel had already been fruitful, etc." The Torah did not want to inform us of this detail but to indicate that it now served as a cause of the process of enslavement.
  A further cause, one that did not have to do with Joseph, the brothers, or the first generation of Jewish immigrants to Egypt, was the fact that a new Pharaoh arose in Egypt. Even according to the view expressed in <i>Sotah</i> 11 that the word "new" only referred to new legislation designed to subdue the Jewish population, the absence of the four causes already mentioned which had held up discrimination against the Jews also helped to shape Pharaoh's attitude now. The plain meaning of the verse is, of course, that it refers to a brand new Pharaoh, a person who had not known the Joseph who had interpreted the dream of Pharaoh at least 102 years earlier.
  Our difficulty is that the Torah only needed to write that the whole generation had died out. Why did the Torah have to refer separately to the death of Joseph, the brothers, and that of the generation? If there had not been enslavement as long as a single one of that generation was alive, there most certainly had not been any enslavement as long as one of the brothers or Joseph himself had been alive!
  Perhaps the Torah wanted to describe a gradual deterioration in the status of the Jews in Egypt which commenced with Joseph's death. At that time the Jews who had up to then been considered the elite of Egyptian society were reduced to being no more than equals to the Egyptians at large. Once Joseph's brothers died the social position of the Jews underwent a further deterioration, some Egyptians beginning to detest them. However, they still had not lost their status of legal equality with the rest of the population. Once the last of the surviving Jewish immigrants died, the legal position of the Jews had become sufficiently shaky to enable a new king to legislate against them. The principal reason was that the proliferation of the Jews and the high degree of their visibility throughout the country frightened the local population and they feared that the Jews would eventually try to dominate them.
  You may counter that according to the tradition of our sages the Jews did not suffer discrimination as long a single one of the tribal heads was alive, or according to our interpretation even as long as a Jewish immigrant survived. Our sages have not expressed themselves in such absolute terms. We find in chapter three of <i>Seder Olam</i> that 116 years elapsed between the death of Levi until the Exodus. The author adds that the actual enslavement did not last for more than 86 years, i.e. from the birth of Miriam. She was named מרים as a reminder of the מרירות the bitterness which characterised the life of the Jewish people at that time. You see from the above that at the time the last surviving brother of Joseph died, the Jews were still free. I conclude therefore that the enslavement did not commence until after the last of the immigrant Jews had died. The Torah compared these immigrants to the tribal heads because as long as they were alive their very lives protected the Jews against legal discrimination.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ויאמר אל עמו הנה עם בני ישראל, He said to his people: "here we have the nation of the children of Israel, etc." The expression הנה in this verse may be understood once we remember the interpretation of Genesis 34,30 where Jacob censured his sons saying עכרתם אותי, "you have made my image clouded" (as opposed to clearly transparent). <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 80,12 states that Jacob and the Canaanites had a long standing tradition that the Jews would overpower the Canaanites. This was supposed to take place after the Jews numbered at least 600.000. Now that Shimon and Levi had jumped the gun by destroying the inhabitants of Shechem, Jacob was afraid that such a premature action would backfire. Pharaoh, king of Egypt referred to this ancient prediction that the Jewish people would display such military strength, when he observed how the Jews constantly gained in numbers and vigour. הנה, i.e. the time has arrived of which the prophecy foretold.
  הבה נתחכמה לו פן ירבה, "let us outsmart them before they become more numerous, etc." If we do not put a stop to their population explosion they will do exactly what the prophecy had forecast, namely ועלה מן הארץ, "they will move back to the land of Canaan and destroy our Canaanite brothers." Egypt's first decree against such a possibility had been a ban on Jews leaving the country.
  The word הנה may also be understood as follows: הנה עם, "this here nation," i.e. they are a people different from any other. Every other nation is an amalgamation of a number of different peoples. Not so the Jewish people. They are monolithic, like a single block. When Pharaoh added the words רב ועצום, he explained that the strength of the Jewish nation lay in its singlemindedness and unity of purpose. Because of this they represented a danger totally disproportionate to their actual numbers. Most military commanders are familiar with the phenomenon of a small, elite, but highly motivated force.
  There is another aspect of the words רב ועצום. They are רב, i.e. they multiply at an unnatural rate; ועצום, although it is well known that multiple births usually result in the children being below average weight, physique, etc., in the case of the Jewish people this was not so. Not only did they multiply at a phenomenal rate, but they were all physically healthy specimens. In fact each individual Jew, though in most instances the product of a multiple birth, was ועצום ממנו, physically stronger than any of us Egyptians. As a result, the only way to counter their physical predominance was to outsmart them. The word ממנו would then refer only to the word עצום, and not to the word רב.
  Yet another way of understanding the sequence רב ועצום ממנו, is that the king stated that the fact that the Jews had developed as they did was by taking something that should have belonged to the Egyptians, ממנו, "from us." He wanted to forestall any argument by his countrymen who would protest the injustice of suddenly declaring part of their citizenry as inferior, as slaves. To that end he told his people that the Jews were actually owned by the Egyptians who had fed them during the years of famine and enabled them to not only survive but to thrive. Only 70 Jews immigrated. If they now were a numerous and strong people they owed it all to the Egyptians. It was quite in order for the Egyptians to legislate measures that would ensure their own supremacy. The way to do that was to outsmart them.
  It is customary for the kings and leaders of highly developed countries to point with pride to the intelligentsia of their nation which alone is responsible for the prominence and the high regard in which their country is held. Wherever Jews were exiled, the host country developed out of all proportion due to the Jewish contribution to their host country (compare Lamentations 1,5) "its oppressors developed into being the head." In the case of Egypt, the elite were the Jews. Allowing the elite to depart was equivalent to what is called a "brain drain" in contemporary society. Pharaoh told his countrymen that unless they took measures to prevent such a brain drain, i.e. forbid the Jews to leave, they would eventually also lose their position in the world as a leading civilisation. The reason the Jews might decide to leave Egypt was that they admired brainpower not military power. If Egypt were to be involved in warfare, the Jews might prefer to migrate elsewhere.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   וישימו עליו שרי מסים, They set taskmasters over them, etc. Where was the superior intelligence in applying brute force to the Jewish people? This was not an act of wisdom! Besides, why did the Jews appear to have accepted this procedure without protest? Why did the people who were famed for employing their brains suddenly become bricklayers? The sages in <i>Sotah</i> 11 describe the enslavement of the Jewish population as having occurred progressively; they were sweet-talked into volunteering their services for patritotic reasons until they suddenly found their labour not only as being taken for granted but they could not withdraw it from their superiors. This whole process must have started somewhow. We must assume therefore that before appointing taskmasters, the Egyptians appealed to the Israelites to demonstrate patriotism in return for all the good the Egyptians had done for them during the previous century.
  The plain meaning of the verse, however, seems to be that force was used to make the Israelites become bricklayers. The words: "let us outsmart them" must therefore not be applied to the details of the enslavement but to the drowning of Israelite babies in the sea as discussed by the <i>Midrash</i>.
  At first glance, the words "in order to oppress them" seem superfluous; the intent was clear without these words. We must also analyse why the Torah needed to add the word בסבלותם, "during their forced labour." What precisely is this word meant to exclude? 
  Perhaps the shrewdness of the Egyptians can be understood thus: Pharaoh no doubt had a team of engineers and builders who were civil servants employed in the construction of towns, etc. Such engineers were known as <i>Mass</i>. The word occurs in that context in Kings I 5,27. The 30.000 people described there as מס were the ones appointed over the total work force of over 150.000 described as doing the preparatory work for building the Holy Temple. Pharaoh appointed such people to guide the inexperienced Israelites in their labours. The Israelites were not able to object to this as the fact that they were being bossed by qualified engineers was not demeaning seeing they themselves were novices in that field. The Torah adds that the intention of the Egyptians in appointing these engineers as taskmasters was not because of their superior skills as the Israelites assumed, but to assert progressively harsher pressures and discipline on the Israelite labourers. The Egyptians withheld vital data from the Israelites without which the tasks allotted to the Israelite labourers could not be successfully completed. The Israelites therefore depended on the help of these engineers which gradually turned from help to oppression. This is what our sages had in mind when they spoke about the Egyptians sweet-talking the Israelites into forced labour, i.e. פה דך turned in to פרך.
  
  Verse 12
  
   וכאשר יענו אותו כן ירבה, The more they oppressed them the more they increased. There is a beautiful explanation by the <i>Zohar</i> second volume page 95 on Kohelet 8,9. Solomon says that "there is a time when one man rules over another to his detriment." The <i>Zohar</i> explains that when one has to endure persecution and troubles, the good [which may have been mixed with the evil. Ed.] is distilled from the evil joining other areas which are totally good; by the same token the evil of that mixture joins other areas of pure evil. These two details are hinted at when Solomon speaks of לרע לו. Similarly, the Torah here tells us the same thing. The more persecution the Israelites suffered the more "good" was released from what had been only a mixture of good and evil previously. With the release of that "good", i.e. good qualities, the Israelite families merited having more and more children. Hence the Torah adds the words וכן יפרץ in the sense of ופרצת ימה וקדמה, "You will burst forth to the West and to the East, etc." Alternatively, the word may mean "it achieved a breaking forth" i.e. a separation from an environment in which the good had been forced to mix with the evil. The evil was now released and separated. This resulted in the famous "iron crucible" in which the character of the Israelite people was forged in Egypt.
  The plain meaning of the verse is that for every unjustified act of cruelty by the Egyptians, G'd compensated the Jewish people with a commensurate increase in the number of babies that were born to them. Additional hands enabled the parents to meet the work quota imposed upon them by the Egyptians. The words כן ירבה, "so they would multiply," would then mean that the additional number of children made up for the reduced performance by their weakened parents in proportion to the emasculating effect of the hard labour. This became a vicious circle as the Egyptians kept increasing the workload.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   וימררו את חייהם, They made their lives bitter, etc. The Torah speaks of עבודה קשה, to describe work which was very difficult by its very nature without it being performed under intolerable conditions. What was the nature of this work? The making of clay bricks or working in the fields. 
  The Torah adds the words את כל עבודתם "with all their labours," meaning that you should not think that the Egyptians at any time relaxed their demands on these Jewish labourers. On the contrary, they added new tasks to the existing daily quota of bricks that they demanded to be delivered. The Egyptians' argument was that as long as the Jews had been inexperienced they had supplied them with the building materials. As the Jews became more experienced and faster they were no longer given the building materials but had to provide it themselves. This was all part of the Egyptians' shrewdness to prevent an increase in the number of Jews. None of this helped them. This is why the king resorted to an order to kill all male Jewish babies.
  
  Verse 15
  
   ויאמר מלך מצרים למילדות, The king of Egypt said to the midwives, etc. So far the Torah had described everything that happened in the plural, i.e. "they imposed taskmasters," "they enslaved them," etc. The king enjoyed a consensus of his people for his action (perhaps because the discrimination against the Jews had not yet been enshrined in law, but was "merely" a clever ruse to disenfranchise part of the population). Now, however, the king alone resorted to a measure which would not become public knowledge and would not run the risk of the Jewish mothers trying to hide the fact that they were pregnant so as to mislead the midwives. I will go into details later.
  למילדות העבריות, to the Hebrew midwives, etc..It is interesting to surmise what exactly the king said to these midwives the first time. [remember that the Torah credits the king with a second אמירה in the next verse. Ed.] Perhaps the Torah has clued us in with the words: "the name of one was Shifrah, whereas the name of the other one was Puah." No doubt there had been numerous midwives who attended the Jewish women. The king did not bother to know any of them by name except those whom he entrusted with a specific task. The Torah tells us that the king spoke to them by name, thus selecting them to perform a Royal command. By calling them by name, the king elevated them to the status of "midwives -in-chief." He had to commence his instructions by saying: "when you deliver the Hebrew women, etc." meaning that the order he was giving applied not only to those two but to all the Hebrew midwives. He instructed them directly as a sign of promoting them over their colleagues. 
  We encounter the expression אמירה as one which describes appointing someone to a high position in Deut. 26, 17-18 where Israel and G'd each elevate the other to an exclusively superior status. Israel had appointed G'd as its only G'd, and in return G'd appointed Israel as His chosen people. Perhaps the fact that the midwives risked the displeasure of Pharaoh as well as being demoted or worse is reflected in the reward G'd gave them as reported by the Torah in verse 21.
  
  Verse 16
  
   ויאמר…וראיתן על האבנים, He said: "look at the birthstool, etc." Why did Pharaoh have to instruct the midwives to look at the birthstool? Was it not enough to instruct them to kill male babies? It is true that our sages in <i>Sotah</i> 11 say that Pharaoh gave the midwives a sign which would alert them to the approaching birth of a male baby i.e. if the head of the baby was facing downwards, whereas if the head faced upwards this was an indication that a baby girl was about to be born. I have never understood why the midwives would need to be told such a sign [After all they were supposed to be the experts, not Pharaoh. Ed.]. Another thing we have to know is why Pharaoh did not decree death on all Jewish babies. It is most unlikely that he was motivated by a desire to ensure that some Jews would survive. Why did he not command the midwives simply: "kill them," without suggesting that they do something first which would eventually result in the death of these boy babies? What is the precise meaning of "If it turns out to be a daughter, let her live?" If Pharaoh himself had only decreed death on the males, why would the midwives need to be told to let the girls live? Surely midwives would not murder voluntarily!
  We must assume that Pharaoh wanted to ensure that his plan would succeed. Which expectant mother would expose her unborn child to be killed by inviting the midwife? Pharaoh therefore told the midwives to behave in a manner which could not arouse any suspicion. By having a look at the birthstool to determine if a girl or a boy was about to be born, they would be able to kill the baby prior to its being born and tell the mother that the baby had been stillborn. The midwives would announce this before the baby had left the mother's womb. How did the midwives know all this? This is where the sign mentioned in the Talmud comes in. Pharaoh told the midwives how to make sure beforehand. When he said והמתן אותו "and you shall kill it," the extra letter ו indicates that they should only kill after first having made sure that it was a male baby. The baby was to be killed before it could be heard at the moment of birth.
  The words אם בת היא mean that Pharaoh was anxious to avoid having the mothers think that the midwives were implicated in murder; therefore as long as the mothers felt that some of their babies survived birth they would not grow suspicious of the midwives. Presumably the midwives were not even to reveal that the stillborn baby had been a boy. In this fashion suspicions could be long delayed.
  Pharaoh displayed a double portion of shrewdness since it was also his objective to prevent the Jews from emigrating. As the proportion of females would increase they would be forced to look for Egyptian husbands due to the dearth of eligible Jewish males. Once the two peoples began to merge through intermarriage there was no longer any fear that they would try to emigrate. Moreover, from a mystical point of view, intermarriage results in holy souls becoming so intertwined with souls of impure origin that any eventual separation would become well nigh impossible. After all, our sages are on record in <i>Vayikra Rabbah</i> 32,5 that the Jewish people could not be redeemed from Egypt until 4 conditions existed, one of which was careful abstention from all kinds of incest and sexual licentiousness. Kabbalists interpret the words גן נעול in Song of Songs 4,12 as "chaste as a garden locked," i.e. that if the Jews had intermarried in Egypt they would never have been redeemed.
  
  Verse 17
  
   ותיראן המילדות את האלוקים, The midwives were G'd-fearing, etc." Why did the Torah repeat that: 1) "they did not do what the king had told them to do," 2) "they kept the children alive?" According to <i>Sotah</i> 11 they supplied food and water for these boy babies. If so, why had they not been doing this before the king's decree came into effect? Perhaps all the Torah wanted to tell us is that they did not stop to provide these services at their own expense. The Torah therefore would describe the level of the midwives' fear of G'd. They did what they could to keep these babies alive; they most certainly did not kill the babies.
  It is also possible that as long as everything was normal they never even thought about providing food and water for the babies. Once Pharaoh had decreed that the boy babies should be killed, the midwives feared that if by chance one of those children should die they would be blamed for the death. They now began to provide food and water for these babies in order to deflect such suspicions. Perhaps this is the reason for the word את when the Torah describes the midwives as G'd-fearing. They also wanted to be seen as G'd-fearing in the eyes of man.
  כאשר דבר, as he had said. The letter כ which precedes the word אשר is a <i>Kaf hadimyon</i> describing a comparison, a similarity. The Torah tells us that not only did the midwives not do what the king had ordered them to do, but that they did not even do anything similar to what the king had demanded of them. The Torah could also be telling us something about the general fate of Royal decrees. Normally, when a powerful king issues a decree it is observed by his subjects due to fear. As people notice that not every violation is followed by severe penalties, more and more people begin to ignore irksome decrees. In this instance the Torah tells us that the decree was not even observed when it was still new. The midwives לא עשו, never carried out, כאשר דבר, as soon as he had said it. The word כאשר may be understood as "as soon as," just as in Genesis 27,30: "as soon as Isaac finished speaking."
  
  Verse 18
  
   מדוע לא עשיתם…זתחיינן את הילדים? "Why did you not do…and you kept these children alive?" What did the king refer to when he asked the midwives: "why did you do, etc?" Their crime was what they had not done! Not killing the babies surely is not described as an activity! The king should have asked: "why did you not do etc.?" Furthermore, what did the king mean when he accused the midwives of keeping the children alive? If he referred to the fact that they supplied food and water, how did the midwives' answer satisfy him? Their answer would be equivalent to rebellion against the king's command!
  Perhaps Pharaoh was not really sure that they had been supplying food to these babies as they certainly would not do this while other Egyptians were looking on. One could certainly not accuse any Israelites as reporting such a thing to the king. Basing itself on Exodus 3,22 where the Israelites were told 12 months before the Exodus that at that time women would "borrow" silver trinkets from their neighbours, <i>Vayikra Rabbah</i> 32,5 points out that not a single Israelite revealed this information to Pharaoh or to any other Egyptian. Israelites did not snitch on one another during that time. It must be assumed therefore that Egyptians did observe the midwives bringing victuals to the houses of pregnant Israelite women. These Egyptians also became aware that boy babies were being born and raised. Pharaoh therefore referred to the food the midwives were bringing to the pregnant mothers when he asked: "why did you do this?" Unless the midwives kept the boy babies alive, Pharaoh would have attributed their actions as designed to help the baby girls stay alive. Under the circumstances, i.e. the appearance of live baby boys, he had to assume that their existence was due to the midwives' action. Pharaoh simply used his powers of imagination. He had no proof of any sort that the midwives had contravened his orders.
  
  Verse 19
  
   כי לא כנשים המצריות העבריות, "the Hebrew women are unlike the Egyptian women, etc." Why did the midwives use such cumbersome language? All they had to say was לא כמצריות העבריות. Besides, how does their answer address Pharaoh's accusation that they supplied food to keep the babies alive? It appears that Pharaoh was satisfied with their answer! Another difficulty is the word וילדו; why did they not say ויולדות, "and they proceeded to give birth?"
  The expression נשים מצריות mentioned by the midwives refers to the elite of the Egyptian women. The midwives explained to Pharaoh that the Hebrew women were superior even to the elite of the Egyptian women in that they either did not need the services of a midwife at all, or were חיות, knowledgeable in that art, and helped each other without reference to outside professionals.
  Perhaps the midwives hinted that the Jewish women possessed a) the superior skills with which they were born, b) the skills possessed by the natural born Egyptian women which they had acquired during the years they had lived in Egypt. They combined the best skills of both categories of women. If Pharaoh wanted to know why they had not assisted in the births as emissaries of the king, the Hebrew women had always given birth already before the midwife could arrive; the Hebrew women had misled them concerning when a birth would be due. All of this is part of the meaning of their being חיות. The word וילדו means the birth had already taken place by the time the midwives arrived. If they had visited these expectant women bringing with them food and water it was in order to win these women's confidence so that when the time to give birth arrived they would trust them and let them assist. However, all this had been in vain. If, after finding that these women had already had their babies, the midwives would have taken the food away they would only have aroused suspicion that the food had not been intended as a friendly gift at all. In this manner the midwives satisfied Pharaoh while admitting that what the Egyptian women had reported to him was absolutely true, but the conclusions they had drawn did not fit the facts.
  
  Verse 20
  
   וייטב אלוקים למילדות, G'd dealt well with the midwives, etc. We are entitled to know what precisely were the favours G'd did for the midwives. Perhaps the verse alludes to the houses that are described in the next verse. If that were so, however, there would have been no point in interrupting this sequence by stating that "the people increased and became very powerful." It appears rather that the verse explains the cause of the increase in the numbers of Israelites. The very food and water which the midwives provided resulted in G'd dealing well with the midwives. G'd enabled the midwives to continue their economically expensive efforts to feed the many newly born babies. Had G'd not helped them economically, they would not have had the wherewithal to supply all that food which resulted in the increase of the numbers of Israelites. The Torah reports the reward G'd provided for the midwives themselves only in the next verse where we are told that He built houses for them.
  The Torah may also have hinted that when G'd realised the degree of piety demonstrated by the midwives, He decided to reward them by providing them with unlimited opportunities to continue their good work. The word וייטב is followed by וירב העם to show cause and effect. The "good" G'd did for the midwives was that they saw their efforts rewarded by an increase in the Israelite population. Who knows if leaders such as Moshe and Aaron were not provided by G'd for Israel as a direct reward for the selfless efforts of Yocheved and Miriam (the two midwives)? From a mystical dimension, Moses is perceived as a soul embracing all of Israel, i.e. our souls are "branches" of Moses' soul as per Isaiah 63,11 where Moses is equated with G'd's people Israel.
  According to Rashi who describes the "good" G'd did for the midwives as the houses G'd is reported to have provided for them as mentioned in the next verse, we could say that the Torah first had to mention that the people kept increasing as providing a caste of Priests as well as Royalty, would not make much sense unless there were a sufficient number of Israelites to warrant all this.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ויצו פרעה לכל עמו, Pharaoh commanded his entire nation, etc. Whereas originally Pharaoh's command to the midwives to kill new born boy babies was a secret deal between him and the midwives, something the Hebrew women did not know about, now, in view of the failure of that plan, he resorted to a public announcement; he believed that in view of the continued expansion of the Israelite population he would have popular support for such a draconian measure. An additional factor forcing Pharaoh's hand to go public with the decree to drown all boy babies may have been that according to astrologers Pharaoh foresaw that the redeemer of the Israelites would be born and would end his career prematurely due to water (<i>Sanhedrin</i> 101). Pharaoh mobilised every Egyptian to participate in this decree in order to precipitate this event. 
  The Torah says לאמור, i.e. not every Egyptian should personally commit such a murder but that he should tell the Hebrew parent to drown his child seeing it was a Royal decree. Pharaoh's interpretation of what the astrologers had told him was that Moses would find a premature death by water at the hand of an Israelite. This is why he insisted that the Israelites themselves kill the children. The fact that Yocheved herself exposed Moses to a watery death is proof that the Egyptians themselves did not drown the children.
  It is also possible that the meaning of the word לאמור at this point is that only the neighbours of the Israelites were to be involved in this, not the entire population.
  Some of our rabbis felt (<i>Sotah</i> 12) that Pharaoh commanded that all boy babies (Egyptian as well as Jewish) born on a certain day should be drowned as he believed that this was the day on which the Jewish redeemer was to be born. Such an exegesis is homiletics. The plain meaning is that the decree concerned only Jewish boy babies. Had it been in effect for only a single day, why did Yocheved feel she had to hide Moses for three months? Surely the decree was in effect for an indefinite period during the time Moses was born. The words לכל עמו simply mean that "his entire people be acquainted with this decree."
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  So she hid him. What precisely was the "goodness" that Yocheved observed when Moses was born? Our sages (Sotah 12) say that Moses was born without a foreskin and that the house was filled with light when he was born. Surely this is homiletics. Besides, what does Yocheved's hiding Moses have to do with her observing that he was "good?" Assuming Moses had not been "good," would she not have had motherly feelings of pity for his future?We can determine the meaning of the verse from the comment of our sages in Sotah 12 that the Egyptians calculated the length of her pregnancy from the day Yocheved remarried Amram. She gave birth to Moses six months and a day after he was conceived. Normally, babies born after only six months of pregnancy do not have much of a chance to survive, whereas babies born after seven months have an excellent chance to develop normally. The average mother is unable to determine to the day how long her pregnancy has been in progress. When she gives birth to a baby after six months pregnancy the baby is considered as aborted. The Torah told us that when Yocheved looked at the fetus she realised that contrary to her expectations he was healthy and well. This was the "good" that she saw. This is also why she took extraordinary care to nurse this child through the difficult period until it would be out of danger. She endangered herself by hiding Moses seeing that the Egyptians used to carry out house to house searches for Jewish babies. Our sages base their exegesis on the Torah choosing the word טוב rather than any other word describing Moses' state of health. They concluded that he must have been born without a foreskin. According to our tradition Adam was created without a foreskin. As a result of his sin his glans became covered with additional tissue, something that required removal if man wanted to regain a status the Torah describes as "perfect" when G'd instructed Abraham to circumcise himself.
  We can determine the meaning of the verse from the comment of our sages in <i>Sotah</i> 12 that the Egyptians calculated the length of her pregnancy from the day Yocheved remarried Amram. She gave birth to Moses six months and a day after he was conceived. Normally, babies born after only six months of pregnancy do not have much of a chance to survive, whereas babies born after seven months have an excellent chance to develop normally. The average mother is unable to determine to the day how long her pregnancy has been in progress. When she gives birth to a baby after six months pregnancy the baby is considered as aborted. The Torah told us that when Yocheved looked at the fetus she realised that contrary to her expectations he was healthy and well. This was the "good" that she saw. This is also why she took extraordinary care to nurse this child through the difficult period until it would be out of danger. She endangered herself by hiding Moses seeing that the Egyptians used to carry out house to house searches for Jewish babies. Our sages base their exegesis on the Torah choosing the word טוב rather than any other word describing Moses' state of health. They concluded that he must have been born without a foreskin. According to our tradition Adam was created without a foreskin. As a result of his sin his glans became covered with additional tissue, something that required removal if man wanted to regain a status the Torah describes as "perfect" when G'd instructed Abraham to circumcise himself (compare <i>Sanhedrin</i> 38).
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ונערותיה הולכות, walking with her ladies-in-waiting, etc. Why is that detail pertinent to the story of Moses' rescue? Perhaps the Torah felt that inasmuch as Batya (Pharaoh's daughter) had performed such a great deed in rescuing the life of a Jewish baby, she deserved that all the details be revealed for all to know. It is a well known fact that a Royal princess does not go down to the river to bathe without her attendants. Moreover, it is customary that amongst her attendants there should be one who is senior, in charge of all the other junior attendants. The Torah speaks about "her attendants who were walking, etc." Presumably, the Torah means that at the time when the princess was actually bathing in the water all the other attendants were walking some distance away, affording the princess a degree of privacy while she bathed. Only the senior attendant stayed close to the princess. The Torah referred to this senior attendant when it writes: "she sent out her maidservant who picked up the basket." It is possible that the princess sent her maidservant to save the baby whereas the maidservant merely picked up the basket without the baby. In either event, the princess deserves praise for displaying noble human feelings. Her soul was pure, indicating that sometimes something pure emerges from something impure (Job, 14,4). One of two things may have happened. 1) Although the princess was attended by only a single servant at the time, she sent even that servant away and she herself picked up the baby remaining alone and vulnerable at the time. 2) Although the princess had only one attendant close by at the time, having sent her other maids some distance away, she even took a chance by sending the one remaining servant to pick up the basket with the baby.
  
  Verse 6
  
   ותראהו את הילד והנה נער בכה, When she saw the child it turned out to be a crying boy. Why did the Torah write ותראהו, "she saw him," instead of simply "she saw, etc.?" Presumably she assumed that the basket would contain an abandoned baby and she planned to rescue the baby. The Torah therefore refers to the princess "seeing what she expected to see, i.e. an abandoned child." Had the Torah written ותרא את הילד, the Torah would have created the impression that the princess saw something she had not expected.
  Our sages in <i>Sotah</i> 12 explain the pronoun הו at the end of ותרא as a reference to Batya seeing the שכינה together with the child. This is homiletics. We would have to assume that Batya had experience with the way the שכינה looked from her father and grandfather, something quite unlikely! Our sages may simply have meant that Batya saw that the baby was surrounded by a great halo; G'd arranged for this in order to impress Batya that this baby was someone special. The <i>Zohar</i> section 2, page 12 writes something similar concerning the words "the boy was crying," namely that the cries were on behalf of the Jewish people's suffering in exile." G'd opened her eyes in order for her to be able to "see" the great light surrounding Moses.
  Alternatively, Batya's experience with the שכינה may be explained in terms of <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 1,23 according to which Batya suffered from <i>Tzoraat,</i> the dreaded skin disease. As soon as she touched the basket she felt that she had been healed. This was her encounter with the שכינה. The word נער may then have a double meaning. When the Syrian general Naamon was healed of his <i>Tzoraat,</i> the prophet described his flesh as again becoming like that of a teen-aged boy, נער, (Kings II 5,14).
  ותחמול עליו. She pitied him. Seeing that she had already set out determined to save the child, the pity mentioned here may refer to her determination to nurse the child. This is why Moses' sister immediately volunteered to call a Jewish wet nurse to nurse Moses. According to <i>Sotah</i> 12 all this occurred after Moses refused to accept milk from the breasts of non Jewish wet nurses.
  ותאמר מילדי העברים זה. She said: "this one is one of the Jewish babies." This was quite obvious as the Jews would abandon their children near the river on account of Pharaoh's decree. On the other hand, if all this occurred on the one day when Pharaoh had ordered the Egyptians to throw also their new-born boy babies into the Nile, how did Batya know that Moses was a Jewish baby? This may have forced our sages in <i>Sotah</i> to say that Moses refused to drink the milk of non Jewish wet nurses. [I do not see this as a compelling explanation. The fact that the child had no foreskin clearly marked him as Jewish unless the Jews had abandoned the practice of circumcision already at that time as is evident eighty years later at the time of the Exodus. Ed.]
  Accordingly, the Torah does tell us something that was not so obvious after all. Let us examine if the reason Batya saved the baby was because she thought it might be an abandoned Egyptian baby, or if she had made up her mind to save the baby even if it turned out to be a Jewish baby. If we were to assume the former, the words מילדי העברים זה express Batya's amazement at the fact that the child was Jewish. This would indicate that originally the thought of saving a Jewish child had not occurred to her. There would be nothing unusual about a Gentile displaying sympathy only for her own kind. Even though we observe that she held the child and hired a nursemaid for him after she found out that it was a Jewish child, this fact does not prove that she would have saved the child and have displayed pity for it if G'd had not first healed her from her affliction and provided a sign that the child was someone out of the ordinary. These incidents acquainted Batya with the wonderful ways of G'd.
  If we are to assume that Batya already set out to rescue the baby although she was aware that it would turn out to be a Jewish baby, then the words מילדי העברים must be understood as the reason why the baby refused to suckle at the breasts of the Egyptian wet nurses. It was not because the baby had become weak through lying in the reeds of the river, or for any other biological reason, but because it was a Jewish baby. This is why his sister (Miriam) immediately volunteered the services of a Jewish wet nurse stressing the words: מן העבריות, "one of the Hebrew women," in order to prove that she knew the true reason why the baby refused to be nursed. This is also why the Torah had to report in verse nine that the child's mother took the child and was able to nurse him.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  "And she called his name, etc. and she said, etc." Here we find a difference from the way Yitzchak and Yaakov and the tribes were named. For all of them, the meaning came before the name itself. For Yitzchak, (Breisheet 21:6), [Sarah said] "anyone who hears will laugh (Yitzchak) etc." and that is when she named him Yitzchak. For Yaakov, (Breisheet 25:26), 'his hand was holding the heel (Ekev) [of Esav] and he called him Yaakov.' With the tribes, [Leah said], 'For Hashem saw ... and she called him Reuven." (Breisheet 29:32), "For Hashem heard ... and she called him Shimon." (Breisheet 29:33) and so on in this manner.
  Perhaps all the matriarchs possessed a measure of the Holy Spirit which enabled them to appreciate the deeper meaning of these names. Batya did not possess Holy Spirit so that her naming Moses did not reflect special insights on her part as to the deeper significance of that name. The Torah alludes to this by reversing the sequence in which it reports Moses being named. It is very interesting to read what the <i>Zohar</i> section 3, page 276 in the <i>Tikkunim</i> 69 writes about the allusions contained in the name. G'd inspired Batya to name Moses as she did; she herself was totally unaware of the additional implications of the name Moses. All she was aware of was that inasmuch as she had drawn him from the water that event should be reflected in his name.
  It is also possible that Batya was very careful not to publicise the name Moses and what had inspired it seeing she had flouted both her father's and her people's wishes that the Jewish boy babies be killed. She did call the child Moses. The words: "for I have drawn him from the water," were revealed only by the Torah, not by her.
  
  Verse 11
  
  2,11 איש עברי מאח ;יו, a Hebrew man, one of his brethren. The Torah makes a point of adding "one of his brethren." This is the Torah's way of hinting that Moses recognised that the individual in question was one of the righteous Israelites. There were at that time both righteous and wicked Israelites. It is worthwhile reading how the <i>Mechilta</i> 12,26 interprets the meaning of Exodus 13,18 that the Israelites marched out of Egypt חמושים, reduced to one fifth of their original number. According to the <i>Mechilta</i> only one in every five Israelites took part in the Exodus. The other 80% of the Israelites (the wicked ones) died during the plague of darkness so as not to publicise that fact and allow the Egyptians to gloat. The two Jews who are described as Jews fighting amongst themselves in verse thirteen were not described as "Moses' brethren;" this proves that they were wicked Jews; according to <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 1,29 they were Datan and Aviram of whom we hear more in פרשת קרח.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ?ויאמר לרשע למה חכה רעך He said to the wicked one: "why are you about to strike your companion?" Moses addressed the one of the two who was clearly wicked. He referred to the victim as "your companion," because if the victim were as wicked as the attacker why would the attacker want to strike him, seeing they were birds of a feather. Alternatively, Moses recognised that he dealt with one righteous and one wicked Israelite. This is why he challenged the attacker saying: "why are you about to strike a righteous person, someone who has not done you any harm?" He called the righteous person רעך, i.e. he relates to you like a friend. Although the Torah described the two as apparently on the same moral level when it says שני אנשים נצים, "two quarrelling people," it will be found that one of them started the fight because he was wicked, whereas the other continued the quarrel without compelling cause.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   את הדבר הזה, this matter, etc. Moses used the word הזה, to indicate that it was only after this aggressive Jew had said to Moses: "are you going to kill me also, etc." that he realised with certainty that he had observed him killing the Egyptian.
  ויבקש להרוג אותו. He tried to kill him. This means that Pharaoh tried to establish proof that Moses had killed the Egyptian as a result of which he would be brought to trial and be executed. This is why Moses fled from Pharaoh in case Pharaoh would obtain enough proof to make him stand trial. On the other hand, the words מפני פרעה may refer to Pharaoh's face. When Moses looked at Pharaoh's angry face he realised that he was in danger and fled even though he did not know what Pharaoh knew and what he did not.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   למה זה עזבתם את האיש, "Why did you leave the man?" Yitro meant "why did you abandon a man who had done you a favour?" Alternatively, he meant: "how long can you let a man who has done you such a favour wait outside? Bring him inside, etc.!" Still another meaning of Re-uel's (Yitro's) words may be that though ordinarily Yitro would not want his daughters to strike up an acquaintanceship with men to whom they had not been introduced, this situation was different. He stressed that this man had already proved himself by his deeds. The word זה indicates that Yitro meant that this situation was different. This was especially so in view of the opinion expressed in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 1,32 that the waters in the well rose of their own accord towards Moses.
  
  Verse 21
  
   ויתן את צפורה בתו למשה. He gave his daughter Tziporah to Moses. The reason the Torah repeats Moses' name in this verse, when it could have simply written: "he gave her to him," is that Tziporah was the divinely appointed wife for Moses, his בת זוג.
  
  Verse 22
  
  גר הייתי, "I was (used to be) a stranger, etc." The Torah deliberately phrases this in the past tense because the Torah reports events as of the time the Torah was written (at that time Moses could speak of his being a stranger in the past tense, whereas at the time the baby was born he was still a stranger in Midian). Alternatively, the words may be understood along the lines of Psalms 119,19: גר אנכי בארץ, "I am only a stranger on earth." Righteous people in this world are merely strangers, they have no permanent abode. Moses meant that ever since he was born he had merely been a stranger in a foreign land, seeing he had not been raised in his parents' home or shared his youth with his siblings.
  
  Verse 23
  
   מן העבודה, on account of the bondage. They did not appeal to G'd to save them from their situation; they merely groaned, something which people who feel that their burdens are too great are wont to do out of a sense of helplessness. The Torah informs us that although this outcry was not a direct appeal to G'd for help, it did reach the ears of G'd because their situation was indeed intolerable; this is why the Torah adds that the reason G'd responded was מן העבודה, their bondage was too intolerable. However, G'd did not respond to a prayer but to a general groaning, i.e. נעקתם (verse 24).
  The Torah may also teach us something that David referred to in Psalms 118,5, where he speaks about מן המצר קראתי קה, "I have called upon the Lord out of distress, etc." One of the prayers to which G'd responds is the one that is prompted by the distress a person finds himself in. We find that Jonah prayed from similar motivations (Jonah 2,3) when he said: "I called out because I am in distress." The Torah testifies that G'd responded to the distress the people found themselves in. According to our analysis the word שעוה means prayer, as well as an outcry prompted by pain; this is hinted at by the Torah's use of the words מן העבודה ויזעקו; the Torah is quite correct therefore when it introduces G'd's response as being in response to שועתם instead of זעקתם. The Torah wanted to point out that the outcry of the children of Israel consisted of two elements, i.e. both זעקה and שעוה.
  The stress on the words מן העבודה may indicate that the prayer/outcry rose up to G'd without the help of any intermediary [such as the accompanying prayer of the patriarchs Ed.] because it was due to the intolerable burden of their workload and working conditions.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   וירא אלוקים…וידע אלוקים. G'd saw,….and G'd knew. After the children of Israel had raised their voices in groanings and prayers and G'd had heard those, He remembered His covenant with the patriarchs. This was the reason He turned His attention to the people. Whenever G'd is described as viewing someone's pain this is sufficient to result in the removal of such pain from the person so afflicted, for His mercy extends to all His creatures. It follows that when G'd is angry He must hide His face from the people otherwise He would have to act in accordance with the principle we have just described. This is why G'd said in Deut. 31,18: "As far as I am concerned, I will surely have to hide My face, etc." The word וידע may refer also to information that had thus far been hidden even from the Israelites concerning evil the Egyptians had perpetrated against that people.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ומשה היה רועה…וינהג את הצאן, And Moses was a shepherd….and he led the sheep, etc. The Torah means that G'd had His hand in this, i.e. He caused the sheep to move in that direction. Alternatively, it means that Moses was in the habit of guiding his flocks as usual but the sheep walked to that mountain on that occasion for G'd wanted to speak to him there.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ויאמר הנני, he said: "I am ready." This was different from the time G'd first called out to the prophet Samuel (Samuel I, 3,4) when Samuel thought that the High Priest Eli had called him. Moses knew right away that G'd was speaking to him. This was because Moses was a prophet already from birth; this was merely his first vision. On the other hand, perhaps the words את המראה הגדול הזה "this great spectacle," merely indicates that compared to previous contacts between G'd and Moses this one seemed infinitely more remarkable.
  
  Verse 5
  
   אל תקרב הלום, של נעליך, "Do not come closer; remove your shoes, etc." G'd gave two instructions. 1) not to come closer. 2) to remove his shoes because even the site on which Moses was standing at that moment was already holy ground. Why did G'd not instruct Moses to remove his shoes before he had accidentally stepped on holy ground wearing shoes? At that time G'd could have warned Moses not to step on holy ground (even without shoes).
  We observe throughout the Torah that G'd's principal concern is with the negative commandments, since failure to observe them is injurious to the soul of the person who violates them. This is what Solomon referred to in Kohelet 12,7 when he spoke about the importance of the spirit G'd has given man returning to G'd after man dies. <i>Shabbat</i> 152 understand the word נתנה as if it it were written אשר נתנה לך, "which has been given to you," meaning that just as a pure soul was given to man so a pure soul has to be returned to G'd. On the other hand, positive commandments are designed to enable man to achieve the "good" G'd has made available to man. As a rule, failure to observe the positive commandments does not result in penalties with the exception of certain basic commandments such as Passover and circumcision [without which a Jew cannot demonstrate his Jewish identity, Ed.].
  In this instance G'd commanded Moses both something negative, i.e. "do not come closer!" as well as something positive, i.e. "remove your shoes!" Our sages in <i>Eyruvin</i> 96 state that wherever the Torah uses the expression פן or אל such as here, what follows is a negative commandment. The words "remove your shoes," are a positive commandment, however. If Moses were to cross the invisible dividing line by approaching closer to the burning bush (as he had intended to) he would be violating a negative commandment. Were he to fail to remove his shoes, however, this would imply a lack of respect for G'd but it would not constitute transgression of a negative commandment because the commandment had been phrased positively, though it implied that no shoes were to be worn there. The Torah always speaks about שמירה, i.e. care not to violate a negative commandment, before demanding עשיה, performance of a related positive commandment (compare Deuteronomy 4,6; 15,5, Genesis 26,5 et al). This is why the sequence in which G'd commanded Moses at this point is no departure from the Torah's norm.
  We still have to answer what G'd had in mind when He did not call out to Moses before the latter had a chance to stand on holy ground clad in shoes. Perhaps Moses did not qualify for an address by G'd unless He had been told not to come still closer. Perhaps the site on which Moses stood at that time became sanctified only by reason of G'd having revealed Himself to Moses there. Perhaps the reason G'd wanted to speak with Moses at that site was in order to have an excuse to sanctify that spot. Perhaps this was the reason for the extra word הוא in the expression אדמת קודש הוא. That word was not really necessary.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ויאמר ה׳ ראה ראיתי את עני עמי, G'd said: "I have surely seen the plight of My people, etc." Why did G'd speak about two "sightings?" Why did He have to add the words "in Egypt?" If Moses had not been aware of the fact that the Jews were G'd's people how would the fact that G'd referred to them as being in Egypt help Moses identify them? There were very many different peoples in Egypt! Perhaps no other people in Egypt suffered persecution except the Jewish people. At any rate, Moses must have known that Israel was G'd's people and His heritage on earth.
  G'd mentioned that He had observed two distinctly different things. 1) The time of redemption had not yet arrived; in spite of this, however, G'd had taken into consideration the plight of His people and the misery they experienced in Egypt. <i>Shabbat</i> 10 tells that the immediate cause of the descent of the Jewish people to exile in Egypt was due only to the extra two <i>shekalim</i> Jacob had spent on Joseph's striped coat which had aroused the brothers' envy. <i>Tossaphot</i> challenge this explanation saying that exile had long ago been decreed in the days of Abraham? They answer that the exile prophecy could have come true in some other country where the Israelites would not have been enslaved so cruelly. The words אשר במצרים are to indicate that the very fact that the Israelites experienced their exile in Egypt instead of somewhere else was a reason for G'd to to commence the process of liberation already at this time. Although the time had not come for redemption, the time certainly had come for relief from the oppressive measures the Egyptians had introduced against the Jewish people.
  G'd may also have seen the pain the Jews were suffering. The Torah may have written ראיתי עני עמי in order to demonstrate G'd's identification with the Jews. Inasmuch as they were His people, He was part of their suffering.
  Another reason why G'd speaks of ראה ראיתי is that in addition to the suffering of the Jews which G'd had seen, He also saw that there were no more holy souls which had been taken captive by the forces of the קליפה and which were to be rescued by the Jewish people. Seeing that the exile had accomplished also this part of its function, the way was now clear for redemption. <i>Pessachim</i> 119 compares Egypt at the time to a pond which had been drained of fish. There was therefore no point in continuing to angle (for souls) there. Continued residence of the Jews in Egypt could only have counterproductive effects from that time on.
  ואת צעקתם שמעתי, "and I have heard their outcry," etc. G'd added that in addition to factors already mentioned, He had also heard the outcry which was occasioned by the fact that the Egyptians had been more cruel than warranted in their application of Pharaoh's decrees. All these statements were in order to justify the fact that G'd was appointing a redeemer already at this time. The Israelites, of course, had believed that the exile would last for 400 years. Besides, G'd revealed to Moses that as soon as the Egyptians would suffer the first of the plagues G'd had in store for them, the Jewish people would cease to perform slave labour for them. I shall explain this in detail when commenting on verse eight.
  When the Torah added מפני נגשיו, "on account of its taskmasters," after having mentioned that G'd had heard צעקתם "their outcry" (plural instead of singular) whereas the word נגשיו is in the singular this may describe that the Jewish people prayed to G'd as a single body as we explained on the words ותעל שועתם. Had the Torah written: ואת צעקתם מפני נגשיו שמעתי, I would have thought that their outcry was merely a reflection of their forced labour without an element of prayer.
  The reason that the word "their outcry" is in the plural whereas "its taskmasters" describes the people as a single unit is simply that no two people cry out with the same intensity. The more people cry out, the greater the divergence between the relative intensity of these various people. Since they all had the same taskmasters, however, the use of the singular with the word נגשיו is perfectly justified. These various factors contributed to the appointment of Moses as the redeemer long before the time the Israelites expected their exile to end.
  Another meaning of the additional words מפני נגשיו is in line with Isaiah 65,24 והיה טרם יקראו ואני אענה, "before they pray I will answer." In our situation G'd explains that He is sensitive to the abuse practised by even a single one of Israel's taskmasters. He does not wait until they all exceed their authority and abuse His people. G'd adds that the reason for this is that "I know their pains." The implication is that G'd is aware even before the people bring this to His attention through their prayer/outcry. All of this underscores G'd's strong love for His people, a love comparable to that of a father for his son.
  According to our earlier explanation, the words כי ידעתי את מכאוביו would refer to the pains that are already way beyond what Israel could be expected to bear. The words refer both to the visible and to the invisible hardship inflicted on Israel. 
  G'd conveyed to Moses that He had not needed Israel's prayers in order to become aware of their problems. This awareness obligated Him to redeem Israel in accordance with His attributes. G'd's attribute of Mercy received further impetus when He looked at the injustices suffered by His creatures so that He decided to apply special yardsticks known as לפנים משורת הדין in order to alleviate their suffering. G'd told Moses that He had decided to "descend" in order to save His people.
  
  Verse 8
  
   וארד להצילו… ולהעלותו מן הארץ ההיא, "I shall descend in order to save…and to bring them out of this land, etc." The reason G'd speaks about His "descent" is that it is not really in keeping with the dignity of the supreme G'd to convey His instructions to a vile human being such as the Pharaoh who now oppressed the Jewish people. This was all the more so seeing that Pharaoh had the effrontery to exclaim "who is G'd that I should heed His words?" (5,2) G'd explained that He waived some of the honour due to Him in order to expedite the redemption of Israel. It is worthwhile to study the comment in the introduction to <i>Eycha Rabbah</i> section 14 on Proverbs 29,9: איש חכם נשפט את איש אויל ורגז ושחק ואין נחת. "If a wise man goes to Court with a fool there is no peace whether the fool rages or laughs." It is remarkable that Solomon uses the form נשפט instead of שפט. He means that getting involved in litigation with a known fool can only result in the so-called wise man becoming convicted. G'd had to mention that He was going to "descend" to show that despite the fact that it was inappropriate for Him to deal with Pharaoh, He would do so for the sake of Israel. The meaning of להצילו refers to the near-term cessation from their slave labour, whereas the expression ולהעלותו refers to the longer term objective of G'd's intervention.
  Seeing the time for the redemption was not yet at hand, there had to be an interval of at least 12 months between the time G'd spoke to Moses and the actual Exodus. <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 9,12 debates whether the plagues usually lasted one week with three weeks warning or vice versa. At any rate, our sages seem agreed that the plagues extended over a considerable period. Why would G'd have deliberately delayed the redemption once He had embarked on the process? He could have given Pharaoh a single day's warning before each plague something that is certainly legal when a Jew is warned not to commit a transgression. In fact, Gentiles do not need to be warned specifically at all not to commit acts which they know to be criminal. We must assume, therefore, that G'd waited for a certain date to be able to justify the Exodus although He wanted to relieve the burden of the Jewish people in the interval.
  In view of our premise that the principal purpose of the exile in Egypt was to salvage the souls which had been contaminated with the 50 levels of impurity at the time the forces of the קליפה "captured" some of the holy souls from Adam when the latter ate from the tree of knowledge (compare our comments on Genesis 49,9), we can understand that if G'd had redeemed the Israelites prematurely this would have aborted the plan to rescue all those lost souls. We have already explained that Moses himself was equated with the Jewish people inasmuch as Moses achieved the 49th level of בינה, intellectual insights, out of a possible total of 50 such levels. The reason that Moses never reached the ultimate level of בינה was that the achievement must parallel the effort expended on achieving the goal in question. Had the Israelites descended to the 50th level of impurity the effort at gaining the 50th level of insights would have been possible. Since Israel was never quite at the bottom of the spiritual levels, the effort to reach the top was of necessity a little less than total. Moses' achievements were directly related to the condition of the Jewish people whom he represented. We have been assured that in the future G'd Himself will influence us by means of the Torah so that we will be able to achieve the fiftieth level of בינה. We will be indebted to the cumulative exile experiences for that eventual achievement. The most important individual factor will be our present and final exile. 
  One of the reasons the generation of the first exile was not able to attain that level of insight was that they had not yet had the benefit of Torah. Once we shall reach that level of insight we will be able to recapture any holy souls still under the control of the forces of the קליפה, i.e. Satan. At any rate, had G'd led the Jewish people out of Egypt even a single day sooner than He did, the number of souls which had not yet been rescued would have been commensurably greater.
  
  Verse 9
  
   ועתה הנה צעקת בני ישראל באה אלי, "And now, the outcry of the children of Israel has reached Me, etc." Why did G'd repeat here something that He had already told Moses in verse seven? Besides, what did G'd mean by the word: "and now?" Why was there a need for the word הנה? The words באה אלי also seem superfluous. G'd again mentioned that He had seen the stress the Jewish people were under. Why the repetition?
  It appears that G'd told Moses that while he was speaking with him the repeated outcry of the Jewish people had again come to His attention.
  G'd said: באה אלי, because the prayers which come to the attention of G'd are not all of the same category. Some prayers are presented to G'd by one of His angels; others are of a calibre that do not need the intervention of any angel as the people who offer them are deserving. G'd now told Moses that some of the prayers of the Jewish people had reached Him without the assistance of any of the angels.
  G'd added: "I have also seen the stress that the Egyptians subject the Jewish people to." In the <i>Haggadah shel Pessach</i> the author describes the word לחץ as meaning דחק. This is a detail which had not been mentioned before. This is why G'd had to tell Moses all this. When G'd added the word וראיתי He meant to tell Moses why the matter of commencing the process of redemption had suddenly assumed a degree of urgency. G'd continues in verse 10: ועתה לכה to indicate that the matter had now become urgent.
  
  Verse 10
  
   לכה ואשלחך, "Go please, and I will send you, etc." Why did G'd say: "I will send you," after He had already told Moses to go? Besides, if anything had to be repeated the sequence should have been the reverse, i.e. "I will send you, go please!" Clearly then G'd wanted that Moses should understand that the actual going to Egypt was not the essence of the mission, only its preamble. Indeed we find later on, after Moses had already gone to Egypt, that G'd instructs him repeatedly to take the Jewish people out of Egypt, i.e. that was the essence of his misssion.
  G'd also used this form of instruction to hint to Moses that one mission would not suffice to take the people out of Egypt but that he would have to perform many errands on behalf of G'd and the people before the Exodus would finally take place. Pharaoh would not agree at once.
  There is another element hinted at in the way G'd instructed Moses. We are taught in <i>Makkot</i> 10 that "G'd leads people on the path they have chosen for themselves." Therefore He first said to Moses: "Go, please!" He meant that if you Moses are willing to perform this commandment, I will send you, i.e. I will fulfil your wish and make you My messenger. From this you learn that if Moses would have refused the mission G'd would not have forced it upon him.
  Perhaps this is the reason that Moses argued with G'd. He did not feel that G'd had commanded him to accept the mission but had left it up to his own volition. Moses felt that G'd had given him leeway and would reply to any reservations he had about accepting such a mission. G'd wanted that when Moses would finally accept the mission he should do so because he wanted to and not because he had been forced to do so.
  You may also take a look at what I have written in connection with Jacob sending Joseph on his fateful mission. G'd may also have assured Moses that if he were concerned about any mishap, he would be a messenger of G'd who had no reason to fear for his safety. In fact this fact saved him in the incident at the inn (Exodus 4,26).
  
  Verse 11
  
   מי אנכי כי אלך, "who am I that I should be qualified to go?" Moses meant that even if he were anxious to accept such a mission he did not consider himself qualified to speak up in front of a king. Seeing that he lacked that self-confidence his mission was unlikely to succeed. We have other examples of prophets who lacked confidence that their mission would succeed because they were personally not confident; compare Samuel I 16,2 or Amos who is reported in <i>Kohelet Rabbah</i> 1 as having suffered from a lack of self-confidence because his peers belittled him. Moses added וכי אוציא את בני ישראל, "and that I should lead the Israelites out of Egypt," in order to emphasize the enormity of the task G'd was about to place on his shoulders, i.e. to orchestrate the Exodus. He implied that in order for such an undertaking to succeed the messenger G'd chose would have to be an outstanding personality. He was afraid that if Israel would suffer some setback on the road to freedom he might be held responsible since he was not qualified to be that leader.
  
  Verse 12
  
   ויאמר כי אהיה עמך. He said: "For I shall be with you, etc." How was this answer going to put Moses' mind at rest? Surely he had been aware that as G'd's messenger he would enjoy G'd's assistance! He had not argued that G'd would not help him but that his own inadequacy might become the cause of his failure. Another difficulty in this verse are the words וזה לך האות, "and this will be a sign for you, etc." How could G'd describe a sign as "this" when we have never heard about this sign? If the reference had been to the bush not having been consumed by the fire, as Rashi explains, did Moses perhaps entertain any doubts about G'd's ability to save the Jewish people? Another difficulty in this verse is G'd saying: כי אנכי שלחתיך, which suggests that Moses still entertained some doubt that it had been G'd Who had addressed him in the first place and Who wanted to appoint him as His messenger. Moses had not indicated the slightest doubt in this respect!
  We need to view G'd as replying to Moses' arguments one by one, in the order in which he presented them. G'd first answers Moses' question: "who am I that I should go to Pharaoh?" G'd replies that He Himself will be with him during that interview. This would automatically raise Moses' stature to one exceeding that of Pharaoh. Moses was to regard Pharaoh as no more than an ordinary person.
  G'd also contradicted Moses who had said that he was not fit to lead the Jewish people out of Egypt. He demonstrated to him that זה לך האות the sign that he was quite capable of achieving the task G'd alotted to him was that if He, G'd, did not consider Moses as suitable, would He have appointed him to perform such a gigantic task? G'd added another dimension by telling Moses that when he would lead the Jewish people out of Egypt, they (including Moses) would serve Him at the very spot Moses was standing on at that moment. This promise should convince Moses that he would indeed complete his mission successfully.
  By saying: זה לך האות, G'd may also have indicated to Moses that the very fact that he did not consider himself as adequate for the task was the factor which had made G'd choose him. G'd needed a humble person, not an arrogant one. The reference to that mountain which was not a high mountain was to confirm that G'd preferred the humble and the modest to the high and mighty, and therefore arrogant. G'd could have chosen Mount Hermon as the site for the revelation; instead He chose Mount Sinai.
  
  Verse 13
  
   הנה אנכי בא אל בני ישראל, "When I come to the children of Israel, etc." At this point Moses had agreed in principle to accept the mission, conceding that the arguments he had voiced previously had now become irrelevant. However, he needed accreditation as a prophet in order to make the Israelites accept him as such. As soon as he would come to them they would ask him to identify himself by revealing the name of the G'd Who he claimed had spoken to him. We find that whenever G'd began to speak to the patriarchs He identified Himself by stating His name (compare Genesis 15,7; 17,1; 28,13). Moses wanted to know which of G'd's names he was to mention when he would come to the Israelites. Moses had been wondering that seeing G'd had identified Himself to him as "the G'd of your father Abraham, the G'd of Isaac, and the G'd of Jacob" without adding any other attribute as part of His identification, whether he should similarly identify G'd to the children of Israel when they would ask him who had communicated with him and had appointed him as their redeemer. Did G'd really think that this would suffice as an identification for the people to accept Moses as their leader?
  Moses implied that inasmuch as both he and the Israelites were already familiar with that aspect of G'd, in what way was Moses better or more intimate with G'd that they should believe he was a prophet sent on such a great mission? On the other hand, if Moses were to claim that the name of the G'd in whose name he had come was one that was unfamiliar to them, why would such a name carry any weight with them at all? I have seen many different commentaries on this verse, but I do believe that any person with an ounce of common sense will appreciate the way I have presented the problem Moses poses here. At this stage Moses most certainly did not ask G'd to provide him with a miracle he would be entitled to perform in order to prove that his claim was not spurious. You will note that G'd told Moses to tell the Israelites that He had identified Himself as אהיה. It is true that this was an attribute that G'd had never employed in His communications with the patriarchs. Moses realised now that as a true messenger he would never presume to interpret something G'd had said without first making certain that he had understood G'd correctly. No doubt Moses had been familar already with more than one attribute of G'd. However, he did not dare to convey to the people something he himself thought G'd had meant without checking. It is also possible that this verse merely reflects Moses' curiosity to learn more about the attribute G'd presently employed when speaking with him.
  
  Verse 14
  
   ויאמר…אהיה אשר אהיה, G'd said: <i>Ehyeh asher Ehyeh</i>. G'd revealed the attribute He was using while speaking with Moses. This attribute is closely related to the attribute of Mercy, an attribute employed in leading someone from slavery to freedom. It is interesting to study what is written in the <i>Sefer Tikkunim</i> section 50 about the mystical dimension of why the Torah mentions the Exodus from Egypt a total of 50 times. This is also the mystical dimension of why G'd smote the Egyptians with 50 plagues at the sea as mentioned in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 23,9. Actually, G'd had already alluded to this name when He had said to Moses וזה לך האות כי אנכי שלחתיך, when the meaning of אנכי is the attribute that G'd would employ during that entire mission. The same name occurs again at the revelation when G'd commences the decalogue by referring to אנכי ה׳ אלוקיך אשר הוצאתיך. At the present juncture Moses had simply not yet understood the connection between אנכי and אהיה. G'd had been aware from the beginning that Moses would question Him as to how to identify the G'd Who had spoken with him.
  Perhaps Moses was aware of these meanings and only asked if he were to reveal these meanings to the people when they would ask him. G'd responded אשר אהיה, i.e. that the reason He employed this attribute was because it was appropriate when He would share the pain of the Israelites whenever they would endure suffering. The Talmud <i>Chagigah</i> 12 has already explained this. G'd identified Himself sometimes as שדי to indicate that it was He who put a stop to ongoing proliferation of the universe (<i>Chagigah</i> 16). He employs the attribute צבאות when He acts as the Commander-in Chief of His hosts. The attribute הויה reflects that He is an eternal Presence, was, is, and will be (<i>Zohar</i> third volume page 297). G'd revealed the mystical dimension of His great name to Moses at this point, namely that He would always be at the side of His people whenever they would find themselves in distress. There is also an allusion in that attribute to the three "crowns" [Torah-Priesthood-Royalty, Ed.]. Students of the Kabbalah will get my meaning.
  ויאמר כה תאמר לבני ישראל, He said: "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, etc." Although G'd revealed to his servant Moses the mystical dimension of His attribute, i.e. אשר אהיה, He repeated that all this was only contained in the "name," i.e. אהיה. As far as Moses was concerned he was to tell the Israelites only that the One who calls Himself אהיה had sent him. As to the aspect of that name which referred to the future, i.e. אשר אהיה, that G'd would also demonstrate that attribute of His when the Jewish people would face problems in the future, this was something Moses was not to mention. 
  Our sages in <i>Berachot</i> 9 have already stated די לצרה בשעתה, it suffices to deal with one problem at the time it is topical. They claim that Moses suggested to G'd not to draw attention to the אשר אהיה aspect of this attribute. I have made a careful search of the text and found that the sages in the Talmud who attributed this reply to Moses were absolutely correct. If there had been no new dimension added at the end of the verse which had not been present at the beginning, why would the Torah have inserted the word ויאמר once more within the same verse? Our sages therefore concluded that G'd had originally meant to conclude His answer with the words אהיה אשר אהיה. He added the new version, i.e. אהיה שלחני as a result of Moses' question "why speak about future troubles already now?"
  You will no doubt ask how it is that G'd was not sensitive to that consideration even before Moses raised it? When you examine G'd's words closely you will observe that G'd had already indicated His awareness of that aspect. When G'd instructed Moses to speak to the children of Israel, His instructions should have commenced with the words: כה תאמר לבני ישראל, as this would have been the appropriate answer to Moses' question: "when they say to me what is His name what shall I say to them?" However, since G'd already knew that Moses would query that answer G'd immediately pre-empted his question by explaining that he should identify G'd first as the One who is known as אהיה. If G'd first spoke about אהיה אשר אהיה, this was privileged information for Moses only at this time that just as G'd could be relied upon in this crisis so He could also be relied on in any future crises; however, Moses was to keep the latter part of the promise to himself at this stage. In the future, after the Torah would be revealed and the generation reading this had already experienced G'd's salvation, they would realise that the same G'd who appeared to Moses out of the burning bush would also be at their side in any future troubles. If G'd would have answered Moses by saying immediately: "The G'd of your fathers has sent me to you, etc.," then the words אהיה שלחני would have lost their impact since the principal message had already been delivered. It is also possible that seeing that Moses was exraordinarily perceptive he only wanted to hear G'd spell out in detail what he had already surmised to be the meaning of אהיה.
  
  Verse 15
  
   ויאמר עוד אלוקים, G'd continued to say, etc. The reason the 4-lettered name of G'd is repeated here once more when G'd could have been content with having the 4-lettered name אהיה is that the latter 4-lettered name of G'd comprises all the holy aspects that are unique to G'd. To begin with, G'd had revealed only a single one of these attributes which G'd ascribes to Himself when intervening at a time when the Jewish people are in difficulties. The attribute אהיה was used to address itself to Israel's current problem.
  Another reason why G'd repeated the words כה תאמר "Thus you shall say, etc.," is that G'd realised that Moses had misinterpreted His reluctance to have invoked the 4 lettered name י־ה־ו־ה to mean that He would also not invoke the fact that He was the G'd of the patriarchs at this stage and would content Himself with the Identification: אהיה שלחני אליכם. G'd therefore added mention of His 4-lettered name י־ה־ו־ה- in association with identifying Himself as the G'd of the patriarchs. I believe that by doing so G'd alluded to the fact that His name אהיה which has a numerical value of 21 was also the numerical value of the respective first letters in the names of the patriarchs, א=אברהם, י=יצחק, and י=יעקב, a total of 21.
  Verse 15 has yet another message. It is that the G'd now identifying Himself as אהיה is none other than the One who had promised the patriarchs there would be redemption even though this name of His had not appeared in that connection previously. G'd had to introduce this name also because in the future He would reveal legislation attesting to the holiness of His name. The name אהיה was alluded to when G'd said: אנכי, whereas the 4-lettered name י־ה־ו־ה was spelled out directly in order to justify what Moses told the people, i.e. that when G'd would speak to them (at Mount Sinai) He would use the words אנכי י־ה־ו־ה. These considerations suffice to explain the sequence of these verses.
  
  Verse 16
  
   לך ואספת את זקני ישראל, "Go and gather the elders of lsrael,etc." The reason that G'd repeats here again what Moses is to say maybe that when Moses would arrive in Egypt he was to tell the entire people that he had come as messenger from G'd. After that he would assemble the elders and tell them the nature of his mission, namely that G'd had remembered His people and was about to redeem them.
  The reason that Moses was to announce the fact that he came as G'd's messenger to the whole people first, was to make them assemble around him. Who would bother to gather around him unless he had first made an announcement that would make the Israelites take notice of him? In His wisdom G'd had instructed Moses what to say to the Israelites and what to say to the assembly of elders. He was to address the elders separately out of respect for them as we know from <i>Vayikra Rabbah</i> 11,8 that in the future G'd will allocate a special place where the elders will be seated.
  פקוד פקדתי, "I have surely remembered, etc." G'd speaks of two separate remembrances, 1) the final stage of the redemption, 2) the end of their suffering. When G'd says: אתכם He referred to the final stage of the redemption, when He said: ואת העשוי לכם He referred to the torture the Israelites were experiencing while performing slave labour. G'd also hinted to the Israelites that He would punish the Egyptians for what they had done to the Israelites already.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ושמעו לקולך, "they will listen to your voice, etc." G'd added the apparently superfluous word לקולך when the word לדבריך would have sufficed, in order to convince Moses that the people would believe him even if he did not reveal to them an additional name of G'd. The word קול implies something that is effective only for those who actually hear it. דברים are effective even if not heard directly. G'd wanted Moses to know that anyone who would hear Moses' voice, i.e. the good tidings he would convey, would believe him as there was no impediment such as a lack of faith standing in the people's way. Moses would not even have to perform miracles in order to gain the confidence of the Jewish people.
  ה׳ אלוקי העברים נקרה עלינו, "G'd, the Lord of the Hebrews has manifested Himself to us, etc." G'd revealed here that although He did not want that His four-lettered name be associated except with the Hebrews, and that this was the reason He had not revealed it except to the Hebrews, He wanted the Egyptians to know about this name so that when Moses would appear to Pharaoh citing that attribute of G'd, the latter could not claim that he had never heard of such a G'd. He was not familiar with that name because he had not qualified for familiarity with such an exalted name of G'd seeing he was a contemptible person.
  נקרה עלינו. "manifested Himself to us." G'd did not want Pharaoh to think that Moses was in regular communication with G'd day by day. It is also possible that the choice of the word נקרה, i.e. a chance encounter, was to forestall Pharaoh demanding to see that Moses and Aaron would receive communications from G'd on a regular basis.
  ועתה נלכה נא, "and now let us go, etc." Moses used the word "now" to indicate that this request was an urgent one, requiring immediate action; G'd had not said that these sacrifices were to be offered on a specific date. It is also possible that Moses wanted to indicate to Pharaoh that as far as he was aware this march into the desert for three days in order to offer sacrifices there was a one time affair.
  שלושת ימים. "Three days." Moses had to make it appear that the Israelites meant to go for only three days because G'd told him in verse 22 to tell the Israelites to borrow silver trinkets from the Egyptians. Unless the Egyptians would believe that the Jews planned to return they would not lend them the silver trinkets.
  This explains also why G'd announced the matter of borrowing the silver trinkets already now, 12 months before the Israelites would actually "borrow" these trinkets. Had that instruction been issued only on the night of the Exodus (when the Torah mentions it as being carried out) it would have been difficult to carry out. We might have assumed that mentioning it at this juncture was merely to make the Israelites believe that the Exodus was really at hand. This is not correct, however. We believe that the reason we have proposed, i.e. that in order to make the eventual request for these trinkets plausible, the Egyptians first had to be under the impression that all the Jewish people really wanted was a three day religious holiday in the desert, away from Egyptian urban areas.
  We still have to account for the fact that G'd instructed Moses to deceive Pharaoh by asking for a three day religious pilgrimage when in fact he did not mean for the people to return to Egypt at all? G'd appears to have tricked the Egyptians both regarding the nature of the Israelites' departure and regarding the nature of the "borrowings." Actually, everything G'd told Moses to say was perfectly just and fair. Firstly, inasmuch as the Israelites had performed many decades of slave labour for which the Egyptians had not paid any wages, they were entitled to recompense themselves, if only partially. <i>Sanhedrin</i> 91 records a disputation in front of Alexander the Great on that subject when the Egyptians demanded the return of these borrowed trinkets. The representative of the Jews at that time, a certain Gevihah ben Pesisah, succeeded in making the Egyptians withdraw their claim seeing that what the Jews had taken was so much less than what had been owed them at the time of the Exodus. Still, why did G'd have to resort to trickery? Surely G'd was capable of executing all His designs without having to resort to some form of deception!
  We must assume therefore that the reason G'd deceived the Egyptians (on both counts) was in order to orchestrate the pursuit of the Jews by the Egyptian army and the crossing of the sea as well as the drowning of the Egyptian cavalry. Had the Egyptians not felt themselves deceived by the Israelites they would never have undertaken a chase. Compare what we have written on Exodus 14,5 that Pharaoh had a change of heart.
  You will find a sign that we are on the right track when you read <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 14,3 that during the plague of darkness the Jews who were not affected by this discovered the secret hiding places of the Egyptians so that at the time of the Exodus they could prove that the Egyptians lied when they claimed not to possess the items the Jews wanted to borrow. The question is, of course, why, if G'd already enabled the Jews to discover these trinkets, why did He not allow them to help themselves at once? It was only a few days prior to the Exodus! No doubt G'd wanted that the Egyptians should remain under the impression that the Jews were only borrowing these trinkets so that once they realised they had been deceived they would feel morally entitled to pursue the Jews and to retrieve these items.
  Now let us look at the legality of the matter. If the Jews had helped themselves to what they discovered in the homes of the Egyptians during the days of darkness they would have been perfectly in order. When a person is forcibly deprived of his possessions there is no law which prevents him to take back what was his. Jacob used subterfuge to compensate himself for what Laban had tricked him out of. The Talmud tells of an occurrence involving three great sages in <i>Yuma</i> 83. When two of them were swindled out of money they had deposited with the innkeeper, they resorted to deception in order to retrieve what was rightfully theirs. Not only did their action not involve a forbidden practice but they did what David refers to in Psalms 18,27 as a practice employed by G'd Who engages in being wily with those who have been devious themselves.
  In our situation the matter is even more clear-cut. If you examine the text, you will find that Moses (at G'd's behest) did not utter a single lie. He never mentioned a word about the Israelites ever returning to Egypt. Furthermore, Moses was careful that the deceptive words could not be attributed to G'd himself but only to the Israelites, if at all. The words starting with: "and now we want to go," were to be spoken by Moses, Aaron and the elders. They were not part of what G'd had said. If the Torah had not inserted the word ועתה, we would indeed have assumed that they said, quoting G'd: "Now let us go three days travel into the desert, etc." In chapter 5, verse 1 we do indeed find that Moses quoted G'd saying: "send My people off so that they can celebrate for Me in the desert." He did not mention any time frame at that time. It was only the Israelites who added (in 5,3) "let us go for three days into the desert, etc." While it is true that at that point the Israelites did not say ועתה, they simply assumed that the word ועתה Moses had mentioned in 3,18, was sufficiently clear. The fact that even the Jews had not lied to the Egyptians is proven by history. The Jews who left Egypt celebrated only in the desert seeing that the whole generation died before they came to the land of Canaan. While it is true that many of the children of that generation entered the Holy Land and celebrated there also, it was not the minors who had negotiated with Pharaoh about their release from bondage. People under twenty years of age were under no obligation to offer sacrifices to G'd. The Israelites also did not lie when they asked for the silver trinkets as the Torah says: "they asked for, etc." Initially, they borrowed these trinkets. When the Egyptians did not pay them the wages owed, they kept the trinkets as partial payment. They planned to present the Egyptians wih a bill for the balance at a future date.
  One problem has bothered me for a long time; why did G'd not simply drown the Egyptians who deserved drowning by letting the river Nile spill over? This would have been the appropriate punishment for the people who had drowned the Jewish babies in the Nile. Why did G'd wait till the Egyptians had pursued the Jewish people and He had to perform a major miracle by splitting the sea and allowing the Jews to cross on dry land? Also, why the devious method of the Jews borrowing the silver instead of their helping themselves to it during the days of darkness? After all, according to the interpretation of the <i>Midrash</i> the meaning of Exodus 11,23 that the Jews "had light in their dwellings" is that they had light "even in the Egyptians' dwellings?" Perhaps G'd was motivated by two considerations. 1) The splitting of the sea and everything connected with it aggrandised His name amongst mankind in a way that could not have been achieved by any other means. 2) G'd applies the yardstick of "measure for measure." <i>Sotah</i> 11 states that the Egyptians had cleverly inveigled the Israelites into slave labour by sweet-talking them into such patriotic service, whereas gradually they became more and more cruel and demanding. G'd orchestrated the steps leading to redemption in a similar fashion. First He had Moses speak about a three day religious holiday for Pharaoh's labourers as well as borrowings of the Egyptians' silver and of their fancy garments. G'd gradually upped the ante, just as the Egyptians had done in their treatment of the Jews. At the same time G'd was still careful so that even the Jews themselves did not utter a lie. The prophet Micha was quite correct (Micha 7,20) when he characterised one of the greatest Jewish virtues with the words: "You give truth to Jacob."
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   לא תלכו ריקם, "You will not leave empty-handed." At this point the Torah already foreshadowed the legislation applicable when a Jewish servant is to be released by his master. The Torah commands in Deut. 15,13-15 that you must not set him free empty-handed but that you have to provide him with a stake so that he can establish an economic base for himself. Presumably, this is also measure for measure. What G'd did for you, you in turn are to do for the servant you set free.
  
  Verse 22
  
   ונצלתם את מצרים, "you will empty Egypt." Here the Torah alludes to the fact that a person may rescue his possessions from someone who robbed him by force. Alternatively, our verse may be a preview of what caused the Egyptians to drown in the sea, i.e. the combination of the Israelites' demand to borrow their silver trinkets and their declared intention to travel a distance of three days into the desert. The two demands eventually prompted the Egyptians to pursue the Jews believing their leader Moses had overstepped his authority. As a result G'd drowned them in the sea.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויען משה ויאמר והן לא יאמינו לי, Moses replied saying: "But they will not believe me, etc." What could have prompted Moses to claim that the Jewish people would not believe him when G'd Himself had told him "they will listen to your voice?" Furthermore, why did Moses even add the almost unbelievable: "and they will not listen to my voice?" One might be tempted to say that inasmuch as a person is free to do what he wants to do and to believe what he wants to believe in, G'd's assurance on that score could not be absolute seeing He is not in control of our feelings. This is why Moses did not believe in the righteousness of their faith. He said: "and they will not listen to my voice," as if to say "they will not even want to listen to my voice." However, such an explanation would not do justice to Moses who certainly did not want to question G'd's attributes, nor to slander Israel by uttering such a gross suspicion. Besides, we must consider that Moses did not even say "suppose they will not believe me," but he made a flat statement והן לא יאמינו לי, "they will definitely not believe me."
  The correct answer to our problem is that outlined by Maimonides in chapter seven of his treatise <i>Yesodey Ha-Torah</i> where he writes that the gift of prophecy is given only to people of outstanding intellectual capacity, people who are whole in body and spirit. The author of כסף משנה, a major commentator on Maimonides' works, comments as follows: "We must analyse why Maimonides did not add some more qualifications such as that the prophet has to be wealthy, humble, of physical prowess, etc." He concludes that Maimonides certainly feels that the prophet must possess these attributes as well. However, inasmuch as someone who practices prophecy on a regular basis must possess these attributes as a matter of course, Maimonides did not bother to mention this in that paragraph. In the chapter mentioned, Maimonides was concerned only with people who prophesy only on occasion. Even if we were to consider Moses as someone who practiced prophecy only on occasion-something we cannot accept,- he argued what he did as a result of his extreme humility, out of a conviction that he personally lacked the qualities needed for someone to be accepted as such by the Israelites. When Moses said והן לא יאמינו לי, he meant that "as the result of my many shortcomings they will have no reason to believe me, etc." This was all the more true, Moses said, since I have not been accredited as a regular prophet, but am only making an occasional appearance as a prophet. When a person who has not yet established his credentials as a prophet appears and claims to be a prophet he has to be able to demonstrate all the attributes the people expect of a prophet; these attributes include wealth, physical prowess, a body without blemish, etc. If the people needed proof that Moses lacked the attribute of personal wealth, all they had to find out was that he Moses, had been a mere shepherd in the employ of his father-in-law Yitro. (He had attained personal wealth only by being allowed to pocket the splinters of the tablets of the Covennant as per a comment in <i>Nedarim</i> 38). In view of all this, as soon as the Israelites would consult with their elders if Moses was believable, the elders would tell the people, quite correctly, that Moses had failed to legitimise himself adequately.
  When Moses had added ולא ישמעו בקולי he alluded to yet another argument, namely his stutter. His voice would give him away as someone who was not fit to be a prophet. Later on he indeed spelled out his concern on that score. At any rate, the absence of a speech impediment is an absolute necessity even for prophets who appear as such only on occasion. If someone suffered from such an impediment it is equivalent to a physical blemish. When Moses said the Israelites would argue that G'd had never communicated with him, they would be quite justified in their assumption as they would base their rejection of his claim on his physical blemish, saying G'd would not appear to such a person even on a temporary basis. The reason Moses had not advanced this argument at once but had asked G'd what he should say when the Israelites would ask him in what capacity G'd had appeared to him- something which appears to show that he was not concerned about the people rejecting him personally- was because G'd had interrupted him by saying: "this is My name, etc."
  It is also possible that Moses wanted G'd to reveal more of the mystical aspects of His name, and that in order for G'd to do so he made what sounded like a provocative statement. Moses hoped, that if successful, G'd would equip him with all the visible and invisible attributes that he felt he lacked in order to qualify as a regular prophet. We find this concept in Psalms 91,14 אשגבהו כי ידע שמי, "I will raise it (the Jewish people) high since it has become aware of My name." Moreover, if they would appreciate the qualities G'd had equipped Moses with their regard for G'd Himself would be appreciably enhanced.
  Still another reason why Moses was not perturbed at saying what he did, i.e. that the Jewish people would not believe him, was that G'd Himself had told him after He had said that the Jewish people would hearken to his voice (3,18) that He knew that Pharaoh would not respond to Moses' entreaties and would not let the Israelites depart (3,19). Moses reasoned that if Pharaoh would not take his mission seriously then the Israelites would surely lose faith in his leadership in short order. If Moses would have repeated audiences with Pharaoh all of which did not produce results, the people would eventually even stop listening to him altogether. They would claim that the reason he failed was that לא נראה אליך השם, "G'd never appeared to you in the first place." They would argue that if indeed Moses' mission had been authorised by G'd, who would have the effrontery to refuse to carry out G'd's orders? Do we not know from Kings I 14,10 that if someone contravenes G'd's commands deliberately he will be utterly destroyed by G'd?
  
  Verse 2
  
   ?זיאמר ה׳ מזה בידך "G'd said: "what is this in your hand?" This question cannot be compared to when G'd asked Bileam (Numbers 22,9) "who are these men?" Our sages in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 19 state that Bileam should have answered G'd that He was well aware of even a chamber-pot Bileam had in his bedroom, how much more so would He be aware of who the messengers were who had come to him that evening? However, the two situations cannot be compared. When G'd asked Bileam who the men were who had come to him, Bileam had some excuse to assume that G'd really was not aware of their identity; When He asked Moses what the latter held in his hand, it was daylight and G'd had obviously seen it. The question therefore could only be a rhetorical one. G'd only wanted Moses to confirm what it was he held in his hand. Moses complied and said "it is a staff."
  
  Verse 3
  
  ויהי לנחש, it had turned into a snake. G'd hinted to Moses that the forces of the קליפה are characterised by the symbol snake. We know from the original serpent that it represents סם, i.e. something potentially poisonous. G'd wanted to teach Moses that his hands possessed the power to neutralise the power of that serpent and to turn it into a harmless piece of wood. If, however, Moses would not keep firm control and allow it to escape from his hands, he would unleash all the latent powers of evil which are controlled by the serpent. This would become so threatening that Moses would flee from it [although he stood on consecrated ground, Ed.]. When G'd asked Moses: "what is this in your hand?" He wanted Moses to understand that the staff was biologically analogous to a certain kind of desert-mouse. If Moses were to even loosen his grip on his staff it was liable to develop into a serpent just as earth can turn into a certain species of mouse. [In Talmudic times there was a widespread belief that this specimen of mouse was half flesh and half earth, and developed out of the earth. This belief has halachic implications regarding the laws of ritual impurity, compare <i>Chulin</i> 9,6, Ed.] Moses replied to G'd's question that he was certain that what he held in his hand was a staff, i.e. one hundred per cent wood, without potential to develop into a living organism. When G'd made him throw the staff down to earth, He demonstrated that not only did the staff contain the potential to develop into a living creature, but it did not do so only very gradually, such as the desert-mouse, but it did so in a single moment. 
  The reason G'd had said: "throw it to the ground," was that in the eyes of the serpent the earth assumes great significance since it derives all its needs for survival from the earth, and earth (dust) is its exclusive habitat (Genesis 3,14). G'd taught Moses many lessons by means of this small demonstration. Amongst other things Moses was to demonstrate this very miracle before the eyes of the Israelites.
  When G'd instructed Moses: "stretch out your hand," He wanted Moses to realise that though he thought that he had already lost control over what had been his staff, he still possessed the power to master what had become a serpent and to turn it into a harmless piece of wood again.
  G'd instructed Moses ואחוז בזנבו, instead of ואחוז בו. This was to teach him an additional lesson. Normally, people are afraid of the poisonous head of the snake and when they try to grab it they try to get hold of its head and crush it in order to neutralise its poisonous bite. G'd told Moses that it would suffice to grasp the tail of the snake and he would not have anything to fear. When the Torah nevertheless describes Moses as ויחזק בו "he took hold of it," and not as ויחזק בזנבו, "he took hold of its tail," this does not mean that Moses did not obey G'd's instructions but that he took hold of the nearest part of the snake without fear. When the Torah goes on to describe that ויהי למטה בכפו, "it turned into a staff in his palm," this means that it ceased being a living organism as soon as Moses' palm touched it i.e. ויהי, "it remained as a staff only."
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   למען יאמינו כי נראה אליך השם. "So that they will believe that G'd has appeared to you." The reason that G'd kept repeating "the G'd of their fathers," may have been to hint to the people present that unless one believed in the G'd who had been the G'd of the patriarchs one could not hope to achieve control over the serpent, i.e. the forces of evil in this universe. A demonstration of such control would therefore imply that one was on intimate terms with G'd.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   והיה אם לא יאמינו גם לשני האותות, "In the event that they will not believe even both these two signs, etc.," This sounds strange. Does G'd then entertain any doubts so that He has to phrase this verse in such a way? Besides, G'd had already told Moses that the people would listen to his voice! Perhaps the thrust of the message is addressed to Moses' concerns, and G'd is saying to him: "In the event you are afraid that even these two miracles will not be sufficient to convince the Israelites of your authenticity and the authenticity of the message of the imminent redemption, I will let you perform another miracle which will be the clincher and as a result of which they will certainly believe you."
  G'd may also have wanted to tell Moses not to worry about aspects of the people's faith which could not be discerned on their faces. In the event that Moses worried that though externally the people would appear to believe both in him and in the success of his mission, they might harbour reservations which Moses could not detect. G'd reassured him on that score and told him that as a result of all three miracles they would believe him without reservations.
  והיו המים….לדם ביבשת. "The waters…will turn into blood on the ground." Rashi has enlightened us by remarking that the repeated use of the word והיו in this verse indicates that the waters will not turn into blood until they touch the dry land. I only wish to add one more comment concerning the statement of our sages in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 9,10 that G'd eventually commanded Aaron and not Moses to perform this miracle in front of Pharaoh because the Nile had saved Moses' life at the time his mother placed him amongst the reeds and it would have been gross ingratitude to strike at the part of nature which had saved his life. In this case where G'd commanded Moses to strike the waters personally, He did so with the proviso that the waters would become blood only after they had already ceased to perform their life-giving and life-preserving function, i.e. after they had been spilled on the ground.
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויאמר משה בי א־ד־ו־נ־י לא איש דברים אנכי, Moses said: "Please my Lord, I am not a man of words, etc." After Moses' previous arguments had been silenced, Moses now appealed to the attribute of Mercy. This is why the Torah emphasises the name of G'd Moses used here. Moses had not used that name of G'd previously. The word בי is a word of entreaty.
  Alternatively, we can understand the word בי as a pronoun in which case Moses would have answered G'd that he considered his own unsuitability for the mission as due to בי, his own shortcomings. As soon as the people would become aware of him stammering they would realise that even after he pronounced the words he had no command of language. They would reject him. Moses added the words גם מתמול גם משלשום, to point out that despite his repeated conversations with G'd, G'd had not cured him of his deformity. It appeared therefore that he was meant to suffer from this deformity also in the future. If so, the people would surely reject him because they would think that if G'd had spoken to him He would first have cured him of that blemish. (He left the last part of the sentence unspoken).
  
  Verse 11
  
   ויאמר ה׳ אליו מי שם פה, G'd said to him: "Who has given man a mouth, etc." G'd criticised Moses. He should have relied on the fact that the One who provides others with the ability to speak without impediment could also do the same for him. If G'd had failed to do so thus far, surely He must have had an adequate reason. If and when the need arose, G'd would surely remedy Moses' deformity. G'd responds with the words (verse 12) "and now go and I will be with you." He does not, however, assure Moses that He will cure him of his deformity. It is also possible that G'd only hinted to Moses that he should express repentance at his lack of trust that G'd would cure him.
  On the other hand, one may read meaning into what G'd did not say, i.e. that He did not instruct Moses how he could ensure that G'd would provide him with a healthy mouth, i.e. the equipment to impress people with his eloquence. G'd did not even hint that He is in the habit of rectifying defects such as speech defects that did not originate at birth. He declared that He provides the initial equipment, i.e. a sense of hearing, a sense of sight, etc. G'd did not refer to His taking remedial action in that regard. We are therefore at a loss as to what precisely G'd wanted to convey with His reply in verse 12.
  We must assume that in verse eleven G'd asserted His sovereignty inasmuch as He is the supreme intelligence having provided man with the organs necessary including a mouth, etc. Considering all this Moses should understand that if he was plagued by a deformity this was not accidental or an oversight but was part of an overall design by G'd who knows best. It is precisely because G'd had not seen fit to remedy Moses' deformity that the latter should have given Him credit for knowing what He was doing. Most of you are familiar with the aggadah reported in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 1,25 according to which the young Moses playfully removed Pharaoh's crown and placed it on his own head. Some of Pharaoh's advisers were alarmed at this and saw in it an omen of the future. They decided to test the child by placing two bowls in front of him. One contained glowing coals, the other glittering jewels. If Moses were to try and grab for the jewels he would be considered as potentially dangerous to Pharaoh and would be executed; if he grabbed for the glowing coals this would be seen as proof that his having removed Pharaoh's crown had only been a youthful prank by a child with average or below average intelligence. According to the aggadah, Moses was about to grab for the jewels when an angel guided his hands to the coals and he burned his mouth. As a result he was afflicted with a stammer. G'd hinted to Moses that unless He had seen some positive value in Moses' burning his mouth at that time He would not have allowed this to happen. G'd either allows something like this to happen because of something that will happen in the future, or it is retribution for some sin committed, something that could not apply in Moses' case. Rabbi Ami said in <i>Shabbat</i> 55 that no one is saddled with afflictions unless he has become guilty of some sin. If someone suffers from a stutter such as Moses, this too is considered an affliction. If so, it would have been incumbent for Moses to know the reason for his affliction and to remove its cause and then to pray to G'd concerning removal of his affliction. The fact that he did not do so indicates that his affliction had nothing to do with any sin of his. This is why G'd said to him: ועתה. This is to be understood as contradicting previously held convictions. In other words, there was no need for Moses to blame himself for his stutter and to take remedial action.
  As to his concern that Israel would not believe in his leadership because of his stammer, G'd told Him that He would assist him and teach him what to say.
  The words: לך ואנכי אהיה עם פיך "go and I shall be with your mouth," was an ironclad answer valid as long as Moses had not actually commenced his mission. As long as he had not yet become G'd's instrument there was no reason to cure his stammer. This is why G'd urged Moses by saying: "Go!" He implied that if Moses were to accept this mission he would notice that as soon as he began speaking his stammer would have disappeared. G'd said: והוריתיך אשר תדבר; there is a subtle difference between this and את אשר תדבר, which is what we would have expected. G'd did not tell Moses that He would teach him what to say, but He told Moses that He would demonstrate to him that he had developed fluency in speaking, etc. The reason G'd used the word: "I will teach you" instead of "I will show you," is that Moses was to notice that his cure was not something temporary, only for the benefit of fulfilling his mission, but that it would remain the norm from then on.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   בי אדני שלח נא ביד תשלח. "Please my Lord, send the one whom You usually send on missions." Moses meant that he did not hold G'd responsible for his stammer; he was well aware that G'd could cure it. If He had not done so it was clear to him that the fault must be his; therefore he recommended that G'd send someone better qualified than himself on that mission.
  
  Verse 14
  
   ויתר אף ה׳ במשה, G'd became angry at Moses, etc. I believe that as a result of G'd's anger Moses did indeed remain afflicted with his stammer even after he undertook the mission in the end. The Torah says that G'd became angry במשה, at Moses; I understand that to be a reference to his body, i.e. it had an effect on his deformity. Our sages in <i>Zevachim</i> 102 who suggested that Moses referred to his older brother Aaron when he made the comment G'd found objectionable, believed that Moses who had been meant to also fulfil the function of High Priest was deprived of this function as a result of G'd's anger. The Talmud's comment is perfectly compatible with my own, as the words ויחר אף hinted at two things.
  כי דבר ידבר, "for he will certainly speak," etc. The reason that G'd repeated the word דבר is that G'd indicated that though Aaron was able to speak fluently now, i.e. דבר, he would also speak in the future, ידבר, though he would also become afflicted with a handicap similar to that of Moses. On the other hand, in line with our explanation of the consequences of G'd's anger (which had not been spelled out in detail as yet), the word דבר may refer to G'd's instruction to Moses, whereas the words ידבר הוא have to be read together and tell us that Aaron would do what Moses had refused to do. The emphasis on הוא implies also that whereas he, Aaron would display fluency of speech, Moses would not be cured.
  וגם הנה הוא יוצא לקראתך, "and he is also on the way to meet you, etc." If this is a continuation of G'd's praise of Aaron that he would be willing to speak although he too would stammer, this is additional praise for Aaron; the word וגם, "and also," is in place then. G'd is saying then that Aaron not only does not mind his handicap but he is glad to be able to perform a task G'd assigns to him. [I believe the reason the author says that Aaron suffered from a speech handicap is that he reads the words דבר־־ידבר as graphically describing the stutter. Ed.]
  The word וגם may also be understood in conjunction with <i>Shabbat</i> 139 where we are told that Aaron was granted the position of High Priest in recognition of his being happy that his younger brother had been appointed as the redeemer. When we consider that G'd had decided not to cure Moses of his speech defect because he had declined the request by G'd to assume leadership of the people, the word וגם would refer to the additional result of that refusal by Moses.
  The Torah may also have wanted to underline the virtues of Aaron and his humility. Normally, one could have expected him to be slighted for being appointed to be merely his younger brother's mouthpiece, but the Torah testified that far from feeling slighted, Aaron actually rejoiced over Moses' promotion. One of the lessons to be learned from this is that humility should not be carried to the point where one endeavours to escape fulfilling the will of the king (G'd). G'd had to tell Moses that Aaron would rejoice as the latter was not displaying this joy openly. The Torah could also have wanted to tell us that Aaron did display this joy on his face, but that G'd wanted Moses to know in addition that Aaron was equally joyful about Moses' appointment in his heart.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ואת המטה הזה תקח בידך, "and take this staff in your hand, etc." According to the <i>Zohar</i> section 3 page 28 there were two staffs. The Torah then spoke about "this one" to tell Moses that he should not take the other staff. 
  The expression "take in your hand" means "permanently;" The reason was that this staff should be a mark of distinction, something not unlike present-day rulers who carry a mace with them as a sign of their constitutional right to legislate. Moses took the "staff of G'd" with him as mentioned in verse 20 as a memento of this conversation and as a sign of his authority. G'd had said: "take it in your hand" so that we should not interpret that Moses took his staff like ordinary people take a walking-cane.
  אשר תעשה בו את האותות, "the one with which you will perform the miracles." This may be a reference to the staff with which Aaron performed such miracles as turning it into a snake (7,10). According to the <i>Zohar</i> we have just quoted that staff became known as "the staff of Aaron;" G'd had commanded Aaron also to have his staff ready at all times. According to <i>Targum Yonathan</i> 2,21 the staff was made of sapphire and no one was able to even move it except Moses. Accordingly, the very fact that Moses could "take" it was a miracle in itself. The words וזה לך האות therefore meant that no one but Moses would be able to handle the staff.
  
  Verse 18
  
   אלכה נא, "I wish to go, etc." According to the agreement between Moses and Yitro reported in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 1,29, Yitro had made Moses swear an oath not to take Tzipporah away. Moses now had to ask Yitro to release him from that oath.
  ואראה העודם חיים, "and I want to see if they are still alive, etc." He did not tell Yitro a word about the mission G'd had asked him to undertake, seeing that G'd had not used the word לאמור when He had appointed Moses. We have repeatedly quoted <i>Yuma</i> 4 to the effect that one must not reveal information received privately unless authorised to do so.
  לך לשלום, "go and be well!" Yitro forgave him his oath. We learn from this that no formal annulment is necessary if the second party to the oath himself expresses his agreement that it be invalidated.
  
  Verse 19
  
   אל משה במדין, to Moses in Midian. The reason that the Torah stresses that this communication from G'd to Moses took place in Midian is to praise Moses who was not afraid of his adversaries in Egypt at the time he argued against acceptance of the mission. All that concerned him was his own inadequacy for the gigantic task G'd wanted to charge him with. The Torah had to mention where the conversation took place as otherwise we would have assumed that the argument which swayed Moses was G'd's assurance that all the people who had tried to kill him had already died. Moses had already asked Yitro to release him from his oath before G'd mentioned that his pursuers were dead.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   כה אמד ה׳ בני בכורי ישראל. Thus said the Lord: "Israel is My firstborn son." Why is this prophecy- i.e. that the Jewish firstborn would not be killed- recorded out of context, i.e. a long time before Moses would announce it to Pharaoh? We need to know also why, apparently, Moses was not to mention this to Pharaoh on their first encounter?
  It appears that G'd in His wisdom provided Moses with some information which would temper his disappointment at the long drawn-out process of the often broken promises by Pharaoh. There was a danger that when Moses observed that Pharaoh remained obstinate month after month despite the plagues G'd inflicted upon him and his people, he would become fed up with his mission. G'd therefore informed him of something that would not happen until the end of the process. As long as the plague of killing the firstborn Egyptians had not occurred, Moses had no reason to believe that G'd's timetable had been upset. The synopsis of the prophecy was: "be aware that I will make Pharaoh's heart obstinate; he will suffer many plagues without collapsing; in the end you will announce to him that G'd will kill all the firstborn Egyptians, etc."
  G'd was also clever in announcing to Moses in this fashion that it would be the plague of killing the firstborn which would prompt Pharaoh to dismiss the people. Moses would eventually realise that the redemption was close at hand when G'd did not mention to him anymore that He would harden the heart of Pharaoh. When Pharaoh told him in 10,28: "do not come to see me anymore," Moses realised that the time to fulfil the instruction given in our verse had arrived. This is why he announced that plague the moment Pharaoh told him not to come and see him again. While it is true that the Torah reports many additional instructions G'd gave to Moses at that time, G'd may have mentioned them already at this time while recording them at an appropriate moment. When we look at matters in that light we do not need all the <i>Midrashim</i> which try to determine when precisely G'd had made this announcement. G'd did not worry that Moses would misunderstand and reveal this prophecy too soon. He knew that Moses would report back to Him any response from Pharaoh. As soon as G'd would then instruct Moses to bring on another plague, Moses would know that the time had not yet arrived for that final plague. Once Pharaoh told Moses not to come and see him again, Moses realised he did not have time to consult with G'd outside the limits of the city as he was in the habit of doing. This is why he himself announced the plague of the killing of the firstborn without awaiting specific instructions from G'd. Perhaps Moses simply used the words "I will make Pharaoh's heart hard" as his guidelines. He did not know beforehand how long this process of hardening Pharaoh's heart would continue; when he noticed that G'd did not mention this anymore after the plague of darkness, he took his cue from that and warned Pharaoh of the final plague.
  It is also possible that G'd indicated that Pharaoh had three choices. If he were to release the Israelites he would be spared any plagues. If he were to deny the Israelites their freedom without at the same time insulting G'd, G'd would bring on the plague of the killing of the firstborn immediately; this would bring about the Exodus. If, however, Pharaoh were to deny the Israelites their freedom and at the same time insult the honour of G'd, he would have to endure the entire range of plagues, as did in fact happen. G'd told him through Moses in 9,16 that He had decided to let Pharaoh experience the full extent of His power.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   ויבקש המיתו, He tried to kill him. The reason that the Torah describes G'd as only "trying" to kill Moses may be that the fact that Moses was on the way to carry out a commandment by G'd. This acted as partial protection based on <i>Pessachim</i> 8 that "people engaged in the process of carrying out a מצוה do not suffer harm either on their way to or from carrying out that מצוה." The מצוה which Moses was occupied with at that time acquired one heavenly advocate for him; this advocate was his companion at the time and prevented the destructive forces poised against him from approaching him too closely. Perhaps the Torah's description of all this happening בדרך במלון is to inform us that at the time Moses was not so much involved with his primary mission but with private matters; this is what provoked the destructive forces to attack him. Nonetheless he still enjoyed some protection seeing that he had not abandoned his mission. While the positive and negative forces were confronting each other, Tziporah removed the impediment to saving Moses' life by circumcising her son.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   לך לקראת משה, "go towards Moses, etc!" Although we have heard G'd say to Moses already in 4,14 that his brother Aaron was on his way to meet him, the actual instruction to Aaron came from G'd while Aaron was still in Egypt. There is no question that the prophecy in this verse was adressed directly to Aaron even though we learned in <i>Torat Kohanim</i> 1 that wherever the Torah writes: "G'd spoke to Moses and Aaron," that the directive was spoken to Moses only and he in turn was to convey it to Aaron, this does not apply here. Even according to the view of Rabbi Yossi Haglili who excludes Aaron from receiving a communication from G'd directly even while both were in Egypt, he referred only to communications which concerned an independent mission to outsiders. There is no reason to believe that G'd did not speak to Aaron directly concerning what Aaron himself was to do. Our verse proves that Aaron was a prophet in his own right.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ואחר באו משה ואהרון ויאמרו אל פרעה, afterwards Moses and Aaron came to Pharaoh and said, etc. The word "afterwards" means after the people had believed that G'd had despatched Moses to them as their redeemer. The verse refers to fulfilment of what G'd had told Moses in 3,18. We now appreciate the dividing tone sign <i>etnachta</i> under the word לקולך in 3,18; we would have expected the words "and you will proceed to Pharaoh" to be part of the same sequence. Inasmuch as some considerable time passed between what was mentioned in the first half of that verse and the completion of what it was meant to lead to, the Torah repeats here that now the second part of verse 18 in chapter 3 was being played out.
  
  Verse 2
  
   אשר אשמע בקולו, "that I should listen to His voice." Pharaoh challenged Moses regarding his G'd's great power. Surely the Jewish G'd was not so powerful that He could demand such obedience in a matter of such overriding importance! He added gratuitously: "to dismiss the Jewish people," meaning that however great His power it would surely not suffice to liberate the Jewish people. Pharaoh did not mean to concede that he did know of the Jewish G'd after all, but that the latter was not great enough to make such a demand; rather he said: 1) "I do not know of Him;" 2) even if I would be told that He does indeed exist this would not mean that He could demand the freeing of the Jewish people." The word גם refers to a hypothetical situation.
  
  Verse 3
  
   ויאמרו אלוקי העברים ..פן יפגענו "The G'd of Israel…. lest He punish us." The last words were spoken by the Israelites. Even though our sages in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 5,14 told us that the elders melted away on the way to the first confrontation with Pharaoh, the Israelites expressed fear of being punished by G'd. The elders were punished for not accompanying Moses and Aaron. Perhaps the entire nation went to see Pharaoh and told him it would be in Pharaoh's own interest to excuse the Jewish people from work for three days and to take the chance that they would return; otherwise, if they would be punished by their G'd, Pharaoh would lose their labour altogether if they were to die of a pestilence. Perhaps they even implied that such a pestilence would also pose a problem for Pharaoh himself who might become infected. They used the well known method of describing such a plague as afflicting them rather than Pharaoh, as they did not want to threaten Pharaoh outright.
  
  Verse 4
  
   ויאמר..למה משה ואהרון תפריעו את העם, He said: "Why Moses and Aaron to you deter the people, etc.?" After Pharaoh had first faced both the elders and Moses and Aaron and they had told him about the demands of the Hebrew G'd, Pharaoh now turned to Moses and Aaron telling them that he had no complaint against the elders who were obviously motivated by their fear of pestilence. His complaint was directed against Moses and Aaron on two counts. 1) Seeing that Moses and Aaron had brought a message from their G'd, it appeared that the decision was up to him. They had therefore not been entitled to threaten the people with punishment by their G'd for something that was not up to them but up to him! 2) If Moses and Aaron had told the people that they could simply leave Egypt without being granted permission, why had they come to ask his permission at all? Perhaps this is what our sages had in mind in our <i>Midrash</i> when they said: "why does the Torah write אתם and why the word למה? This may mean that Pharaoh asked why they came at all, and why they told the people in the name of G'd that they could leave. Pharaoh then turned towards the Israelites and told them: לכו לסבלותיכם, "go and do your work!"
  
  Verse 5
  
   ויאמר פרעה הן רבים עתה עם הארץ, Pharaoh said: "now the people in the land are very numerous, etc." Pharaoh meant that in view of the large numbers of people involved it was impossible to convince all of them that they did not face a danger if they did not march to the desert to offer sacrifices to their G'd. This was why he held Moses and Aaron responsible for the work stoppage if it would occur. He directed this accusation exclusively at Moses and Aaron. Pharaoh meant that even a brief work stoppage was a major economic disaster considering the number of people involved.
  
  Verse 6
  
   ויצו פרעה ביום ההוא, On that day Pharaoh issued orders, etc. This directive was to be effective only on that particular day. He hoped that by forcing the people to concentrate on their immediate and overwhelming problem they would forget about their fear of what might happen if they failed to offer sacrifices to their G'd in the desert. Any intelligent person understands that an immediate and pressing problem is apt to push other problems that are not so immediate into the background. Pharaoh hoped that a single day of the new decree would suffice to accomplish this objective.
  On the other hand, the Torah could have indicated with the words ביום ההוא that there was only a single day left on which the Israelites performed slave labour, seeing that on the morrow Moses and Aaron would turn the life-giving river Nile into blood. According to our tradition no more slave labour was performed from the day the plague of blood occurred. Not only that, but the Egyptians would pay the Israelites good money to obtain some drinking water from them seeing that water did not turn into blood once the Israelites held it in their hands (compare <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 9,10). The expression כתמול שלשום, poses no problem as the Israelites did not complete their quota on the day prior to Moses' interview because it was a public holiday.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   כי נרפים הם, "for they are lazy!" Who had ever suggested that the idea to sacrifice to their G'd originated in the relatively light burden of work that Pharaoh had imposed on the Israelites up until then? Perhaps what Pharaoh meant was that the Israelites felt that now that Moses had arrived their lot would become easier and that therefore they wanted to thank their G'd for that by offering up thanksgiving sacrifices so that He would cancel out the servitude altogether. Pharaoh countered this euphoria by making the workload heavier so that they would not even entertain any idea of their servitude being near an end, i.e. those lies that Moses had fed them.
  Pharaoh also reacted to the Israelites having said: נלכה נזבחה, "let us go slaughter, etc." He understood this as an implied promise that the Israelites planned to make up the time lost by working extra hard after their return. He reasoned that if they could really do this it was proof they had not been working hard enough thus far. This is why he withdrew the supply of straw which had been provided up until then and referred to them as lazy. Eventually, their holiday would backfire and the would cry out, i.e. צועקים that they had to work too hard. Pharaoh wanted to head off all these complications by ordering now that the straw would be withdrawn so that the people would stop dreaming about all kinds of improvements in their lives.
  The expression ואל ישעו reflects weakness. Pharaoh interpreted the people's weakness as stemming from the "illusions" (in his view) which Moses had come to feed them. As a result they had expressed fear of punishment by their G'd if they did not offer the sacrifices their G'd demanded. When people live in fear they are weak and it undermines their ability to perform good work. Pharaoh wanted to stop this process at the source, hence his decree to suspend the deliveries of straw.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   כי אין נגרע מעבודתכם, "for your workload will not be diminished." Why did the taskmasters say: כי אין נגרע "for it will not be reduced" instead of ואין נגרע? "and it will not be reduced?" When the taskmasters had first said: "go and get your own straw," the Israelites had thought of this as a welcome diversion. They considered collecting straw as less demanding than either building, or forming bricks. The taskmasters "dropped the second shoe" by adding that it was not as the Israelites thought that collecting straw was instead of their other work; rather it was in addition to their regular work. They explained that the reason for the decree was precisely so as not to diminish the Israelites' workload.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   וישב משה אל השם, Moses returned to G'd, etc. The verse must be understood in this order: "Why did You G'd not tell me at the time when You told me that You would harden Pharaoh's heart that this would involve additional hardship for the people? If You were to answer that the appointed time for relieving the burden of their servitude has not arrived yet, why did You send me already at this time? Moses implied that G'd should have waited with sending him on this mission until the actual slave labour of the Israelites had come to an end.
  We have a reaction by Moses to what G'd had told him previously, namely that the end of the redemption process was not yet at hand but that He, G'd, would advance the time for rescuing the Jewish people by saving them from their oppression. At the end of twelve months the Exodus itself would take place. Moses now asked: "why did You bring harm upon this people?" He meant that if G'd were to tell him that this suffering would advance the redemption, "why did You send me already now? You Yourself have told me that the only reason to commence the mission now was to relieve the people of having to perform slave labour. If as it now appeared, my mission was to be effective only at the time of the Exodus, why did You send me ?" The word זה (numerical value 12) in Moses' question was an allusion to the 12 months the people still had to wait for the redemption. Moses was clearly afraid that Pharaoh's most recent decree would be in effect for the 12 months until the redemption.
  Perhaps Moses also referred to the fact that amongst the Israelites there were those who had to perform slave labour, and others, such as the the tribe of Levi, who were free from that burden. Concerning the former group Moses asked: "why have You brought harm upon them?" Concerning the latter group he asked: "why did You send me on this mission?"
  Moses may also simply have asked: "why did You cause harm to Your people?" G'd's answer would have to be that the harm was the result of Moses' mission. To this Moses retorted: "Why is this (זה) that You have sent me on this mission?" Moses' adding of the word זה was his way of saying that this was why he had been unwilling to undertake the mission in the first place.
  
  Verse 23
  
   לדבר בשמך…והצל לא הצלת את עמך. "to speak in Your name…but You have not saved Your people." Moses added another argument to his previous ones. He wanted to know how it was possible that since he had spoken to this wicked king in the name of G'd, not only had He not responded but He had actually made things worse for the people whom Moses represented. He emphasised the word מאז to point out that Pharaoh's obstinacy appeared to have been a direct consequece of G'd's intervention through Moses. Clearly what Pharaoh did was motivated by his hatred for G'd. He was unparalleled in his rebellious behaviour against the king of the universe. Moses was amazed at G'd's apparent lack of jealousy of His reputation. Surely G'd now had an additional reason to redeem Israel immediately. Even if Israel did not merit redemption at this time due to its own merit, it had to be redeemed as a gesture against the blaspheming Pharaoh! The words והצל לא הצלת should be read as a question expressing Moses' amazement that G'd had not yet saved His people. Moses spoke of two "salvations," i.e. the one due to Israel's merit and the one due to Pharaoh's excesses.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   עתה תראה אשר אעשה לפרעה, "Now you are about to see what I shall do to Pharaoh, etc." The word עתה was G'd's answer to Moses' ומאז באתי, that G'd had made things worse for Israel than prior to Moses' appointment. G'd told Moses that not only would the additional hardships cease forthwith but also the hardships endured by the people up until then would come to an end immediately. We have already mentioned that slave labour ceased from the time the river Nile was struck and turned into blood. G'd made it plain to Moses that not only had he been wrong in assuming that the most recent decree of Pharaoh would last for twelve months, but even his previous decrees would become inoperative at once.
  G'd also answered Moses concerning what Moses had perceived as G'd's failure to respond to the way Pharaoh had slighted Him. This is why He told Moses that He would smite him until Pharaoh would dismiss the Israelites because he had experienced G'd's strong hand. We explained already that G'd delayed the final plague in order to punish Pharaoh for his blasphemy.
  וביד חזקה, "and with a mighty hand, etc." This second reference to G'd's mighty hand was a preview of the consternation G'd would cause at the time of the killing of the firstborn when the Torah reports that there was not a single house in Egypt in which not at least one person died at that time (compare <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> on Exodus 12,30 where it is explained that if there was no actual firstborn in a specific house at the time, the oldest would be killed). As a result of all this the Egyptians would not only dismiss the Israelites but would actually יגרשם, "expel them," as each Egyptian feared for his own life every minute (compare Exodus 12,33). G'd answered Moses' other argument as to why He had allowed things to get worse in the next פרשה.
  
  Verse 2
  
   וידבר אלוקים אל משה, G'd spoke sternly to Moses, etc. Why did the Torah not tell us what G'd said? Besides, why did G'd refer to Himself as י־ה־ו־ה after He had already told Moses who He was in 3,15? At that time He had added: "this is My name forever!" Why then did He have to tell Moses at this juncture אני ה׳?
  Inasmuch as Moses had spoken in an unseemly manner in the presence of the Almighty, something that he never would have dared to do if G'd had not previously shown him His smiling face as represented by the attribute י־ה־ו־ה, G'd had to show him a different attribute i.e. אלוקים before answering him in detail. The Torah introduces this chapter (from verse 2) by letting us know that G'd spoke in His capacity as the attribute of Justice, i.e. אלוקים.
  When G'd appears to make a turnabout at the end of our verse and refers to Himself as the attribute of Mercy this is in line with the principle expressed in <i>Berachot</i> 30 that "wherever there is גלה, joy in one's relationship with G'd, there must be רעדה, fear or dread, simultaneously." Although G'd had previously displayed His attribute of Mercy this did not mean that man should not display an appropriate degree of trepidation when facing Him.
  Our verse may also be understood thus: וידבר אלוקים, G'd spoke to Moses on matters of justice. Since G'd wanted Moses to know that his argument had been heard and considered, He added: אני השם. The use of this attribute at this juncture is equivalent to G'd asking Moses: "how could you attribute to Me a negative virtue such as being the originator of harm befalling My people? My outstanding characteristic is the sttribute of חסד, love, mercy, etc." Even the prophet Jeremiah has already made it plain that evil never originates with G'd (compare Lamentations 3,38: "Evil does not originate from G'd (but only Good)." The letter ו in front of the word והטוב in the verse in Lamentations refers to the fact that G'd does not interfere if a person wants to be good or evil. These decisions are up to each individual. It is up to man to choose good rather than evil. When you study the Bible you will find that whenever G'd mentions that the wicked are being remembered when they receive their deserts, the Bible underlines that the evil they are being punished for is of their own making. Compare in this respect Samuel I 24,13: "Wicked deeds come from wicked men." Jeremiah 2,19: "Your evil deeds will cause you to be disciplined." Isaiah 64,6: "You have made us melt because of our iniquities." There are many more similar quotations in the Bible. In view of this what gave Moses the right to assume that the Israelites' additional hardships were not due to something they had done themselves? It is also possible that the Israelites had not yet been adequately punished for whatever they had been guilty of prior to Moses' appointment. Perhaps some of the people had even become guilty of lack of faith after Moses had accredited himself as their prophet and leader. Your best proof that this was possible is the fact that the elders who set out to face Pharaoh together with Moses and Aaron dropped out on the way. Perhaps G'd would not have allowed Pharaoh to make the decree of withholding straw if the elders had not abandoned Moses on the way? At any rate Moses had been too quick to describe what happened to the people as being G'd's fault.
  Perhaps G'd simply responded to the two questions Moses had raised in their proper order. G'd responded harshly to the question: "Why have You let evil happen to the people? Moses' question/accusation had been inappropriate. The Torah was so concerned about Moses' honour that it did not spell out the fact that he had spoken in an inadmissible fashion. G'd responded kindly to Moses' question: "Why have You sent me?" G'd may even have hinted that in due course Moses would have to answer for his question and this is why the details are not spelled out here. When G'd reverted to "I am the merciful G'd," this was the answer to "Why have You sent me?" G'd meant that He had sent Moses because He could not longer sit idly by when His people were being tortured, and this is why He had decided to advance the date when they would cease to suffer by sending Moses now so that he could orchestrate a string of plagues with which G'd would hit the Egyptians. Moses would begin to see immediately how at least the slave labour would come to an end.
  Perhaps we can understand G'd manifesting Himself simultaneously as the attribute of Justice and the attribute of Mercy through reference to <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 3,6 where we find a discussion about what merit led to the Exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt. One of the sages quotes Psalms 68,7 מוציא אסירים בכושרות to mean that the word כושרות is a combined form of בכי, weeping, and שיר song. Accordingly, two attributes of G'd were at work during the Exodus. G'd applied His attribute of Justice to the Egyptians, hence weeping, whereas He applied His attribute of Mercy to the Israelites, hence song. In our verse we find a parallel to that when G'd is introduced as אלוקים i.e. His attitude to the Egyptians, and immediately afterwards as י־ה־ו־ה i.e. as His attitude to the Jews. We have a principle that once G'd allows the destructive forces free reign, those forces do not distinguish between the guilty and the innocent. This principle is especially apparent when the innocent and the guity dwell in close proximity to one another, something that was certainly the case with Jews and Egyptians at that time. Moses would have assumed that when G'd would bring the plagues on the Egyptians there would be a negative fallout also on the Israelites. This is why G'd hinted already at this time that whereas He would act as אלוקים against the Egyptians, He would at one and the same time act as השם towards the Jews so that they would not suffer from any of these plagues. All of this is spelled out later in greater detail such as that even in the midst of such a plague as darkness no darkness engulfed a single Jew (compare Exodus 10,23). The same occurred in 9,6 during the plague of pestilence when not a single one of the animals owned by Jews died.
  We have a tradition expressed in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 73,3 that "wicked people can cause the attribute of Mercy to be converted into the attribute of Justice." Our verse may refer to such an instance. It commences with the attribute of Justice, and continues by mentioning the attribute of Mercy. This is a way of the Torah telling us that the attribute of Mercy agreed with what the attribute of Justice was about to do to Pharaoh and the Egyptians.
  In the same <i>Midrash</i> where we are told that the wicked may cause the attribute of Mercy to co-operate with the attribute of Justice, we are also told "hail to the righteous who are able to convert even the attribute of Justice to co-operate with the attribute of Mercy." Accordingly, the Torah i.e. וידבר אלוקים ויאמר may tell us that the reason the verse commences with G'd as His attribute of Justice and then appearing as the attribute of Mercy is, that even the attribute of Mercy had agreed to the proposal of the attribute of Justice that the Jews should cease to perform slave labour and that the means to bring this about was the infliction of the plagues on the Egyptians.
  We may also see in this verse G'd's response to Moses' amazement why He had not reacted to the insult Pharaoh had committed when he denied His existence. The words וידבר אלוקים are directed at Pharaoh who was about to experience proof of G'd's existence by being subjected to a string of retributory plagues. G'd could have eliminated Pharaoh in a single plague if He had employed only the attribute of Justice. The reason He chose not to do so was that He wanted to acquaint Pharaoh with one of His other attributes, i.e. His long patience, ארך אפים. G'd is in no hurry to conclude His dealings with the recalcitrant sinners, giving them a chance to repent. This is why we have input by the attribute of Mercy even in His dealings with Pharaoh.
  On the other hand, G'd may have demonstrated that His harshness, i.e. וידבר אלוקים was reserved for the messenger, i.e. Moses. The Jewish people, i.e. the ones under the messenger's care, were not to suffer from the mistake their leader had made. This is why G'd continued: ויאמר השם.
  G'd may also have told Moses here that although He ought to employ the attribute of Justice against him at this stage, He did not do so because He kept in mind that that attribute was reserved for people who had committed a sin consciously (compare <i>Rosh Hashanah</i> 17 defining עובר על פשע). It is well known that Moses was extremely humble; as a result, G'd employed His own attribute of being נושא עון, demonstrating a forgiving nature, when reacting to Moses' error in this instance. He alluded to this when He told him אני השם.
  Finally, G'd may have revealed a mystical dimension of His to Moses when He explained that He could combine the attribute of Justice and the attribute of Mercy within Himself; this was a new aspect of G'd's unity which Moses had not been aware of.
  
  Verse 3
  
   וארא אל אברהם, I used to appear to Abraham, etc. The reason G'd did not lump the three patriarchs together but referred to each one by name is, that G'd's relationship with each one of the patriarchs was based on something unique to the patriarch in question. Abraham was unique in that he recognised his Creator without having had guidance from another human being. If someone had foreknowledge of the existence of G'd and His power, he does not deserve special credit for conducting himself in line with such knowledge. Every intelligent being would choose good over evil once he possessed such knowledge. Abraham did not possess any of these advantages which would have acquainted him with G'd's attributes. We have explained in connection with Isaiah 41,9 that the reason G'd called Abraham "the one who loves Me" was because his faith and morality was the result of his being a "self-starter." He cleaved to his faith in G'd in spite of the most demanding tests G'd subjected him to.
  Isaac possessed another unique characteristic; he had submitted without question to his father's request made in the name of G'd to give his life for that G'd. He did not even ask for an explanation of why he had to give his life.
  Jacob was unique in not wasting a single drop of semen by producing offspring which was not worthy of him. All his children remained loyal to his teachings.
  G'd explained to Moses that He had not revealed His attribute of the four-lettered name י־ה־ו־ה which He had revealed to Moses to any of these three patrirachs, but had revealed to them only His attribute שדי. G'd now told Moses that in view of the revelations He had already made to him, he had displayed ingratitude by speaking to Him in an inappropriate, critical manner.
  While it is true that in the Torah's report of G'd's communications with Abraham (Genesis 18,1) we find such an expression as וירא ה׳ אל אברהם, which seems to suggest that G'd revealed this aspect (the tetragram) of His attributes to Abraham, this is misleading. G'd may have dealt with him on that basis, but He had not confided that fact to Abraham, i.e. Abraham remained unaware of the difference between G'd in His capacity as אל שדי and G'd in His capacity as י־ה־ו־ה. This is what G'd meant when He said ושמי ה׳ לא נודעתי להם, "they were not informed of My name י־ה־ו־ה.
  G'd also meant that the patriarchs were not aware of the unique simultaneous effectiveness of both of G'd's attributes, as we mentioned in connection with verse two. The mystical dimension of this is recorded in Kings I 18,39 when the assembled people realised this after Eliyahu's demonstration on Mount Carmel. The prophet Zachariah also makes reference to this phenomenon in Zachariah 14,9 when he describes that in the futre והיה ה׳ אחד ושמו אחד, people will realise that in spite of G'd's many attributes these are all part of the same Essence. G'd's name and G'd's Essence will be perceived as an indivisible unit, unlike all creatures whose names do not necessarily reflect anything about their essence. It was inappropriate for G'd to say לא הודעתי, "I have not made known," since it was G'd's "name" who was speaking. This is why the Torah had to write: לא נודעתי "I have not become known."
  
  G'd may also have answered Moses' question why He had sent him on this mission before the time designated for the redemption. He explained that G'd's timetable is not absolute. When He had spoken to Abraham about a period of 400 years after which the Israelites would leave their exile and bondage with great wealth (Genesis 15,14), that timetable had been based on G'd having revealed His attribute אל שדי to Abraham. That attribute is one which is inflexible. It reflects the fact that G'd has set absolute limits to certain developments. However, that attribute is part of the overall attribute אלוקים, an attribute which governs G'd's manifestations in nature. G'd had not taught Abraham that by appealing to His attribute of רחמים, Mercy, the limitations which are part of the אל שדי syndrome can become more flexible. Since the prayers of the whole Jewish nation had reached His attribute of Mercy this is why He decided to respond before the time which had originally been designated for the redemption. G'd began by saying that he was י־ה־ו־ה in order to teach Moses that when one "knocks on the door of Mercy," such knocks are apt to evoke a response on the other side of that door.
  There may be yet another nuance in G'd's saying "I have appeared to Abraham." The implied message is G'd's rhetorical question: "How could I turn a deaf ear to a nation who are the offspring of My most beloved Patriarchs, to each of whom I made a point of revealing Myself separately at the appropriate time. The Torah made a point of not writing אברהם,יצחק,יעקב, but of interposing the word אל each time. This underlines that each one of the patriarchs merited a revelation in his own right. In spite of all this, G'd continues, I still did not reveal the aspect of the attribute of Mercy to these patriarchs. One of the reasons I could not do this was because I had not yet demonstrated how this Mercy is expressed in practice, such as now when I am about to change My timetable for the redemption.
  
  Verse 4
  
   וגם הקימותי את בריתי, "And I also maintain My covenant, etc." G'd may have added here (according to our previous commentary) that even if He had already fulfilled His covenant with the patriarchs, they still would not have become privy to the degree of revelation that Moses had already now become privy to.
  Put simply, G'd explains to Moses in our verse that He owed the patriarchs something over and beyond His having revealed Himself to the patriarchs as the אל שדי. That something was the fulfilment of His promise/oath that the people of Israel would be redeemed from bondage. The time had now arrived for that promise to be kept; G'd also explained to Moses why he had to wait for the redemption somewhat longer, i.e. that G'd now invoked His מדת הרחמים. G'd was afraid that Moses would not have the emotional fortitude to pursue his mission with all the necessary vigour when he saw Pharaoh's obstinacy, or when he would face the pursuing Egyptian cavalry behind him and the sea in front; G'd therefore explained to Moses that the purpose of the redemption was not only the Exodus but also the conquest of the Holy Land.
  את ארץ מגוריהם, "the land in which they (the patriarchs) used to sojourn." Why did the Torah not content itself with describing the land the patriarchs had lived in as "the land of Canaan?" Why did the words את ארץ מגוריהם have to be added? Perhaps the Torah wanted to make us aware that the status of being aliens (which was part of the period of 400 years G'd had spoken to Abraham about) had already commenced during the lifetime of the patriarchs. This would have a great bearing on the timing of the Exodus. Still, this would leave open why the Torah had to use the word את twice when referring to that land. Use of that word creates the impression that the land of Canaan and the land in which the patriarchs sojourned were two different countries. Perhaps the Torah wanted to include the land of the Philistines [the coastal strip including Gaza, seeing that the Philistines were not of Canaanitic descent Ed.]. I have already explained this on Genesis 26,3.
  
  Verse 5
  
   וגם אני שמעתי את נאקת בני ישראל, "I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, etc." The word וגם, "and also," refers to something over and beyond the prayers of the Israelites to the attribute of Mercy. In addition to the prayers of the Israelites and G'd's love for the patriarchs, there was a third consideration which had a bearing on G'd's timetable for the redemption, namely the outcry of the Israelites due to the torture they were experiencing. This third element is referred to by G'd in our verse by the words: וגם אני, "also I." G'd reveals His name of אני as an aspect of the attribute of Mercy. Previously, this name had only appeared in conjunction with the tetragram. G'd revealed that there are occasions when people's groanings even when not accompanied by verbalised prayer reach the attribute of Mercy and evoke a response. This is why He added אשר מצרים מעבידים אותם, "the manner in which the Egyptians have enslaved them." I refer the reader to my comments on Exodus 2,23 in this respect.
  ואזכר את בריתי, "I have remembered My covenant." G'd means that He remembered both parts of the covenant, i.e. to redeem the people and to bring them to the Holy Land. [This had been a covenant with the patriarchs. What is new is that the present generation of Israelites would be the ones who would experience realisation of that covenant.] In this instance G'd spoke about a covenant which had not yet been spelled out but which follows immediately in the next four verses. G'd repeats the covenant only as an explanation of why He has advanced the date it is to become effective. The commentators who understand this covenant as a promise to punish the Egyptians are wrong; none of this has been mentioned in the verse following this declaration.
  
  Verse 6
  
   לכן אמור לבני ישראל אני ה׳. "Therefore, say to the Israelites: 'I am י־ה־ו־ה.'" Moses was to tell the Israelites in the name of G'd that He was the attribute of Mercy and that He had decided to invoke this attribute on their behalf. As a result, He would lead them out of Egypt and perform the other stages which would complete the process of redemption. 
  The word לכן is a form of an oath as we know from Ezekiel 20,30-42. In that instance the prophet refers to our verse as something concerning which G'd had said: "I have raised My hand," i.e. a clear form of an oath.
  G'd enumerates the steps of the redemption. 1) First "I will take you out from beneath the hard labour of Egypt;" this is the removal of the slave labour performed for the Egyptians. It would commence immediately with the plague of blood. Although this resulted in the dispersal of the taskmasters, the Israelites continued to perform light duty tasks. 2) "I will save you from their bondage;" this referred to the remaining kind of labour the Israelites performed for the Egyptians. 3) "I will liberate you;" this refers to the actual departure of the Israelites from the country. This also includes the splitting of the sea as the departure would have been meaningless without that final stage. The word וגאלתי must refer to a liberation which is not followed by pursuit. Following that stage the Jewish people would experience ולקחתי אתכם לי לעם," I will take you to be My people" which is a reference to the revelation at Mount Sinai when G'd gave us the Torah. At that point G'd would be able to say that: "I have truly become your G'd."
  These latter words may also refer to Moses' prayer in Exodus 33,16 which <i>Berachot</i> 7 interprets to mean that G'd should not reveal Himself to any other nation nor give them prophets. The operative word in והייתי לכם לאלוקים then would be לכם, "for you exclusively."
  One could also understand this verse as speaking of four separate redemptions as does <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 6,4. This may be alluded to in G'd first again repeating His attribute as the tetragram. Accordingly, the four activities of which G'd speaks here would each be a redemption from a different decree of Pharaoh. The words "I shall be your G'd" would then refer to G'd having proved that He kept His promise. The name אלוקים often occurs as symbolic of truth and honesty. The knowledge of G'd as the attribute of Mercy will become widespread amongst the people as a result of these four redemptions.
  
  Verse 7
  
   וידעתם כי אני ה׳ אלוקיכם, "you will know that I י־ה־ו־ה am the Lord your G'd." G'd means that the Israelites will now receive clear evidence which attribute of G'd it is that will set in motion the various steps of the redemption. They will also realise in retrospect that the attribute of Mercy had been predominant in all of G'd's actions.
  
  Verse 8
  
   והבאתי אתכם אל הארץ, "And I shall bring you to the land, etc." It is difficult to reconcile this promise with our tradition that G'd speaks the unvarnished truth when we know it to be a fact that the generation G'd was addressing at that time did not get to the Holy Land. Only the children of that generation actually crossed the Jordan and took possession of the land of Canaan. Every one of the people who left Egypt at an age of twenty or over died on the way. Our problem is even more serious in view of the statement of our sages in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 64 that the word לכן in 6,6, is a form of an oath.
  I believe that G'd Himself was already aware of this problem and that is why He prefaced the statement "I will bring you to the land, etc," with the words: "you will know that I am the merciful G'd who is about to take you out from under the slave labour of Egypt." The two statements are to be considered as conditions. What G'd meant was simply this. "Provided that you will have realised that I am the One who takes you out of Egypt and that I have demonstrated to be the merciful G'd,-then you will also experience that I shall bring you to the land which I have sworn to your forefathers and will give it to you as an inheritance." G'd was very careful to insert this condition in the very midst of the promise He made and not only as an afterthought. In the event that the Israelites would not fulfil the conditions laid down history would have to take its course in accordance with their conduct.
  
  Verse 9
  
   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."
  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.
  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.
  
  Verse 10
  
  ויאמר…. בא דבר אל פרעה, He said:" come and speak sternly with Pharaoh, etc." Moses was to tell Pharaoh that G'd had instructed him to speak to Pharaoh and to demand that he should let the Jewish people depart from his land. The letter ו at the beginning of the word וישלח is significant because it does not make sense as a conjunctive letter; nothing else had been demanded prior to that in the conversation described. It must therefore refer to Moses telling Pharaoh that his first instruction had been to tell him that he spoke at the behest of G'd. It was quite an event that an ordinary individual should present himself at court without invitation and make demands on the Monarch. The manner in which these demands were to be made was even more astounding.
  Moreover, it appears that Moses was to demand not only that Pharaoh should not object if the Israelites would leave of their own accord, but he was to demand that Pharaoh actually give them a "send-off."
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   לפני ה׳ לאמור הן בני ישראל לא שמעו אלי, in G'd's presence, saying: "here the Israelites do not listen to me, etc." What is the meaning of the word לאמור in this context? Who was G'd to communicate Moses' comments to? Perhaps we should not understand this verse as Moses' contemplating to refuse this mission but as a comment addressed to himself, bemoaning his failure thus far. The word לאמור could be a rhetorical comment Moses made that instead of results, all his attempts of speaking to Pharaoh would remain just that, words.
  Moses may also have alluded to his inability to speak effectively due to his stammer which had made even the Israelites unwilling to respond to him. He implied that G'd should heal his disability in order to make him a more effective spokesman.
  הן בני ישראל לא שמעו, "even the children of Israel have not listened, etc." The logic expressed by Moses in this verse seems untenable if Moses accepted the Torah's statement in verse nine that the reason the Israelites did not respond to Moses was their קצר רוח, their understandable impatience. How could Moses compare Pharaoh's potentially negative response to that of the Israelites? What comparable pressure had Pharaoh been under?
  Perhaps Moses' logic is valid when we consider some other aspects. While it is true that the Israelites suffered from an impatient state of mind, there were other reasons why they should have listened to Moses. The most important such reason was their faith in G'd. Secondly, this inherent faith should have been reinforced by the good news Moses had brought them. When contrasted with these two factors which certainly did not influence Pharaoh who had blasphemed "who is G'd?", the fact that the Israelites did not listen to him made it seem totally unjustified to expect that Pharaoh should take Moses' demands seriously. Moses suggested that the קצר רוח displayed by the Israelites was minor compared to the קצר רוח which Pharaoh would display once he heard Moses' demands.
  The reason Moses added at this juncture that he had a stammer was because he felt this would reinforce Pharaoh's rejection of anything he had to say. Pharaoh would reason- at least to himself- that if the powerful G'd that Moses spoke about had not even cured his spokesman of a simple speech defect, it was laughable to think that He could impose His will on the mightiest ruler in the world. In fact, if this kind of reasoning were to be conveyed to the Israelites, it might further undermine their faith in G'd.
  There was another reason for Moses' argument at this point. Whereas in Exodus 4,16 G'd had countered Moses' argument about his stammer by appointing Aaron as his mouthpiece, this was only in order to convey G'd's message to Moses to the Jewish people. We find confirmation of this in 4,30. However, already in 5,1 we find that Moses himself spoke in his mission to Pharaoh (at least also). If we look for confirmation of this thought in the text we may find it in the way Moses describes the Israelites' attitude to him and the attitude he expects from Pharaoh. Concerning Israel he said: "they did not listen to me" seeing Israel only heard the voice of Aaron. When describing Pharaoh's anticipated reaction Moses says ישמעני "he will hear me," meaning he will hear Moses' defective speech. It is important to remember this little detail in order to facilitate understanding of what is still to come.
  
  Verse 13
  
   וידבר ה׳ אל משה ואל אהרון, G'd spoke to Moses and to Aaron, etc. First of all we need to know what G'd said to them, secondly what did the Torah mean when it added :"He commanded them to the children of Israel and to Pharaoh, etc." According to <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 7,3 G'd informed Moses and Aaron about how intractable the people could be and how they were apt to heap abuse on their leaders. Moses and Aaron should therefore lead them בנחת, in an easy-going manner. G'd also told Moses and Aaron not to be disrespectul to Royalty, i.e. to the person of Pharaoh. These comments are purely homiletical. Furthermore, where is G'd's response to Moses who had questioned the point of this whole mission? The very least G'd could have told Moses was that his logic was faulty! Whereas it is possible to construe G'd's silence as disapproval of Moses' reasoning, we cannot do so in this instance. Let us look for a moment at the verse that follows. Assuming that Moses had not been concerned about what G'd would answer him in response to his question "how can Pharaoh listen to me if even the Israelites do not listen to me?" Why wouldn't G'd have continued immediately with what He had to say in verse 29? What is the whole point of the Torah repeating Moses' question again in 6,29-30 unless Moses had not received an answer from G'd to his קל וחומר, his logical argument?
  In view of the above I believe the correct explanation is that G'd did reply to Moses' argument that the Israelites had not listened to him, and even to his second argument, that Pharaoh would most certainly not listen to him either as long as he was still afflicted with his speech defect. We need to understand G'd's reply thus: וידבר ה׳ אל משה ואהרון, G'd equated Moses with Aaron in their mission so that Aaron would speak to Pharaoh (just as he had spoken to the Israelites as Moses' mouthpiece) Seeing that thus far the Israelites had not listened to either Aaron or Moses ויצום, He commanded them, He appointed them as "kings" over the Israelites so that the people would accept their authority forthwith. We find something similar in Samuel I 13,14 where Samuel told King Saul that he would be supplanted and that G'd had looked for someone else (David) whom "G'd appointed as leader for His people" i.e. ויצווהו ה לנגיד על עמו. 
  When G'd added the words להוציא את בני ישראל, He meant that the reason Moses and Aaron would have to wield the kind of authority only a king can have was in order that He should be able to take the children of Israel out of Egypt. Moses would have the authority to deal with anyone who refused to leave Egypt, for instance. At the same time Moses' and Aaron's authority would also ensure that Pharaoh could not refuse them. It is even possible that when Moses referred to the Israelites who had not listened to him, he referred to his lack of legal authority to force them to leave Egypt when the time came, and that he was already aware that there would be such Jews. When we consider all this, G'd did indeed answer Moses' claim that the Israelites did not listen to him by saying that as of now they would be under orders to listen to him. At the same time, G'd instructed Moses not to address Pharaoh as someone who appeals to him but as someone who ordered Pharaoh to carry out his instructions.
  
  Verse 14
  
   אלה ראשי בית אבותם, These are the heads of the various families, etc. The reason the family background of Moses is listed here is in accordance with the principle that only people whose genealogy can be traced back directly to Jacob are fit to be appointed as kings over Israel. This is the reason the Torah did not state the יחוס of Moses and Aaron until they had been given Royal authority. This is all still part of the answer of G'd to Moses' comment that the Israelites did not and would not listen to him.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   הוא אהרון ומשה, they are the same Aaron and Moses, etc. The ones whose genealogy has been traced in our paragraph are the ones whom G'd gave the authority to orchestrate the Exodus, etc.
  
  Verse 27
  
   הם המדברים אל פרעה מלך מצרים, they were the ones who talked tough to Pharaoh the king of Egypt. They spoke to him as does a king who issues decrees. The Torah also wanted to remind us that though G'd had instructed Moses to speak, Aaron spoke also, as I shall explain in greater detail on verse 28.
  הוא משה ואהרון, they are the same Moses and Aaron, etc. The Torah wants to convey that Moses and Aaron enjoyed equal status; this is why sometimes Aaron is mentioned first whereas other times Moses is mentioned first. The Torah makes this point doubly clear by referring to both of them in the singular i.e. הוא, as opposed to הם. The Torah uses the plural also i.e. הם המדברים. This is because Moses and Aaron did not speak simultaneously but they alternated when speaking to Pharaoh.
  
  Verse 28
  
   ויהי ביום דבר ה׳ אל משה, It was on the day that G'd spoke to Moses. The Torah here wants to correct any mistaken impression that the equality of Moses and Aaron had already existed on the day G'd told Moses while still in Midian (Exodus 4,14) that his brother Aaron was on the way to met him. This is why the Torah adds here: "On the day G'd spoke to Moses in the land of Egypt," as if to say: "on that day Moses and Aaron were of equal stature." 
  The Torah therefore had good reason to repeat that G'd told Moses: "I am the G'd י־ה־ו־ה, speak sternly to Pharaoh." The repetition was meant to reassure Moses that he could rely on what G'd had told him. He was to go and speak to Pharaoh personally. In other words, nothing had changed since the first time G'd had identified Himself to Moses as the tetragram at the beginning of our portion. I explained that at that point G'd had not yet appointed Aaron to be Moses' mouthpiece except when Moses wanted to say something to the Israelites. What happened in the meantime was that Moses repeated his argument that he had a speech defect and was not suited to speak in public after G'd had told him to speak to Pharaoh. Hence G'd authorised Aaron to speak to Pharaoh also in 7,1. As a result Aaron had become Moses' equal concerning what they had to tell Pharaoh. Inasmuch as Moses had not previously complained about his not being fit to speak to Pharaoh there had been no need for G'd to appoint Aaron as His spokesman.
  All the above shows G'd's concern to employ Moses as His exclusive messenger. He had co-opted Aaron only when Moses had raised repeated objections. Perhaps the reason that our verse employs the word ויהי, which always reflects something regrettable, is to let us know how much G'd regretted the necessity of having Aaron share what was originally meant to be Moses' exclusive mission. The word ויהי may therefore suggest that if Moses had indeed remained G'd's sole messenger the quality of the redemption might have been different; some of the side-effects of the incomplete redemption which led to such disasters as the golden calf episode might never have occurred, for instance.
  Perhaps the reason that the editor of this paragraph in the Torah saw fit to write our verse as a paragraph by itself and not as the beginning of chapter seven or even before verse eight in chapter seven was, that he wanted us to know that G'd was saddened by the fact that He had to appoint someone to share Moses' mission with him. Had Moses been the only one, he himself might have entered the Holy Land as leader of the people as had been G'd's original intention. He might have lived to participate in the building of the Holy Temple which Solomon built over 400 years after Moses' death. That Temple might then have endured forever.
  It is also possible that the Torah made a special paragraph out of this single verse in order to tell us that Aaron's status was equal to Moses as of that day in Egypt, and that even previously when G'd had announced to Moses that he would be Moses' spokesman, this did not imply equal status. When Aaron would speak alone G'd describes his position as "he will be your prophet," or similarly when the Torah states: "he will speak to Pharaoh."
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ולא ישמע אליכם פרעה, "and Pharaoh will not listen to you." Why did the Torah have to say that Pharaoh would not listen to Moses and Aaron after G'd had already said in verse three that He would harden the heart of Pharaoh? We also need to understand what G'd meant when He spoke about placing His hand on Egypt, which appears to mean something over and beyond the plagues with which G'd will strike Pharaoh and the Egyptians.
  I believe that we must understand the verse thus: First of all, G'd announces that He would harden Pharaoh's heart as a result of which He would bring many plagues upon him. The plagues would prove counterproductive (initally) and make Pharaoh even more obstinate, adding still more sins to his already considerable culpability. Eventually, he would not even want to listen to what Moses and Aaron had been instructed to tell him. This is in fact what happened in 10,28 when Pharaoh bans Moses and Aaron from appearing again in His presence. G'd announces to Moses already at this point that when that stage will be reached it would be the limit of obstinacy that Pharaoh is allowed. Immediately after that ban G'd brought the final plague of the dying of the Egyptian firstborns upon him, as a result of which he would not only release the Israelites but expel them.
  We find confirmation of this meaning of the word "My hand," when we read in Chronicles I 21,16 that David observed the angel of death with drawn sword in "his hand." In our instance, G'd refers to the fact that He personally would bring this plague upon Pharaoh by describing His activity as ידי, "My hand." This is why the <i>Mechilta</i> on Exodus 11,4 states that He Himself would be active as distinct from any of His agents. G'd also alluded to the destruction He would bring upon the various Egyptian deities at that time.
  When we keep all this in mind we can understand Moses' comment that "I will not continue to see your face," which appears as somewhat high-handed at first. Whence did Moses know that G'd would not send him to speak to Pharaoh again in spite of Pharaoh's threat? The answer is that Moses had been told already in our verse exactly how things would develop. Instead of questioning Moses' statement we should congratulate him on recognising that Pharaoh had reached the end of his rope when he forbade Moses and Aaron to appear before him and threatened to have them executed in the event they would come to him again. Up until then Pharaoh had only refused to listen to G'd's instructions. The moment he even refused to grant an interview to G'd's messengers he had forfeited all further consideration. Actually, this was already the second allusion to the eventual slaying of the firstborn, the first time being when G'd referred to "My firstborn, Israel," as I have demonstrated in my commentary on 4,22.
  והוצאתי את צבאותי את עמי, "I will take out My hosts, My people, etc." Who exactly are the ones G'd describes as צבאותי, "My hosts?" If the reference is to the Israelites, the Torah should have written: את צבאות עמי, "the hosts who are My people." Perhaps G'd wanted to illustrate the superior stature of the Israelites, i.e. that of all of G'd's hosts none could compare to His people Israel. Had the Torah used the words: את צבאות עמי, the impression would have been created that G'd has many hosts, the Israelites being merely one of many. By saying צבאותי, further identification became unnecessary as only one people qualified for such a description. Subsequently the Torah does identify G'd's people by mentioning Israel by name. The whole verse can be understood according to the classic principle of כלל ופרט. Whenever that rule is applied the פרט, i.e. the details are automatically closely related to what is stated in the כלל, the subject in the general statement, i.e. only the Israelites could have been meant in the description צבאותי. The Torah therefore wanted the world to know that as of that moment whenever mention is made of G'd's hosts only the Israelites are meant.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ויעש משה ואהרון…כן עשו, Moses and Aaron did (as G'd had commanded)..so they did. Why does this verse mention twice that Moses and Aaron did what G'd had commanded them to do? The Torah may be telling us that Moses and Aaron carried out their mission on two levels. 1) The carried out all those instructions of G'd that made sense to them. 2) They tried to understand G'd's purpose in every detail of the instructions they received. By not deviating in a single detail from the instructions they had received, Moses and Aaron proved that their only concern was to carry out G'd's intention to the letter.
  The Torah may also testify here that Moses and Aaron had no ulterior motives in carrying out any details of G'd's instructions. We find a parallel to this in Deut. 6,25 where the Torah states that carrying out G'd's laws will be considered צדקה, righteousness for us, if we perform them כאשר צונו, "as He has commanded us." It is not enough to merely carry out G'd's instructions, but in order to qualify for praise one must carry them out precisely as He commanded us. In our verse the Torah testifies that this is what Moses and Aaron did.
  Another point that our verse wanted to mention is that both Moses and Aaron did not miss any opportunity to mention G'd every time they did anything. The Torah underlines the word עשו to show that Moses and Aaron carried out G'd's instructions immediately after they had received them.
  
  Verse 7
  
   בדברם אל פרעה, when they spoke to Pharaoh. The word בדברם refers to the first day Moses and Aaron spoke to Pharaoh. They were certainly somewhat older as time went on.
  
  Verse 8
  
  -9. לאמור…כי ידגר אלכם פרעה, to say: "when Pharaoh will say to you, etc." The reason the Torah adds the word לאמור is to inform us that they had been allowed to inform Pharaoh that they would perform the miracles in G'd's name. Unless such permission had been granted explicitly, they would have been forbidden to reveal this even in response to a question by Pharaoh. We have learned in <i>Yuma</i> 4 that under normal circumstances one is not to reveal the source of one's information unless specifically authorised to do so. The first time the Torah writes לאמור here it is to give Moses and Aaron permission to reveal this information. The Torah repeats the word לאמור once more in order to show that G'd ordered Moses and Aaron to reveal this information.
  Another piece of information contained in this verse (according to <i>Torat Kohanim</i> is 1) is that wherever the Torah writes: "to Moses and Aaron," the meaning is that Moses should tell Aaron to carry out G'd's instructions. This piece of exegesis is derived from the very word לאמור here. It means that unlike your impression that G'd spoke to both Moses and Aaron simultaneously, the truth is that G'd spoke to Moses to relay the information to Aaron. The reason that the Torah makes it appear as if G'd had spoken to both of them simultaneously is only to tell us that the commandment performed by Aaron in relaying the information to Pharaoh was equal in importance to Moses having performed his part of the commandment.
  פרעה לאמור, תנו לכם מופת, Pharaoh saying: "perform a miracle for your accreditation," the reason the Torah inserts the word לאמור in addition to already having quoted Pharaoh as כי ידבר, was to tell Moses not to volunteer a miracle until Pharaoh actually asked for it. At that point they were to perform the miracle described in our verse. Alternatively, if Pharaoh challenged Moses and Aaron about the authenticity of their mission Moses would also be entitled to tell Aaron to demonstrate the miracle described here.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויעשו כן כאשר צוה, They did as G'd had commanded, etc. The reason the Torah writes the words כן כאשר, i.e. repeating basically the same word is, because it tells us that Moses and Aaron a) did what G'd had told them to, b) did not do so until Pharaoh had requested the miracle from them.
  The Torah also wanted us to know that though anyone who performs miracles immediately raises his own image in the eyes of the onlookers, Moses and Aaron had no such considerations. They did what they did only at the behest of G'd. It is the mark of the truly righteous not to perform their own will but to perform what they perceive to be G'd's will.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ויאמר ה׳ אל משה כבד לב פרעה, G'd said to Moses: "Pharaoh's heart is stubborn, etc." What did G'd tell Moses here that he did not already know? Perhaps Pharaoh had not refused the request to let the Israelites go in so many words, but had merely remained silent after watching Aaron's demonstration. G'd informed Moses that the meaning of this silence was that Pharaoh refused to release the Israelites and did not even think it necessary to say so.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   ואמרת אליו ה׳..שלחני אליך, "Say to him: G'd.. has sent me to you, etc." This entire verse appears to be superfluous. Verse 17 would have been quite adequate. Pharaoh did not need to be told that G'd had sent Moses! Perhaps the Torah wanted to tell us that Pharaoh had objected to being met by Moses at a time when he performed his morning ritual. Moses was to explain that he had not intended to invade Pharaoh's privacy but had been commanded by G'd to do so. Moses was to imply that instructions from the Supreme G'd must be carried out immediately.
  G'd may have intended another lesson for Pharaoh, one which is alluded to in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 8,1 based on Ezekiel 29,3 where Pharaoh is described as claiming that he had made the river Nile and that he owned it. Since Pharaoh had thus elevated himself to the level of a deity, he had to leave the palace every morning and answer a call of nature where he would not be seen in order that he could maintain the myth of being a god. G'd exploded this myth by sending Moses to him at the time and place Pharaoh had reserved for his very human needs. Moses first told Pharaoh that the G'd of the Hebrews was well aware of his whereabouts and wanted him to know this and embarass him with this knowledge. Pharaoh was now under threat that his myth might be shattered if Moses were to tell his servants of their master's weakness. When G'd added that so far Pharaoh had not listened to him, He wanted Pharaoh to know that though the latter had not specifically refused Moses' latest demand, G'd could read his thoughts.
  The words "the G'd of the Hebrews has sent me to you," may also be a way of telling Pharaoh that the demand to release the Israelites need not be repeated before Moses would strike the river Nile and turn it into blood. The word כה was quite enough to show us that the plague that follows was the result of the demand to let the Israelites go which Pharaoh had thus far ignored. After all, Moses had previously identified himself and Pharaoh had ignored the demand to dismiss the Israelites. If Pharaoh thought that the fact that he had not yet been smitten for his refusal was a sign that G'd's threats were not to be taken seriously, he would find out immediately how wrong he had been.
  
  Verse 17
  
   בזאת תדע כי אני ה׳, "In this you shall know that I am י־ה־ו־ה." The reason G'd used the plague of blood to prove to Pharaoh that He was who He said He was, is understandable when we consider <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 9,9 according to which the Egyptians looked upon the Nile as a benevolent deity. By striking this deity first and turning it into a source of curse instead of a source of life, G'd demonstrated that He owned the Nile. According to the <i>Zohar</i> volume 3 page 297 the tetragram implies the eternity of G'd. He had preceded the river Nile just as He had preceded every other phenomenon in the world.
  G'd also hinted at His attribute of Mercy when He smote the river. He wanted to give Pharaoh a chance to repent when the latter realised His awesome power as manifested by His turning the river into blood. If not for the attribute of Mercy as represented by the tetragram, G'd would have already killed Pharaoh outright at this stage. The words בזאת תדע therefore refer to G'd's attribute of Mercy.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויעשו כן משה ואהרן, Moses and Aaron did so precisely, etc. This means that when Moses and Aaron smote the river the result was that G'd's will was done and the result was the same as if G'd Himself had struck the river. Please read what I have already written on verse six concerning such expressions in the Torah, as well as what I shall be writing on the verse following.
  לעיני פרעה ולעיני עבדיו, before the eyes of Pharaoh and the eyes of his servants. Although Moses issued the warning to Pharaoh when the latter was unaccompanied because he hid his need to answer calls of nature, the Torah tells us that G'd delayed implementing the plague until it could be done publicly in the presence of Pharaoh's servants. While it is true that the text does not mention this, it is most likely that G'd had mentioned this to Moses for reasons of maximum effect. It is even possible that the words כן כאשר צוה, "exactly as He commanded," refer to words G'd had told Moses but which were not spelled out in our text.
  
  Verse 21
  
   והדגה…מתה, and the fish…died; the Torah reports this detail to show that the Egyptians realised that the plague was not just a sleight of hand, i.e. make-believe. The blood would kill the people who drank it (in quantities). The fact that the river stank proved that the plague was for real. When the Torah adds ויהי הדם בכל ארץ מצרים, "the blood persisted throughout the land of Egypt," the reference is to bath-houses, bathtubs, etc. Perhaps the Torah wanted to tell us that the Egyptians took the "blood" from one location to another. If the "blood" had been the result of witch-craft it would have reverted to water as soon as it had been removed from the sphere of the sorcerer who had performed the trick (compare <i>Zohar</i> volume 2 page 192). The Torah tells us that the Egyptians realised that this phenomenon was something over and above the kind they were used to see their own sorcerers perform.
  
  Verse 22
  
   ויעשו כן חרטומי מצרים, The Egyptian sorcerers did likewise, etc. If we follow the sages in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 9,11 according to whom all the waters in Egypt were struck, where did the Egyptian sorcerers practice their art and convert water into blood? Perhaps only visible sources of water had been turned into blood, whereas subterranean water had remained in its original state. This would explain why the Torah described the Egyptians as digging for water in verse 24.
  It is also possible that the sorcerers used the water which the Israelites had sold to the Egyptians according to <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 9,10. Although we have explained that the average Egyptian had already realised that the miracle performed by Moses and Aaron was real, Pharaoh's attitude remained obstinate and he refused to see a qualitative difference between the magic of his own magicians and that of Moses and Aaron. This is why he did not examine if what his magicians had done was more than make-believe.
  
  Verse 23
  
   ויפן ..ולא שת לבו, He turned…and did not take due notice of this, etc. The Torah is careful not to write that Pharaoh expressly refused to let the Israelites depart; Pharaoh was very anxious not to expose himself to additional retribution. We will explain on 8,4, why Pharaoh had not asked Moses and Aaron in this case to pray on his behalf and to remove the plague.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   וימלא שבעת ימים, Seven days went by, etc. The word וימלא, "became full," refers to the pre-arranged length G'd had ordained for the plague. After that period had elapsed, G'd told Moses to go and see Pharaoh again (verse 26). The Torah tells us this detail to show us the obstinacy of Pharaoh who could let an entire week go by without making an effort to somehow have this plague terminated. All of this is in accordance with an opinion expressed in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 9,12 that Moses spent 24 days warning Pharaoh of the impending plague whereas once the plague materialised it remained in effect for seven days. According to the opinion that it was the other way around, i.e. that Moses warned Pharaoh of the impending plague for seven days running, whereas once the plague materialised it lasted for 24 days, the seven days mentioned here refer to the period of warning. The plague then would have remained in effect for the remainder of the month. The problem with this explanation is the plague of darkness which is described as being intense for three days (10,22). Perhaps both the plague of darkness and the plague of blood were exceptions and the author of the opinion that the plagues remained in effect for 24 days agrees that the water in the river did not remain blood for 24 days on end. This would account for the fact that the Torah mentions a time frame only in the case of those two plagues. I believe that even though G'd had set a time-limit for each plague, Moses' prayer would have sufficed to terminate the plague sooner.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   ואם מאן אתה, "if you should refuse, etc." We learn from here that for a warning to be legally valid it must be delivered immediately preceding the sin.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   העתירו אל ה׳, "Implore G'd, etc." Why did Pharaoh not simply go to his home as he had done during the first plague? After all, his magicians had demonstrated in both instances that they were able to duplicate Moses' and Aaron's magic? Actually, we should interpret Pharaoh's beliefs as reflected by his reactions. He would not have called in Moses and Aaron to pray for him unless he had been afraid of the deathly effect of the plague in question.
  The plague of blood did not represent a threat to life as people could still their thirst by either digging for water in the vicinity of the river or buying same from the Israelites. As a result, Pharaoh did not become overly agitated at that plague.
  The plague of frogs contained two elements. 1) It was accompanied by an overpowering noise orchestrated by all those frogs; 2) the frogs invaded people's entrails as we know from 7,29 "and the frogs shall come upon you, etc." This plague was very frightening, no one being certain of his survival. These considerations are what prompted Pharaoh to implore Moses to remove this plague accompanied by a promise that he would release the Israelites to offer sacrifices to their G'd. When he said: ממני, he referred to his entrails, which was the most frightening aspect of the plague. 
  Pharaoh did not ask Moses for removal of the third plague, the insects, even though he had watched his magicians' impotence and admission that this plague was indeed a "finger of G'd;" his heart remained obstinate as the plague, painful though it was, did not constitute a danger to life.
  The fourth plague, that of wild animals invading Egypt's urban areas was truly fear-inspiring and resulted in Pharaoh instructing Moses and Aaron to go and take the Israelites to sacrifice to their G'd within the country. For the first time, Pharaoh was prepared to negotiate where this could take place. At any rate, he pleaded with Moses to pray on his behalf.
  The plague of pestilence did not move Pharaoh particularly as its main effect was on the animals, though none of the livestock owned by the Israelites died. Pharaoh remained obstinate, did not release the Israelites and did not ask Moses to pray to stop the plague.
  The sixth plague, painful boils on the skin, also did not move Pharaoh to prayer as it was not a life-threatening situation although for the first time even his magicians did not remain immune.
  The plague of hail was a major spectacle not only ruining the crops but killing people who had not heeded G'd's warning. For the first time Pharaoh reacted by admitting that he and his people had sinned against G'd. He pleaded with Moses to pray and not only promised to release the Israelites but did so without attaching conditions.
  During the eighth plague, the locusts, the Torah quotes Pharaoh's alarm when, for the first time, his servants move him to negotiate the Israelites' release before the onset of the plague. Negotiations having broken down, the plague does occur and Pharaoh pleads for G'd "to remove this death."
  We do not find that Pharaoh asked Moses to pray on his behalf during the plague of darkness; perhaps this was due to his attempt during the first three days of that plague to counter it by lighting all kinds of lanterns, etc. During the following three days when no one could even rise from his seat, Pharaoh was incommunicado and could not send a messenger to call Moses to intercede on his behalf. After the seven days of darkness were complete, Pharaoh immediately sent for Moses to tell him that he and his people could leave and that they only had to leave their livestock behind as insurance that they would return. Moses immediately refused the condition. Seeing that the plague of darkness was already over, there was no point in asking Moses to pray for its removal.
  
  Verse 5
  
   התפאר עלי, "have this glory over me, etc." What exactly did Moses mean by the expression התפאר עלי? If what he meant was that even if Pharaoh would ask for an immediate removal of the frogs this would constitute his glory, the result of Pharaoh asking that the frogs be removed only on the morrow would indicate that he was not interested in besting Moses; Moses' confirmation: "as you have said," would make little sense in that scenario. We also need to analyse why Moses did not say מתי אעתיר לך which we would have expected, but said למתי וגו׳?
  I believe Moses wanted to demonstrate that G'd tries to oblige those who are dear to Him so that it was beyond his imagination that G'd would forsake him (not do what he promised). He did this by contrasting the relationship between man and G'd with that of slave and master. When a slave asks a favour from his master he will be happy if his master grants the favour at all and it would not occur to him to attach conditions as to the time when such a favour has to be granted. He will be even less likely to ask for the date of such a favour to be advanced or delayed, but will await the time when he judges his master to be in a favourable frame of mind to grant his request. He will be most happy if his request is granted at the time it pleases his master. Not so the relationship between Moses and G'd. Moses was anxious to demonstrate to Pharaoh that a) he could offer a prayer at any time; b) his prayer would not only be granted but that he could attach conditions as to the "when" of G'd's response. This is why he asked Pharaoh what time or day he wanted him to pray that the frogs should disappear. Pharaoh was to prove himself superior in that he could determine when Moses should pray.
  
  Verse 6
  
  It is difficult to understand why Pharaoh wanted the frogs to be removed only on the following day. Although we know from Proverbs 21,10 that wicked people harbour a death wish (unconsciously), this applies only in the abstract. No wicked person deliberately opts for continued flagellation when given a chance to escape the pain involved. Why then did Pharaoh ask Moses to make his prayer effective only on the following day? At first glance one may be tempted to conclude that Pharaoh misinterpreted Moses' offer as proof of his awareness that the plague was about to come to an end, and that he wanted to take the credit for this by appearing to pray for the removal of the frogs at once. Pharaoh therefore wanted to show up Moses as a fraud. He interpreted Moses' use of the word התפאר as a trick designed to induce him to ask for the immediate removal of the frogs. This is why he decided to suffer a little longer if only he could expose Moses as a fraud.
  What is wrong with this theory is that if Pharaoh wanted to unmask Moses as a fraud he did not really have to extend the period of his suffering at all by asking Moses not to pray until the following day. Besides, Pharaoh had never heard of a prayer that is offered up at one time and is not to be effective until the following day. This is why he wanted Moses to demonstrate that though he prayed now and his prayer would be accepted, the removal of the frogs would not be implemented until the morrow. This was the challenge Pharaoh presented to Moses when he said: למחר. He wanted proof that Moses prayed immediately though the frogs would not disappear until the morrow. When Moses told Pharaoh: כדברך, "as you said," he meant that he had accepted Pharaoh's challenge. Moses did not leave the city to offer his prayer (as he did on other occasions) but prayed inside the city in order for everyone to be aware precisely when he had prayed. This is why the Torah writes: "Moses and Aaron left the presence of Pharaoh and Moses cried out to G'd concerning the frogs G'd had brought on Pharaoh, etc." Moses prayed concerning two matters. 1) Removal of the frogs. 2) Not to remove the frogs until the following day. This is why the Torah states על דבר הצפרדעים, "concerning the matter of the frogs," instead of להסיר הצפרדעים, "to remove the frogs."
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   אשר שם לפרעה, which He had brought on Pharaoh. We learn from this that one must be articulate and precise when offering a request in prayer.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ותהי הכנם באדם, the insects remained on man, etc. We would have expected the Torah to say: כל עפר הארץ היה כנים, ותהי הכנים באדם "the whole dust of the earth turned into insects, and the insects remained on man, etc." Why did the Torah reverse this sequence by telling us first that the insects remained on man? We may understand this with the help of an argument between Rabbi Yoseph from Orleans and Rabbenu Tam cited on <i>Shabbat</i> 12 concerning the meaning of the word כנה. Some rabbis hold that what is meant is a black flea, an insect which originated in the dust and which is able to jump very high. Other rabbis hold that these "insects" were white parasites which originated on the clothes people wore. These rabbis prove their point by basing themselves on a statement in <i>Berachot</i> 51 according to which vermin is generated from rags. In order to prevent the reader from making the error that the כנה described here is the so-called כנה לבנה, the parasite, the Torah makes the point that it originated from the dust of the earth. Had the Torah used the version commencing with the words: כל עפר הארץ היה כנים, there could have been no question about the insects originating in the earth. The Torah therefore displayed wisdom by writing ותהי הכנם באדם, to tell us that the insects which were normally generated in dirty clothes now became a plague of intolerable dimensions so that both man and animal suffered from an excessive amount of fleas, etc., each of the variety they were familiar with.
  It is also possible that the Torah speaks about both variants of insects. The first category is alluded to in the words: ותהי הכנם באדם ובבהמה, meaning the varieties of parasites man and beast experience on their skin from time to time. This was in addition to the insects which originate in the earth and which are called כנים as distinct from the first variety which is called כנם. If this is correct, our verse does not serve as support for the opinion of Rabbi Yoseph from Orleans, and we would have to accept the view of Rabbenu Tam who proved in the Talmud that the insect known as the white one is a parasite, whereas the other one known as the black one, which is distinguished by its great jumps, is incorrectly referred to as כנה but is in reality a פרעוש. (This is also the ruling of the <i>halachah</i> compare <i>Tur Shulchan Aruch, Or Hachayim</i> ruling 315).
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ומלאו בתי מצרים את הערוב, the houses of Egypt will be filled with wild beasts, etc. The reason the Torah repeats the word הערוב, "the wild beasts," is that the houses will be filled with the wild beasts; if the Torah had merely written once: "the wild beasts will fill the houses of Egypt," we would have thought that the purpose of the plague was simply to fill the Egyptians' houses with wild beasts; this was not so, however, as the Torah had already stated: "I will send the wild beasts against you, your servants, your people as well as against your houses;" the obvious meaning is that the beasts were to cause damage and destruction. As it is, the additional message is that the houses would literally be filled with wild beasts.
  Another meaning of the words את הערוב the second time could be that had the Torah not repeated these words we would have assumed that the plague would have exhausted its purpose as soon as the houses of the Egyptians had become full of wild beasts; however, this was not the full extent of the plague. There were so many wild beasts that they could not be accomodated even after they had already filled all the houses of the Egyptians. This is why the Torah added: "and also the ground whereon they are."
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ושמתי פדות, "I shall set apart, etc." G'd meant that not only would the wild beasts respect the boundary of the province of Goshen and not invade that province, they would not even approach those Israelites that happened to be outside the province of Goshen at the time. The Torah made this clear by the nuance "between My people and between your people." This means that whenever members of both people were found next to one another, only the Egyptians would be bothered by the wild beasts. The beasts would not bite a Jew.
  
  Verse 20
  
   תשחת הארץ, the land was ruined. This means that the beasts would destroy everything except the human beings.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   לא תרחיקו לכת. "Do not go very far." Pharaoh meant: "not as far as the three days you have requested." His argument was that if Moses was afraid the Egyptians would stone the Israelites if they slaughtered animals the Egyptians regarded as sacred, there was no reason to travel a distance of three days to escape that particular danger. Apparently, Moses did not make an issue of this at this time; he reasoned that the Israelites' major purpose was to get out of the urban areas, no matter how far. If Pharaoh would pursue them, Moses was certain that G'd would deal with him. At that point Moses wanted only to ensure that Pharaoh would not have a reason to renege on his promise; this is why he warned Pharaoh not to deal deceitfully with him and the Jewish people. He emphasized this by use of the word רק. Moses meant that though they would travel for a distance of less than three days the important thing for them was to get out of town for a while.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   בא אל פרעה, "Go to Pharaoh, etc." You may consider it a rule that whenever G'd told Moses to go to Pharaoh, He meant that Moses should enter Pharaoh's palace without waiting for permission to do so. No doubt Pharaoh had the usual complement of bodyguards at the entrance to his palace. Nonetheless Moses was commanded by G'd to ignore the presence of those guards. We have reason to believe that Moses acted in accordance with these instructions since <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> item 175 describes that Pharaoh not only had armed guards but also trained lions at his palace gate but that Moses walked in without being challenged. I have found conclusive proof for the opinion expressed in the <i>Yalkut</i> in 10,28 where Pharaoh for the first time warns Moses not to attempt to enter the palace again. Why would Pharaoh have had to warn Moses about entering the palace unless Moses had been in the habit of doing so unchallenged up until then? Clearly, even the trained lions had respected Moses and not challenged his entry, a great miracle indeed. If G'd had to command Moses to enter Pharaoh's palace i.e. בא אל instead לך אל, "go to," the reason was that he assured Moses he would not be challenged by either the palace guards or the lions. On the other hand, whenever G'd told Moses to meet Pharaoh near the river Nile, He used the expression לך אל פרעה as there were no guards near the river Nile where Pharaoh desired privacy. The only reason G'd told Moses to go to Pharaoh there was that Moses would not have done so on his own initiative seeing Pharaoh went there to answer calls of nature, as already explained elsewhere.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   אשר בשדה, which are in the field, etc. This is to be taken literally; they all died because the Egyptians left them in the fields as mentioned in 9,6.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   וישם ה׳ מועד לאמור, G'd appointed a set time, etc. He informed the Egyptians of when the plague would strike to enable them to bring their livestock indoors as we also find when the plague of hail struck (9,19). In that instance G'd told the Egyptians outright to bring their animals indoors to protect them, whereas here He only hinted at this. The hint is expressed in the Torah by the word לאמור. This meant that Moses and Aaron were to inform both Pharaoh and the Egyptians of the timing of that plague.
  
  Verse 6
  
   .כל מקנה מצרים, all the cattle of Egypt. This refers to the cattle the Egyptians had not brought indoors, this is why the words "in the field" are missing here.
  וממקנה בני ישראל, and of the cattle of the Israelites none died. They owned cattle going back to the time Jacob had come to Egypt. On the other hand, they may have acquired cattle from the money they received from the Egyptians when they sold them water during the plague of blood. It is even possible that some smart Egyptians "sold" their cattle to the Jews before the onset of the plague [much as we sell <i>chametz</i> to the Gentiles before Passover Ed.] so as to escape the plague and not interfere with their cattle's grazing outdoors. The Torah then would tell us that such "sales" did not protect such cattle; only the cattle which were truly Jewish-owned survived the plague without having been indoors. We ought to understand what the verse tells us: 1) "All the cattle of the Egyptians as well as some of the cattle "owned" by the Jews died;" the Torah added the extra letter מ in the line וממקנה בני ישראל to tell us about these so-called Jewish-owned cattle which died. The letter מ applied only to part of the cattle and not to part of the sheep and goats. To sum up: animals owned outright by Jews did not die; animals owned by Jews in name only, died.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   השכם בבוקר, "rise up early in the morning, etc!" Moses was given three separate instructions here. 1) To go to see Pharaoh early in the morning. 2) To adopt an erect posture when facing Pharaoh, not to bow down as was customary. G'd needed to command Moses to do this as his natural habit was to appear deferential before Pharaoh. Moses was not do discard his natural humble stance except in the presence of Pharaoh. 3) He was to communicate G'd's message to Pharaoh.
  
  Verse 14
  
   כי בפעם הזאת…את כל מגפותי, "for this time… all My plagues." G'd informed Pharaoh of the powerful impact of the impending plague of hail. This is why the warning was as severe as the death that would follow if it were not observed. This was in accordance with the rule that if someone guilty of a sin carrying the death penalty by stoning was warned of a lesser death penalty such as strangulation, the court would not be able to convict.
  כל מגפותי, "all My plagues, etc." The obvious question here is that we observe that this was not the last plague but was followed by three more plagues; what did G'd mean then when He described hail as "all My plagues?" One would have been tempted to say that the severity of that plague made it qualify for the description "all My plagues," were it not for Rashi who said that the plague of the dying of the firstborn was equal in severity to all the other plagues combined. Perhaps we have to understand this plague as being equal in severity "to all the preceding plagues together." If we accept such an interpretation the plague of the dying of the firstborn would then be equivalent to 14 plagues, something that does not seem to make too much sense.
  I therefore feel that G'd meant to tell Pharaoh that the impact of this particular plague would change his attitude to all the plagues G'd had brought upon him thus far. Up until now Pharaoh had not really attributed the plagues to G'd's superior power, but had seen in them a display of powerful magic, the work of ghosts and demons. One of his reasons was that his own magicians appeared able to duplicate those plagues. Although his magicians had told him that they could not duplicate (or remove) the plague of כנם, insects, and this was a "finger of G'd," Pharaoh chose to interpret this as an admission that they felt outclassed by Moses and Aaron in their craft. Pharaoh was still convinced that somewhere there were magicians who could do what Moses and Aaron had demonstrated. G'd wanted to disabuse Pharaoh of such ideas and that is why He said "this time," etc., meaning that even Pharaoh would be forced to admit that no human being was capable of producing the kind of hail he was about to experience. G'd added that He would bring this to the attention of Pharaoh's heart, לבך. Up until that moment Pharaoh may have reacted only with his eyes or with his mind. G'd stressed the word מגפותי, "My plagues," to emphasise that these phenomena emanated directly from G'd. No demon or sorcerer could possibly wield such power.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   בעבור תדע..ולמען תספר שמי בכל הארץ….בעבור הראותך את כתי. "In order that you should know….in order to show you My power…and in order that you will proclaim My name in the whole land, etc." You who have said: "who is G'd?" will now be the first one to proclaim My name all over the earth. Obviously, Pharaoh did not have the kind of communications media which are at our disposal today. The Torah means that as a result of what would happen to Pharaoh he would be the instrument through which the whole of mankind would become aware of what G'd does to those who refuse to accept His orders. Even nowadays kings have been heard to say that if the Jewish Messiah arrives and performs a miracle they would not repeat Pharaoh's mistakes.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ועתה שלח העז את מקנך, "And now, send, and bring in your cattle, etc." You may well ask that if the Egyptians heeded Moses' warning, what effect would the forthcoming plague have? Remember, G'd's purpose in bringing plagues upon the Egyptians was not to inflict pain and suffering on them. The pain was only one way of demonstrating G'd's power. If this could be achieved by making the Egyptians obey, so much the better. At any rate, the crops would be destroyed by the hail even if there would be no deaths amongst the livestock. The Torah states specifically that both the grass and the trees were destroyed by the hail (9,24).
  We still have to understand why G'd said: ועתה, "now," when He issued the warning. If the meaning was "immediately," then it is difficult to understand as the hail was not meant to occur until the following day at about the same time. Perhaps the warning had to emphasise that immediate action be taken as most of the cattle were grazing far from home and would not be able to find shelter at once.
  We also need to understand to whom G'd addressed the advice to let the animals and people take shelter. Those who feared the word of G'd would do so immediately after they heard that there would be hail on the morrow. They did not need advice on that matter. The advice therefore was directed only at those Egyptians who did not yet fear the Lord. We therefore may interpret the call ועתה as a call to repentance. In fact <i>Midrash Tehillim</i> 100,2 claims that this expression always denotes repentance. G'd gave these people a chance to repent. When they failed to do so in spite of having been warned, G'd punished them.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   ואשר לא שם לבו…ויעזב, and whoever paid no heed…left his cattle outdoors, etc. The extra letter ו in ויעזב, is to draw to our attention that those people who had up to now refused to heed G'd's warning added to their previous sin by continuing in their ways, deliberately exposing their livestock and servants to death by hail despite G'd's warning. Their obstinacy was such that though they could have saved their property by the simple expedient of bringing it indoors for a while, they defied G'd and did not do so. It is clear from the Torah's report that what motivated the Egyptians was not so much their economic need of the cheap labour that the Israelites represented and which made them refuse to liberate them, but their defiance of the Jewish G'd. Even those who doubted G'd's ability to orchestrate a plague of hail such as Moses had predicted preferred to demonstrate their defiance by risking their property. Perhaps the reason they took such a chance was that the previous six plagues had not been severe enough so that they did not believe that G'd could suddenly bring such a terrible plague.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   ויהי ברד ואש, there was hail and fire simultaneously, etc. The word מתלקחת is used to inform us that though water and fires are opposites, one of which is bound to prevail over the other in any encounter, in this instance they demonstrated the ability to co-exist. This was possible since both were performing G'd's will by so doing.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   והברד לא יהיה עוד, "and the hail will cease to be, etc." No new hail will fall, whereas the hail which had descended already will cease to be. Moses' promise was essentially what is described in verse 33, i.e. that the hail and rain stopped in mid-air. According to an aggadah in <i>Berachot</i> 54 the function of that hail which was arrested in mid-air was completed in the days of Joshua when the latter was engaged in the conquest of the land of Canaaan (Joshua 10,11) when hail stones fell on Israel's adversaries.
  למען תדע, "so that you will realise, etc." Moses told Pharaoh that he did not pray for Pharaoh in order that he should release the Israelites from bondage, he did not believe Pharaoh's assurances. The only reason he prayed was so that Pharaoh would acquire greater respect for the power of G'd.
  
  Verse 30
  
   ואתה ועבדיך, "for both you as well as your servants, etc." Moses mentioned the servants because he saw that they too had not paid heed to G'd's warning and had left their livestock outdoors together with their shepherds. Should you query this by asking how did Moses know this, seeing the servants had accepted G'd's judgment when Pharaoh said: "G'd is righteous whereas I and my people are the evildoers," remember that I have explained that G'd had already revealed His intention to bring on the plague of killing the Egyptians' firstborn. He had also warned in 7,4 that Pharaoh would not listen to Moses and Aaron. As a result, Moses was entitled to consider all the protestations of Pharaoh that he addmitted being a sinner, etc. as being merely a maneuver to gain time. If Pharaoh and his servants had truly repented it is hardly likely that G'd would punish them by the plague of killing the firstborn. Moses was therefore on safe ground when he said that he knew that Pharaoh and his advisers were not yet G'd-fearing people.
  ידעתי כי טרם חיראון, "I know you do not yet fear, etc." Moses meant that Pharaoh's fear of G'd lasted only as long as the latest plague had not yet been removed. As soon as they would experience relief they would continue in their rebellious ways against G'd as previously. Moses referred to previous examples of Pharaoh reneging on his promise to let the Israelites go as proof for his present lack of faith in Pharaohs protestations.
  Moses made it plain that he did not consider that Pharaoh was deliberately being deceitful in trying to convince Moses that he should pray on his behalf; he was simply under psychological pressure at that time. This induced temporary fear of G'd in him and in his people. Moses wanted Pharaoh to know that he himself could read Pharaoh's mind, as Pharaoh would be the first to acknowledge. He added that even if Pharaoh were to try and prove that Moses was wrong in his prediction that he, Pharaoh, would renege after the hail had stopped, he would not be able to control his spirit sufficiently to keep his undertaking.
  
  Verse 31
  
   והפשתה והשעורה נכתה, both the flax and the barley were smitten, etc. Why did the Torah tell us of this detail before describing Moses as concluding his prayer? According to normal practice the Torah should have reported that Moses did as he had said, namely that he prayed to G'd for the plague to stop.
  Perhaps the Torah wanted to provide us with a reason why the Egyptians had not really become penitent. Whereas the hail had destroyed the flax crop and the barley crop, it had not caused more than minimal damage to the wheat and the spelt which ripened at a later date. According to <i>Midrash Tanchuma</i> the reason that the Torah uses the letter ו in front of the word הפשתה where it could not possibly be understood as a conjunctive is that a miracle within a miracle happened so that only these two crops were smitten. Had nature taken its course, both the wheat and the spelt should also have succumbed to the hail. Basing themselves on the strange phenomenon that the wheat and spelt had escaped unharmed, Pharaoh and his servants concluded that G'd's authority did not include the wheat and the spelt. This encouraged them to continue in their obstinate ways. This is why Moses was able to say that he realised that Pharaoh had not yet come to fear G'd truly. He cited as the reason what happened to the wheat, or rather, what did not happen to the wheat. G'd had spared the wheat in order to encourage Pharaoh to remain obstinate.
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
   וירא פרעה כי חדל המטר, Pharaoh saw that the rain had stopped, etc. The Torah mentions this to show that Pharaoh's repentance already evaporated; he continued to sin almost immediately. When the Torah reports him as ויוסף לחטא, "he continued to sin," this does not refer to his continuing on his previous path; it means that Pharaoh added additional sins to the ones he had committed already. He now made a commitment not to release the Israelites under any terms and conditions.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויאמר ה׳ אל משה, G'd said to Moses, etc. The Torah mentions אמירה, the soft approach as well as G'd's name as the Merciful One. This did not refer to the "sender," i.e. to G'd, but to the messenger Moses, as we see in verse 3. [Whereas as recently as 9,35 the Torah referred to Moses as having spoken sternly, דבר, to Pharaoh, now there is a change of mood. Ed.] Moses spoke in a kindly manner to Pharaoh even while delivering a warning of a devastating plague. G'd warned him to do so as otherwise he might have lived up to the description of the righteous man in Psalms 58,11 where the Holy Spirit describes the righteous as rejoicing when he observes G'd taking revenge. Moses is reminded that what truly makes the righteous happy is seeing G'd's attribute of Mercy in action.
  Furthermore, the Torah employs the attribute of Mercy to remind us that G'd did not send the plague immediately after the warning but gave Pharaoh time to change his mind and to release the Israelites. If he did this then he and his country would be spared the suffering entailed by the plague of locusts. According to <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 9,12 a week or even twenty-four days would elapse between the warning and the implementation of the plague. All this was part of the attribute of Mercy in action.
  On the other hand, it is possible that our verse underlines that even the attribute of Mercy agreed joyfully that the time had arrived to take revenge on this enemy of G'd and the Jewish people (compare my comments on 7,2).
  כי אני הכבדתי את לבו, "for I have hardened his heart, etc." G'd means that Moses would realise as of now that He had indeed hardened Pharaoh's heart. Even the most obstinate person would have broken down by now if he had experienced what Pharaoh had endured during the last seven plagues. Only intervention by G'd could have accounted for his continued refusal to let the Israelites depart. G'd did not, of course, interfere outright with Pharaoh's free will; rather He performed a miracle such as the immunity of the wheat and spelt to the plague of hail, to give Pharaoh a chance to delude himself that G'd's power did not extend to those two categories of grain. When G'd said כי אני הכבדתי He referred to that phenomenon in the past tense.
  It is also possible that G'd's words were directed primarily at Moses who must have despaired of the purpose of going to Pharaoh time and again without accomplishing his mission. G'd told Moses that Pharaoh's obstinacy was not that of an ordinary human being, but the reason he could not respond as he should was that G'd Himself had hardened his heart. The moment G'd decided not to interfere with whatever motivated Pharaoh's decisions he would relent and send the Israelites on their way.
  ואת לב עבדיו, and the heart of his servants, etc. The reason G'd also had to harden the heart of Pharaoh's advisers was so that they would not urge him to release the Israelites. G'd had to do so in order to bring the plagues not only on Pharaoh but on the whole nation. If Pharaoh had been the only one punished, this would not have made an impact on the people. Although G'd had not mentioned this detail to Moses at the beginning of his mission, and He had spoken only of hardening Pharaoh's heart at that time, He had told Moses the essential part of what would happen. Perhaps G'd wanted to explain to Moses at this stage that not only one man was obstinate, i.e. Pharaoh, but also his servants. He may have been prompted to do so now because of Moses' gratuitous remark in 9,30 that both Pharaoh and his servants had not yet developed true fear of the Lord. Moses' comment had indicated that he had not previously understood the word "Pharaoh" to include also Pharaoh's entourage. Therefore G'd explained to him that the obstinacy of the servants could also be explained by the same phenomenon as that of their master, i.e. that G'd had interfered with their normal decision-making process. Up until now, Moses had assumed that the servants were naturally obstinate whereas Pharaoh had only remained obstinate because G'd had interfered. G'd was at pains to correct Moses' error.
  למען שתי אותותי אלה בקרבו, "so that I might display My signs in the midst of them." Why did the Torah have to write אותותי אלה, "these My signs?" This implies that the main reason G'd hardened Pharaoh's heart was to have an opportunity to display miracles. Furthermore, why did the Torah have to add בקרבו, "in their midst?" Where else would G'd perform these miracles? We may understand these expressions on the basis of <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 12,5 that the plagues in Egypt were to demonstrate that G'd is Ruler and Master. He is Master inasmuch that He desires to bring Israel closer to become His servants and to cleave to Him. In order to do this He had to demonstrate that it was foolish to put one's trust in anyone but Him. He had not yet shown them that He creates the wind and employs the wind as His angels (messengers). He had also not yet demonstrated to the Israelites that He created light and darkness. Having told Moses that He, G'd had made Pharaoh unresponsive, Moses would have been entitled to ask: "why bother?" G'd therefore justified the plagues which were yet to occur as designed to demonstrate His creative power in the spheres we have just mentioned. Regarding the chance of Pharaoh's responding to them, it was true that these miracles were somewhat wasted, but their impact on Israel was vital. The seven plagues which had occurred so far did not offer an answer to people who wanted to worship such powers of nature as the sun and the moon. Anyone who claimed that the force which created earth was not the same force which created the wind could not find proof that he had been wrong by experiencing any of those plagues. The plague of locusts would demonstrate G'd's power to employ the wind as His messenger, by the wind bringing the locusts and removing them. It would even carry away all the locusts which had died so that the Egyptians would not benefit from the dead locusts as mentioned in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 13,7. The plague of darkness would demonstrate that G'd had created the luminaries, and exercised control over them. The plague of the dying of the firstborn demonstrated that G'd creates every creature and can distinguish between who was the issue of the first drop of semen (<i>Baba Metzia</i> 61). This plague also generated the commandment in 13,2 to sanctify every firstborn. One of the reasons for that commandment was that it serve as a reminder that it is G'd who creates the firstborn out of the womb of his mother in order that he should be His servant. When G'd encountered this evil Pharaoh, He made use of him by hardening his heart and performing miracles which would make him taste the cup of retribution. Had it not been for these various considerations G'd would not have troubled Himself to orchestrate all these major changes in nature.
  
  Verse 2
  
   ולמען תספר, "and in order for you to tell, etc.," Why did G'd have to provide this additional reason to justify the plague of locusts? Besides, what is the meaning of the words אשר התעללתי במצרים? Why did G'd add: "and My miracles," as if this was something distinct from אשר התעללתי? Why did G'd add: וידעתם כי אני השם?
  I believe that first and foremost G'd wanted to make it plain that it was not His purpose to bring on the plague as an act of revenge on Pharaoh. Rather, the miracle was designed to strengthen Israel's faith in G'd so that they would remember these miracles forever. This could be achieved only if G'd not only performed the miracle without hurting any Israelite by it but that Pharaoh himself would be so impressed by the miracle that it would also impress G'd's power on the minds of the Israelites in an unforgettable manner. The psychology of the aforesaid is demonstrated in the <i>halachah</i> of the בן פקועה in <i>Chulin</i> 75. This concerns a fetus found alive [if the pregnancy was incomplete, or dead if the pregnancy was complete. Ed.] inside an animal after the mother-animal has been ritually slaughtered. The question is if the ritual slaughter of the mother-animal made the fetus fit for consumption by Jews without further ado. The Talmud discusses whether such an animal may be eaten without it being slaughtered seeing that the onlooker may suspect the person eating it of committing a sin; it concludes that when this animal has been different in at least two exceptional ways such as that it does not have a cloven hoof, everyone will remember what its origin has been and one will not suspect someone eating it without having performed ritual slaughter as having committed a sin. Although G'd had demonstrated miracles which clearly proved His power, this would not have sufficed to make a lasting impression on the Israelites unless He had at the same time proven that He distinguished miraculously between the guilty and the innocent, i.e. between the Israelites and the Egyptians and that the miracles had hurt only the guilty parties. When G'd said: "in order that you will tell your children and your children's children, etc." He meant that this would be assured only if He performed the miracles in such a way that only the Egyptians were seen to be hurt by them. The first impression would be created by אשר התעללתי במצרים, "How I wrought the plagues on Egypt;" the second and more lasting impression would occur when the Israelites realised את אותותי אשר שמתי בם, that what occurred was an outstanding miracle even if the Egyptians had not been a factor at all. These combined experiences would prompt the Israelites to tell their children about what they had seen. The purpose of telling their children was "so that you will know beyond doubt that I am the Eternal G'd."
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ויפן ויצא מעם פרעה, He turned and left Pharaoh's presence. By not asking permission to leave Moses demonstrated his lack of regard for this king who had once again reneged on his promise even after he had proclaimed: "G'd is righteous and I and my people are sinners." Actually, the wicked Pharaoh repaid Moses for this slight when he had him brought back to the palace unceremoniously in verse 8. After that Pharaoh expelled Moses from the palace in verse 11. He was aware of his lack of deference when he begged Moses to pray for him again in verse 16 adding: "I have sinned against the Lord your G'd and against you." He had never previously apologised to Moses, only to G'd.
  
  Verse 7
  
   עד מתי יהיה זה לנו למוקש, "how long will this one continue to be a snare for us?" Pharaoh's servants were most certainly not prepared to let the Israelites depart for the prophecy G'd had told Moses i.e. that He had hardened both the heart of Pharaoh and that of his servants would contradict such an assumption. All the servants had in mind was to ensure that the Israelites' departure would be such that they would be sure to return after having offered their sacrifices. This is why the servants did not pursue the matter once Moses had made it plain that they would take both their children and their aged with them. Their very words proved that they considered Moses' invoking G'd as the driving force behind the Israelites' demands merely as a snare. They could not believe that the great and powerful G'd whose existence Moses had demonstrated would bother to punish the Egyptians in order to let the Israelites go to the desert for three days. There is no greater denial of G'd than that.
  הטרם תדע כי אבדה מצרים, "do you not know yet that Egypt is about to be destroyed?" They meant "why wait till after Egypt is destroyed before letting these people go? Let them go now!"
  Why would the servants suddenly agree to take a chance of Egypt being destroyed after Moses had spelled out who was going to the desert? What made them keep their peace when they heard Moses' latest demand? In order to understand this we must first explore what Pharaoh and his servants had thought initially. Is there anyone so foolish that he would risk all the discomforts, pains and even danger of submitting to these plagues? Not only that but these people had endured that their deities were smitten, their livestock killed, their crops ruined, and even they themselves came within an inch of destruction. Ordinarily it would be considered unbelievable that there are people who are so stupid! Nonetheless, these people must have had some plausible reason to act in such a foolish fashion. Their behaviour is all the more strange as G'd had not demanded from Pharaoh that he free the Israelites but only that he should give them a three-day vacation! It is true that I have written (3,18) that Moses had never mentioned the three-day limitation to Pharaoh, that he had only spoken about celebrating in the desert (5,1) not mentioning any time frame, and that the only ones who did mention three days were the people (5,3); this indicated that G'd had not demanded a total release of the Israelites.
  I believe that Pharaoh's error was based on these conflicting demands by Moses on the one hand and the Israelites on the other. There could be no question that the word of G'd was the truth. Pharaoh and his servants had to consider two possibilties. 1) G'd did not desire a total departure of the Israelites but only an absence of three days' travel into the desert. 2) At the same time Pharaoh felt that the Israelites' demand for three days was a trick designed to cloak their true intentions never to return to Egypt. If so, this was proof (in the mind of Pharaoh and his servants) that the G'd of the Hebrews was unable to orchestrate an Exodus in the proper sense of the word. He had instructed His messengers to make a lesser demand, one that He was able to perform. Keeping in mind that Pharaoh and company were non believers, they preferred an interpretation which implied that G'd's power was limited. As a result of this they remained obstinate, probing for weakness in G'd's power. When the servants contemplated the fact that they had already endured seven plagues none of which had advanced the Israelites' cause substantially, i.e. they were still enslaved in Egypt though they had not performed slave labour for a while, they had to adopt an attitude concerning the warning of the plague of locusts. The servants swung to the belief that they were not being tricked but that G'd only wanted the Israelites to leave for three days. Hence their question "how long are you going to detain these men?" They added: "send these men so that they can serve their G'd;" what they meant was that it was clear to them that all their G'd wanted was that they should serve him, not that they should leave Egypt for good. The servants attributed great destructive power to G'd and that is why they disagreed with Pharaoh's present policy. On the other hand, they were convinced that if G'd really wanted or had been able to free the Israelites completely, He would not have wasted His time with all these plagues but would have done so at once.
  Pharaoh, on the other hand, was wily and had Moses and Aaron brought back to the palace to demonstrate to his servants that they were wrong, that Moses and Aaron intended to lead the whole nation out of Israel once and for all. This is why he asked Moses and Aaron who the people were that would go into the desert to offer sacrifices. When Moses and Aaron replied that everybody would be going, he accused them of bad faith (verse 10). This conversation showed Pharaoh's servants that they had been wrong in their estimate that all that was at stake was a three-day absence from work. They now reversed their previous estimate that G'd could indeed do everything He wanted, else why had Moses and Aaron not announced their true intentions at the beginning? This is the reason we do not hear the servants argue with Pharaoh anymore.
  
  Verse 8
  
   לכו עבדו…מי ומי ההולכים "Go and serve…who are the ones going?" Pharaoh asked a rhetorical question; it had not occurred to him that they would demand that all of them should go. This is why he had simply said: "go and serve" without limiting the ages or sexes of who was included in that offer. He had naturally assumed that only adult males would particpate in the ceremony under discussion. This is why he said later: "your menfolk may go because that is all you ever requested." He did not even want all the adult males to go.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   בארבה, with locusts. The word may either refer to a single locust which stuck to Moses' staff, or he may have articulated the word ארבה as he inclined his staff as a sign that the reason he inclined his staff was in order to initiate the plague of locusts.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  ויט משה את ידו, "Moses inclined his hand, etc.," We need to understand why Moses had used his staff to bring about the plague of locusts (verse 13) when G'd had told him to incline only his hand (verse 12). There had not been a single plague so far which was introduced by Moses being told to use "his hand" rather than his staff.
  Perhaps the reason why this plague was different is best explained in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 14, according to which the darkness in Egypt belonged to the category of darkness described in Psalms 18,12: "He made darkness His screen, dark thunderheads, dense clouds of the sky were His pavilion around Him." Inasmuch as the darkness was of a supernatural kind, Moses did not consider it appropriate to raise his staff against supernatural phenomena.
  Other rabbis, commenting in the same section of that <i>Midrash</i>, considered this darkness as belonging to purgatory. Both groups of rabbis may have been correct; there were two categories of darkness. One prevailed during the three days no Egyptian could move, the other during the days they merely could not see one another.
  
  Verse 23
  
   ולכל בני ישראל היה אור, all the Israelites had light, etc. The Torah makes a point of writing ולכל, "and for every Israelite," to tell us that whenever a Jew went to the house of an Egyptian he had light even within the dwellings of the Egyptians.
  Another possible meaning of that line could be in answer to the question "where did this light emanate from?" The answer is that it was light originating in the Egyptians' homes. The absence of the word אשר is not especially significant as we have many examples when the Torah omits the word אשר. The meaning of the verse is analogous to our sages telling us that the wicked envelop themselves in darkness. Accordingly, we may understand the darkness as being something subjective; the Egyptians who were evil experienced darkness whereas the Jews who were good experienced light in the very places the Egyptians experienced darkness. The Torah alludes to this idea by writing: במושבותם, within their dwellings.
  
  Verse 24
  
   ויקרא פרעה, Pharaoh called, etc. This occurred after the plague had run its course; previously the Egyptians had been incommunicado. Pharaoh expressed his anger over that fact by adopting a severe tone when addressing Moses in verse 28 when Moses had been adamant that even the livestock would accompany them into the desert. He would not have dared threaten Moses unless the plague had already run its course without Moses having prayed for it to be lifted.
  גם טפכם, also your children. It is somewhat strange that Pharaoh mentioned first who could not go before conceding that the children could accompany their parents. Perhaps Pharaoh was clever enough to first spell out the conditions under which permission would be granted for the Israelites to leave [The author presumably refers to the <i>halachah</i> that unless the condition is mentioned first and not as an afterthought it is not binding. Ed.]. According to the above we may understand the verse as Pharaoh saying: "go and serve the Lord as you have said, i.e. the men and not the children; if you fulfil the following condition namely that your livestock stays in Egypt, I am even prepared to let you take your children along. If you do not agree to this condition I do not revoke my permission, but then only your menfolk may go because they are the ones who perform the religious rites you spoke about." Perhaps the Gentiles generally consider that any condition in a commercial transaction has to precede the main part of an agreement and not merely appear as a codicil.
  
  Verse 25
  
   גם אתה תתן בידנו זבחים, "you too will give into our hands meat-offerings, etc." It is somewhat difficult to understand why a servant of the only G'd should ask a confirmed sinner such as Pharaoh who had repeatedly raised his voice against G'd to offer his animals to the G'd of the Hebrews as sacrifices on his behalf. Do we not know that G'd hates the offerings of sinners? While it is true that we learned in <i>Chulin</i> 13 that the words איש איש in Leviticus 22,18 are the basis for our ruling that G'd accepts sacrifices from Gentiles, this certainly does not mean that a Jew should request a Gentile to offer such offerings!
  A close look at our verse will show you that Moses did not request such offerings. He had only said ועשינו לה׳ אלוקינו. Moses predicted that Pharaoh would voluntarily give the Jews animals which would be suitable as offerings to G'd and that the Israelites would use these animals for such a purpose on their own behalf. The animals were to be viewed as gifts from Pharaoh to the Jewish people to enable them to have enough animals for their requirements. We have proof of what Moses had in mind because we are taught in <i>Menachot</i> 63 that the only sacrifices accepted from Gentiles are total offerings, as opposed to peace offerings. Since Moses spoke also about זבחים i.e. peace-offerings, it is clear that he did not mean to offer these animals on behalf of Pharaoh.
  
  Verse 26
  
   וגם מקננו ילך עמנו, "our cattle also shall go with us, etc." Why did Moses have to add that the Israelites would take along their own cattle seeing that Moses had already said they would even take along livestock donated by Pharaoh? Obviously, Pharaoh's animals would be in addition to their own! We have to assume that Moses was concerned lest Pharaoh misunderstand the words גם אתה as referring to the children. Pharaoh might have understood that Moses had demanded that not only would they take their children but they demanded that Pharaoh give them in addition of his own herds. To avoid such a possible misunderstanding, Moses, as if correcting himself, said "also our cattle will go with us. This is a very forced explanation. Another difficulty in the verse is Moses' having to justify that they would take their cattle because they would use some of it as sacrifices. What new facts did he reveal to Pharaoh with these words? If he wanted to tell Pharaoh that their sacrificial acts would include the slaughtering of sheep (a sacred animal in Egypt) he had already told Pharaoh this when he told him that Pharaoh himself would supply animals for that purpose. Another curious statement by Moses in this verse is his comment "we do not know what we must serve the Lord until we get there." Apparently Moses indicated that he did not know how many animals G'd would require of them and that was also the reason that he expected Pharaoh to contribute to the number of animals. However, if that were the reason, Moses should have spoken not about "what" would be required but about "how much" would be required. 
  Moses may have wanted to rebut one possible argument namely that they did not need to take along all kinds of species, only the ones suitable as sacrifices. This is why Moses said: "we do not know what (species) we will be required to offer as sacrifices." Therefore, Moses said we have to take along even those species which ultimately will not be used as sacrifices. This is also why he added: "not a hoof will remain." This reference included such animals as horses, mules, camels and donkeys as they are all included in the term מקנה. When Moses appeared to imply that the Israelites would even use the last-mentioned species as sacrificial animals we must understand this comment as similar to the Talmud <i>Avodah Zarah</i> 24 interpreting Samuel I 15,15 to mean that when King Saul referred to certain types of animals saved by the people for sacrifices, the proceeds of the sale of certain animals were also included. The expression: "we will take from them to sacrifice" does not have to mean that the actual animals mentioned have to serve as offerings. The words ממנו נקח have to be translated as "from their proceeds we will take, etc."
  When Moses added "and we do not know what we shall serve," this means that he did not know what part of the value of the animals would be required in order to meet G'd's requirements and what part of the herds could safely remain behind. The word מה can have two meanings. 1) "how much," 2) "what," in the sense of "what is the nature of, etc." Moses referred to the fact that G'd would reveal what and how much He required. Perhaps G'd would demand that the people build an altar for Him made of gemstones or some other expensive way of displaying respect and admiration for Him. While it is true that Moses had always spoken about the fact that the Jewish people would "slaughter" animals, he had at the same time referred to some other undefined עבודה, service to G'd. After all, during the original revelation at the burning bush (4,23) G'd had told Moses to tell Pharaoh: "let My people (My firstborn son) go in order that they may serve Me (joyfully)!" This was a general statement which provided for more more ways of serving the Lord than merely the offering of sacrificial animals. As a result, Moses explained, they would need to take along everything they possessed in order to meet their obligations vis-a-vis G'd. This was also why Pharaoh would have to contribute of his own property.
  Moses added the apparently gratuitous words עד בואנו שםה, "until we arrive there," because he anticipated Pharaoh challenging his competence as a prophet if he did not even know what kind of service his G'd demanded. Pharaoh might say to him: "if you really do not know, why do you not ask your G'd before setting out on a trek into the desert with all those herds?" Moses may also have reasoned that Pharaoh would not believe him in any event, preferring to believe that Moses was trying to trick him. At any rate, this answer of Moses to Pharaoh was obviously one that Moses invented and is not to be regarded as an instruction given to him by G'd. Pharaoh realised that Moses had acted on his own and that was the reason he was so angry at Moses. As long as Moses delivered messages from G'd, Pharaoh could have been angry at G'd but not at Moses, His messenger. As a result of his anger at what he perceived to be Moses' arrogance, Pharaoh forbade Moses to bother him again.
  
  Verse 27
  
   ויחזק ה׳ ..ולא אבה, G'd hardened Pharaoh's heart and he did not want to dismiss, etc. The Torah testifies that on this occasion Pharaoh decided not to let the Israelites go, period. He no longer weighed the pros and cons but decided to hang tough even if this should cost him his life. This is why the Torah attributes this decision to him with the words לא אבה.
  Alternatively, he tried to outsmart G'd and Moses by analysing the pattern of the plagues to-date. There had always been two plagues which he was warned about followed by a plague without warning. The last plague, darkness, had not been preceded by a warning. Pharaoh realised that if there were to be another plague, G'd would first warn him. By denying Moses access to the palace he hoped to prevent Moses from issuing the warning which he thought had to precede the next plague. Since Moses was aware that there was only one plague to follow and that G'd would not need to harden the heart of Pharaoh again in order to have an excuse to inflict further plagues upon him, he was able to respond immediately: כן דברת לא אוסיף עוד ראות פניך, "you are quite right; I am not going to see you again, ever." I have already commented on Moses' response in connection with Exodus 7,3 ואני אקשה.
  On a more subtle level, Moses may have taught Pharaoh a different lesson when he said כן דברת. Pharaoh had threatened to have Moses killed if he dared to appear before him again. Moses answered him in a sarcastic manner, i.e. "indeed you have spoken." He meant that all Pharaoh was able to do was to issue empty threats; there was no clout behind this paper tiger. He was not able to kill Moses or to have him killed. Moses may also have referred to a previous occasion in Exodus 2,15 when Pharaoh had given orders to execute him but had been unable to have these orders carried out. This could have been because of miraculous intervention by G'd such as suggested by <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 1,31, according to which an angel had assumed the appearance of Moses and while the angel was arrested Moses had escaped to Midian. It could also have been due to what we are told in <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> 175 that Moses outwrestled all his captors. At any rate, Moses challenged Pharaoh to make good on his boast. As far as Pharaoh's not wanting to see Moses again, Moses told him that the feeling was mutual, that he would not see him again.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויאמר ה׳ ..עוד נגע אחד, G'd said to Moses: "one more plague, etc." This chapter tells us about matters G'd had already mentioned to Moses earlier while Moses was still in Midian. At that time (3,19) G'd had informed Moses that Pharaoh would not let the Israelites depart even after He applied a strong hand against him. In 4,22-23 G'd had already warned Pharaoh of the consequences of not letting the Israelites depart. You will observe that the end of the cycle of nine plagues left Pharaoh exactly as obstinate as he had been at the beginning. He had started out by not even considering the demands of G'd, and though he appeared to have softened his stance, making progressively greater concessions, he was now back to square one having ruled out the departure of any of the Israelites. In 7,4 G'd had told Moses that the sign that the plague of the killing of the firstborn was about to occur would be Pharaoh's refusal to listen. As soon as Moses heard that he was not to appear again at court he knew that the time had come for the last plague after which the Exodus would begin. Moses knew that this plague would be the most severe because G'd asked him to instruct the people to "borrow" as many silver and golden trinkets as they could. The word עוד then does not mean an additional plague as much as it means "the plague I have already spoken to you about once before, I am mentioning again." This explains why Moses did not wait after verse four until G'd described the plague to him, though G'd had done so every other time when Moses was told to warn Pharaoh. Moses proceeded to inform Pharaoh on the spot. Whereas it is true that we do not find that G'd had previously told Moses that the plague of the killing of the firstborn would occur at midnight, we may assume that G'd had told Moses that detail also at that time, but that the Torah did not record it there as it had not yet become relevant. This is why it is not difficult to understand that G'd repeated here what He had told Moses originally, i.e. that the Jews would take with them the silver and gold trinkets borrowed from the Egyptians as well as their garments and that they would "empty" Egypt (Exodus 3,22).
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   כחצות הלילה, "at around midnight, etc." The Talmud <i>Berachot</i> 4 already discusses that the reason that Moses did not give the precise time but only an approximation was so that in the event the Egyptian astronomers were inaccurate in their calculations they should not be able to accuse Moses of having lied. Possibly the reason is related to what <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 43,3 has to say about Genesis 14,15 where Abraham is described as defeating the four kings. That event occurred on the night of the 15th of Nissan. In that case the letter כ before the word חצות does not describe an approximation but refers to a previous event which took place on that date at that time. Our sages in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 42 tell us that the night in which Abraham defeated the four mightiest kings of the world (Genesis 14,15) caused many people to re-evaluate the beliefs they had held up to that time. The Torah therefore mentioned the time when this miracle had occurred. In our paragraph too, the people who survived this event must have done some serious soul-searching as to the validity of their religious beliefs. The letter כ then refers to such re-evaluations as a result of what would occur at midnight.
  אני יוצא. "I will go out, etc." G'd stressed the "I" as if to say that although He has many agents who could perform this task at His behest, He would do so personally and would descend right into the midst of Egypt. G'd had two reasons for doing this personally. 1) As an expression of His fondness for His people whom He wanted to liberate personally. 2) Angels are not capable of distinguishing which human being was formed from the first drop of semen of his father so that he deserved the description בכור, firstborn. Even if such a fetus would emerge as the second or third of a multiple birth it would still deserve to be considered the firstborn. No one but G'd Himself is able to make these distinctions.
  
  Verse 5
  
   ומת כל בכור, and every firstborn will die, etc. G'd did not say: "I will kill him." The reason, as we have pointed out on previous occasions is, that evil does not originate with G'd. He is the Creator of all that is good. Anything in the nature of evil is initiated by one of the agents He has designated. G'd Himself indicated who was the firstborn, His agents carried out the death sentence. This is why the mention of "destroyers" at the time the Israelites put the blood on their door-posts and the fact that G'd Himself orchestrated the plague are not contradictory.
  There may also be another meaning, similar to what we are told in <i>Shabbat</i> 34 where Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai put his eye on a sinner and that sinner died as a result. At first glance, how are we to understand that a pious person of the calibre of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai would summarily "execute" someone by giving him "the eye?" The same Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai had castigated people of the evil eye as possessing a very negative virtue (<i>Zohar</i> 3, page 211). Actually, the exact wording in the Talmud was יהבי עיניה, "he looked at him with his eye" (singular). We would have expected the Talmud to say that "he looked at him with his eyes (pl)." We have to remember that inasmuch as "evil" and "death" are synonymous how is it that evil exists at all? This is because there are no absolutes; just as the attribute of Mercy contains a small part of the attribute of Justice, so every good virtue contains a small element of evil, and vice versa. In the case of evil, death occurs when that small part of "good" or "life" which kept it alive is withdrawn. Keeping this in mind, we can understand the peculiar statement in <i>Sukkah</i> 52 according to which G'd will slaughter the evil urge at an appropriate time in the future in the presence of the righteous. How are to understand this? How can one slaughter an angel (disembodied spirit)? Considering what we have just said we can understand the statement in the Talmud very easily. G'd will remove the part of the evil urge which makes it a viable i.e. active force.
  We also need to appreciate the natural tendency of identical or basically similar virtues to coalesce with each other. The good attracts the good, the evil tends to attract more evil to itself. This is the secret of how the souls of the Israelites which had their origin in the positive emanations could "draw" to themselves the "lost" souls which we described as being particularly prevalent in Egypt. [The author has repeatedly described these souls as having been captured by the negative side of the emanations as a result of Adam eating from the tree of knowledge (compare his comments on Genesis 49,9). Ed.] G'd had given outstanding Torah scholars the ability to attract to themselves the "good" part of any sinner. When Rabbi Shimon looked at the sinner in question he extracted the good part of that sinner, thus leaving no viable element within that person. As a result the sinner died. When G'd passed through Egypt on that night, He extracted the good that was within any of these firstborn; as a result such a firstborn simply dropped dead. It was as if Rabbi Shimon had put his eye on such an individual.
  The meaning of ומת כל בכור is not simply that the soul of that person would die leaving the body as it had been, but the element which had made that person different from others because he was a firstborn would die with him. In other words there would never again be Egyptians (or even other Gentiles) whose characteristics would include elements of what had been known as the "firstborn" of the people beholden to the powers of the קליפה, the forces of negative virtues. Perhaps this is why no exile ever again assumed the dimensions of the exile in Egypt. G'd had weakened the powers of the קליפה permanently.
  I have tried to find a reason why the dying of the firstborn was a necessary prerequisite for the Exodus, as well as why even non-Egyptian firstborn (compare 12,29) had to die if they happened to be in Egypt on that fateful night. The reason is connected to G'd having described Israel as "My firstborn son" (4,22). We have a tradition (<i>Zohar</i> 2, page 263) that whenever G'd created some phenomenon which is clearly recognisable as something good, He also created its counterpart, i.e. something potentially evil at the same time. Every sacred phenomenon in our world is matched by a parallel phenomenon under the control of Satan, or what is known in Kabbalistic parlance "the forces of the קליפה." The latter make every effort to gain dominance over the former. We must therefore understand the forces of the קליפה which represented their firstborn as exerting every effort to frustrate the emigration of the Jewish people from Egypt. These efforts did not cease until G'd had "killed" the firstborn of the powers of the קליפה which opposed His will. What G'd had to do was to eliminate the concept of the firstborn being special, otherwise the relief as a result of the death of the Egyptian firstborn would have been only temporary. When the Torah (12,29) stresses that: "the firstborn of the captive, the firstborn of the maidservant and the firstborn of the animals died," this is in contrast to the firstborn of the Israelites who were subsequently sanctified (Numbers 8,17). The reason this sanctification of the Jewish firstborn became necessary is that G'd had done away with the concept of the firstborn being somebody special at the time He eliminated the firstborn on the night of the 15th of Nissan. Had this not been the case we would not understand why the firstborn of the animals had to die also. In Numbers 8,17 G'd declared that henceforth the firstborn of the Jews would be sacred to Him, i.e. there should no longer be a firstborn associated with the powers of the קליפה. If we find that the Egyptians still engaged in hot pursuit of the Israelites even after the death of the firstborn, this was because they had not yet realised that their former power had vanished. As a result, not a single one of them survived the debacle at the Sea of Reeds.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ולכל בני ישראל לא יחרץ כלב לשונו, "not a single dog will whet his tongue against any Israelite, etc." Why was this so important? If the meaning of the line is that not a single Israelite would die as a result of a bite by a dog, why did the Torah not spell this out?
  Perhaps we should understand this as an allusion to a well known proverb quoted in <i>Baba Kama</i> 60 that when one hears the dogs bark it is a sign that the angel of death is in town. The Torah wanted to tell us that the angel of death did not cause the death of a single Israelite during that night. The Torah added the detail about the dogs not whetting their tongue against Israel as evidence that they did not even attack a Jew. The reason was "so that you shall know that G'd will make a miraculous distinction between Egypt and between Israel."
  The word ולכל may also mean that only where the Jews congregated did the dogs not whet their tongues against them because this would prove that no stranger was amongst them. Wherever Jews and Egyptians would mingle the dogs would most certainly bark as proof that the משחית, the angel of death, was active in that environment. What the Torah revealed then is that no trick would save the Egyptian firstborn. If they decided to hide amongst the Israelites the barking of the dogs would reveal their presence (compare <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 18,2).
  
  Verse 8
  
   וירדו כל עבדיך, "and all your servants will come down, etc." This was a promise by G'd that the servants referred to would all survive this plague. Perhaps this was because none of them were firstborns and Moses knew this through his prophetic vision. Alternatively, even though some of these servants may have been firstborns, Moses exempted them from the effects of this plague. This was not because of their righteousness but so that they would get their deserts for having been present and silent when Pharaoh used abusive language against Moses and Aaron. The principle of the punishment fitting the crime demanded that these servants would themselves be demeaned when they would beg Moses and Aaron to leave the land in order that not all the Egyptians would die. They would have to ask public forgiveness for their previous conduct. We know that Moses had felt insulted by their behaviour since the Torah told us at the end of this verse that Moses left the palace in a very angry frame of mind. Actually, Moses included Pharaoh himself in his warning that all his servants would get up at night, etc.; he only maintained a degree of respect for Royalty and that is why he did not refer to Pharaoh by name.
  והשתחוו לי לאמור, "they will bow down to me saying, etc." The reason that Moses said לאמור instead of ויאמרו לי, was that he implied that the mere fact they would prostrate themselves would convey their intent to beg Moses to leave the country with his people. Inasmuch as Moses was superior to them why would he need their permission to leave altogether?
  In addition the Torah tells us that the servants treated Moses like a king. Just as it is not customary for a citizen to approach the king and begin to speak without having received permission, Pharaoh's servants prostrated themselves as a sign that they asked for permission to speak. The Torah makes this plain by quoting Moses as saying: "they will bow down to me to say, etc;" the bowing was a form of asking permission to speak. While it is true that the Torah does not report these details as having occurred when the events of that night are described in chapter twelve, the fact that the Torah does report that Pharaoh himself arose during that night is sufficient proof that whatever Moses had predicted did in fact occur.
  
  Verse 9
  
   ויאמר ה׳ אל משה לא ישמע אליכם פרעה, G'd said: "Pharaoh will not listen to you, etc." Perhaps G'd answered a privately held belief by Moses that after Pharaoh would experience this dreadful plague he would not only free the Israelites but not pursue them even when he became aware that they had no intention of returning. This would also explain the use of the future tense by G'd. The reason that Pharaoh would remain obstinate was to give G'd an opportunity to perform still more miracles in the land of Egypt. Compare <i>Mechilta</i> 14 which explains why the word ארץ was needed and it was not enough to speak about מצרים.
  G'd may also have told Moses that Pharaoh had not yet understood the impact of Moses' prediction, namely, that as of the moment that he and his servants would urge Israel to leave they would be subject to Moses' authority and not to his. G'd did not want him to understand this yet so as to bring more plagues upon Egypt.
  
  Verse 10
  
   ומשה ואהרון עשו…ויחזק ה׳ את לב פרעה, Moses and Aaron performed all these miracles in Pharaoh's presence….but G'd hardened the heart of Pharaoh, etc. This verse tells us that in spite of all the miracles Moses had performed, Pharaoh was still not willing to let the Israelites leave, not even conditionally, such as had been proposed in 5,3.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   החודש הזה לכם ראש חדשים, "This month shall be for you the beginning of the months." Why did the Torah repeat ראש חדשים and ראשון הוא? I believe the meaning of ראש is that the month of Nissan will be particularly important, the choicest of the months. We find the word ראש used in this sense in Exodus 30,23 when the most important of the spices in the making of oil for anointing is discussed.
  The Torah stressed the word לכם, for you, to tell us that this month would be special only for the Jewish people. Our sages pointed out in <i>Rosh Hashanah</i> 11 that Israel was redeemed from Egypt in Nissan and that the future redemption would again occur in that month. This is so because this month is a harbinger of good tidings for Israel. It is appropriate that Israel should begin the count of the months of the year by making Nissan the first month.
  Another reason that the Torah writes החודש הזה instead of writing חודש זה, is to allude to something or someone we are already familiar with. The reference to this known entity is G'd who is described in 15,2 as זה קלי, "this (One) is my G'd." The Torah alludes to the promise that it is this G'd who will orchestrate the redemption.
  An additional meaning derived from the wording of this line is that Israel will be a ראש, head, as a result of what happened in this month. The numerical value of the word זה is 12, i.e. Nissan will be the first and most distinguished of these twelve months.
  
  Verse 3
  
   דברו אל כל עדת ישראל לאמור, "speak to the whole community of Israel to say, etc." Why did G'd have to use the instruction דברו and could not make do with the method of communicating with the Israelites i.e. לאמור? In fact why did G'd not omit the word לאמור altogether and simply said: דברו? Moses' address could then have included both the information about the new moon as well as the details of preparing for the Passover. The word לאמור is altogether hard to comprehend since it is not clear to whom the Israelites were to communicate this new law about the Passover lamb.
  Perhaps the reason two expressions had to be used is quite simple. The law of the Passover comprised two aspects, 1) that Israel would be uplifted by showing their enemies how they themselves exacted retribution from their deities by slaughtering the sheep (compare <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 16,3), and 2) performance of the command was accompanied by the threat that anyone failing to carry out this command would face death. The word לאמור is therefore appropriate for the first of the two aspects of this commandment, whereas the word דברו is appropriate for the instructions containing a warning about possible non-compliance. Another, secondary meaning of the word לאמור maybe that G'd instructed Moses and Aaron to exercise their authority gently.
  Moses was also to communicate first with the elders as we find that he did in 12,21 where he is reported as having called in all the elders of Israel. The instruction דברו was intended to the elders, whereas the word לאמור teaches that he was also to communicate the details of the law to the entire nation.
  ויקחו להם איש שה, "that they should each take a lamb for themselves, etc." The conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of this legislation is strange. Perhaps we have an allusion here to what Moses said to the Israelites later in verse 21 when he communicated the instructions received here. According to <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 16,2 the word משכו contained a command to the Israelites to refrain henceforth from any idolatrous activity. This instruction did not emanate from G'd but was something Moses told the people on his own. On the other hand, seeing the way Moses told the people one gains the impression that G'd had communicated this to him as a prophetic insight. Perhaps the letter ו here at the beginning of the paragraph is proof that what Moses said in verse 21 and onwards was also part of the instructions he had received from G'd earlier. Precisely what did Moses mean with the word משכו? 
  Seeing that Moses told the people to purchase the lamb on the tenth of the month people would think that those who bought it on that date could slaughter it whereas those who had failed to purchase it or set it aside on the tenth could not buy it on the 11th the 12th or the 13th, therefore Moses added the words "and they may purchase it" to indicate that even if they bought the lamb after the tenth of the month it would still qualify as a sacrifice. All this we derive from the word ויקחו which is preceded by the conjunctive letter ו. The <i>Mechilta</i> on our verse arrives at the ruling about purchasing the lamb on the 11th, 12th, or 13th of the month by a process called a fortiori, simple logic. If something can be deduced by that method and in addition we find an allusion in the text this reinforces our opinion.
  Inasmuch as both the words להם and איש in our verse seem superfluous at first glance seeing that all the Torah had to write was ויקחו שה לבית, we are entitled to derive additional meanings from these words. In a similar situation where the letter ו at the beginning of the word ויקחו seems strange, (Exodus 25,2) <i>Tanchuma</i> understands the letter as including G'd Himself. Here is what <i>Tanchuma</i> has to say there: "G'd said to them: 'take Me with you."' [This would suggest that the gifts the Israelites donated for the Tabernacle would ensure that G'd's presence would dwell amongst them. I have not found this text in my edition of the <i>Tanchuma</i>. Ed.] In our situation, considering that these were the first commandments addressed to the Jews as a people, G'd may also have suggested that performance of these commandments would ensure His Presence amongst the Israelites and that even the Gentiles would become aware of this as pointed out in Deut. 28,10. <i>Sotah</i> 42 claims that on occasion the word איש refers to the Almighty, such as in Samuel I 17,8 where Goliath blasphemes, provoking G'd to battle against him. Here too the word איש may be an allusion to G'd whom Moses called איש מלחמה in Exodus 15,3. The <i>Tikkuney Zohar</i> section 29 demonstrate that the word מצוה contains half of the Ineffable Name at the end, and the other half at the beginning if one applies the method known as <i>aleph tav, bet shin</i> when reading the alphabet. [The letter צ would correspond to the letter ה, whereas the letter מ would correspond to the letter י. Ed.] According to this the Torah hints that by means of this מצוה the Jewish people would make a great acquisition (לקיחה) i.e. they would establish a claim on G'd.
  I have been puzzled why G'd did not specifically exclude the people who were either Gentiles, uncircumcised, or had contracted impurity through contact with the dead from offering and eating the Passover lamb, just as He legislated for the future observance of the Passover holiday (12,43-46 as well as Numbers chapter 9). Whereas we have pointed out in our commentary on Numbers 19,2 that there was a good reason for not permitting the ritually impure to participate in that commandment in subsequent years, there remains the question why the proselytes and the uncircumcised were not excluded from participating in the original passover lamb in Egypt? According to our sages as interpreted by <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 19,6 based on Ezekiel 16,6 the blood mentioned there was the combined blood of circumcision and the blood of the paschal lamb the Israelites offered prior to the Exodus and which G'd "kissed" in appreciation of the readiness for martyrdom the Israelites demonstrated on that occasion. Our sages also interpret on Exodus 12,21 that the word משכו implies that the Israelites first had to divest themselves of any remnants of idolatrous conduct. This would include circumcision. They would have to become full-fledged members of the Jewish people before they qualified for participation in this great מצוה. These are all very fine exegetical points, but they do not address our question why G'd had not spelled out these conditions explicitly, seeing that our chapter contains so many details about this מצוה.
  At the end of our paragraph, (verse 43) after Moses has dealt with the preparations for the Exodus, the Torah legislates the way Passover is to be observed in the future, as a reminder of the Exodus. We find there that a בן נכר and an עבד כעני, a Gentile or a slave whose body is owned by a Jew must not participate in the Passover. Ibn Ezra writes that the whole paragraph starting with verse 43 refers to observance of the Passover by future generations. This was why G'd used that opportunity to add other details which did not apply to the observance of the original Passover in Egypt whereas other details such as the blood which had to sprinkled on the doorposts did not need to be repeated as they would not apply in the future. If he meant that the law about the בן נכר and ערל were new additions, to be observed by future generations only, Ibn Ezra would be in direct contradiction to the traditional views we have cited. Besides, how does he deal with 12,50 where the Torah reports the Israelites as having observed the Passover in accordance with the instructions Moses and Aaron had received from G'd? Surely the Torah would not have written: "the Israelites carried out, etc." if the previous paragraph had dealt only with the observance of the Passover in the future! Ibn Ezra's comment that verse 50 speaks of the observance of the Passover while the Israelites were in the desert seems devoid of any basis in fact. It is unlikely that anyone will take these comments of Ibn Ezra seriously.
  I have found the following comment in the <i>Mechilta</i> on 12,43: "Scripture deals here with both the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of subsequent generations, these are the words of Rabbi Yoshiah. Rabbi Yonathan says that the passage deals with the Passover in Egypt. Whence do I know what rules apply to subsequent Passovers? Scripture says: "in accordance with all its statutes and all its social laws you shall perform it" (Numbers 9,3). According to the foregoing all the Tannaim of the period agreed that the paragraph in question speaks about observance of the Passover in Egypt, thus Ibn Ezra's words are to be disregarded completely. 
  It is therefore possible that when the Torah wrote ויקחו with the extra letter ו, it referred to additional commandments over and above that of circumcision and the need to remove all vestiges of idol worship. The commandment referred to would be the restrictions on the בן נכר and the ערל, the uncircumcised Israelite as outlined in the paragraph commencing with verse 43.
  
  Verse 4
  
   ואם ימעט הבית, If the household be too small, etc. This verse can be explained satisfactorily both according to the view of Rabbi Yossi and the view of Rabbi Yehudah who have conflicting views reported in <i>Pessachim</i> 99 in a situation where the two lambs of two different families have become mixed up and the members of the respective families are not sure to which animal they belong. According to Rabbi Yehudah it is sufficient if one member of each family partakes of both animals in order to fulfil the condition laid down in our verse, i.e. if the number of people originally designated to eat from one lamb had somehow shrunk. Rabbi Yehudah considers the operative part of the verse אם ימעט הבית מהיות משה as the diminutive word ימעט, reduced number, but not total absence. Rabbi Yossi holds that as long as either one of the two animals is not temporarily without anyone committed to eat from it, neither one is disqualified. Rabbi Yossi pays especial attention to the words מהיות משה, i.e. to leave that lamb as temporarily not belonging to anyone. 
  The verse may also tell us that the lamb must be big enough to provide a minimum of an olive size's amount of meat for every member of that household.
  The verse may also be understood as a blessing. If someone has a large family and the family cannot afford much, the lamb will nevertheless provide an adequate amount of meat for every member thereof because consumption of the meat is for the sake of fulfilling G'd's commandment.
  לפי אכלו תכסו על השה, "according to every man's eating you shall make your count for the lamb." According to <i>Pessachim</i> 88 this means that a father may slaughter the Passover lamb on behalf of his wife and his children who are minors without having to consult them first. <i>Pessachim</i> 87 also teaches that a married woman who was still in the habit of frequenting her father's home, and who finds that both her husband and her father have included her as potential participants in their respective Passover offerings, has the choice to decide to which household she wishes to belong for the purpose of consuming the Passover. This is based on the words לפי אכלו meaning "according to where she is in the habit of taking her meals."
  Another rule we learn from this verse (<i>Pessachim</i> 90) is that a person who is obligated to bury a near relative maybe included in the count for a Passover lamb though at the time the lamb is being slaughtered he is not yet under an obligation to fulfil this commandment due to his prior obligation to attend to the burial. The operative word is לפי אכלו meaning that as long as he is fit to eat it in the evening.
  The same word also serves as a ruling concerning a person afflicted with a discharge from his sexual organ (זב). The Passover may be slaughtered on such a person's behalf. The same applies to a person who is in the process of undergoing ritual purification and only needs to await sunset on that day to have completed this process. In all these instances the deciding factor is whether the person in question will be legally entitled to partake of the Passover on the evening of the 15th of Nissan.
  Both <i>Mechilta</i> and <i>Pessachim</i> 90 consider Numbers 9,6 in which Israelites are complaining about not being able to eat of the Passover in the desert due to their being ritually impure, as referring to people who would have completed their purification process by the evening of the 15th of Nissan. Why were these people prevented from eating the Passover then? The reason was that their ritual impurity was of the most severe kind, i.e. due to contact with the dead. According to one authority such impurity is still considered as sufficiently effective even if the party concerned has already undergone the final sprinkling of spring water. According to Rabbi Yossi we could conclude that even a person who was on the last day of purification after having been in contact with a corpse would qualify to join a household whose head had included him in the Passover guests at the time he slaughtered his animal. This is especially so if the person had already undergone immersion in a ritual bath.
  
  Verse 5
  
   ומן העזים תקחו, "or you may take it from amongst the he-goats." The reason the Torah had to write the word תקחו, you shall purchase or take once more is to teach that it is permitted to use a goat even if one owns a sheep of the appropriate age group.
  
  Verse 6
  
   והיה לכם למשמרת, "And you will keep it under observation until the fourteenth, etc." This means that the lamb required special examination just as any animals designated to become sacrificial offerings. This begins as soon as one has designated what "name" i.e. the specific offering the animal is to serve as. According to an opinion in <i>Shir Hashirim Rabbah</i> on the verse "like a lily amongst the thorns" this is a reference to the phenomenon that G'd had to liberate the Jewish people as גוי מקרב גוי, "one nation immersed within another nation" (Deut.4,34), the reason the Israelites had to set aside the lamb four days prior to being able to slaughter it was because it took that length of time to divest themselves of the remnants of their pagan practices. All of this is hinted at in the word משכו in verse 21. When the <i>Midrash</i> speaks about the Israelites having to divest themselves of vestiges of idol worship this is not to be understood as their being idol worshippers. However, they still used to wear clothing which the pagans wore, ate foods that the pagans ate, etc. The fastest and most effective way of countering the psychological impact of their former practices was to set aside the Egyptian deity in the knowledge that they would slaughter it in a few days' time. Inasmuch as the Egyptians believed in astrology, the constellation of the ram represented a handicap Israel had to overcome. Slaughtering a ram was the most effective way of doing this.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ואכלו את הבשר, "and they will eat the meat, etc." <i>Pessachim</i> 83 states that the emphasis here on the Israelites eating the "meat" means that they were not to eat the horns, the hooves, the sinews, etc. This exegesis is strange since we have a rule that the expression את always means that something is to be included not excluded and the Torah here wrote את הבשר! Perhaps the addition alluded to by the word את can be traced to the <i>Mishnah Pessachim</i> 7,11 that "the parts of the lamb that are permitted to be eaten are those which are analogous to the parts of the ox that are permitted to be eaten." Ravah explains <i>Pessachim</i> 84 that what is meant are parts of the animals which become soft as a result of boiling them in water.
  There is also a disagreement between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish (folio 84 <i>Pessachim)</i> about the permissibility of sinews which though soft after boiling revert to becoming hard when taken out of the water. Rabbi Yochanan feels such sinews are not permissible as food as they are not analogous to "meat," whereas Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish feels that the sinews are sufficiently analogous to flesh to be included under the heading בשר.
  ומצות על מרורים, together with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. The plain meaning of the verse seems to be that the roasting of the lamb whole is a symbol of freedom. Freedom means wholeness. The requirement to eat bitter herbs with it is natural; Egyptians used to eat roast meat with something pungent as this enhanced the taste of the meat and enabled the person who ate it to thoroughly enjoy his meal. Letting the bitter herbs precede the meat in his mouth made one more conscious of the contrast and of how something which by itself had tasted bitter would suddenly transform the whole meal into an enjoyable experience. The unleavened bread also contributed to that feeling. We therefore find that there were three components which combined to make the meal enjoyable.
  These three components symbolised three things. 1) The exile which had embittered the Israelites' lives; 2) The suddenness of the Exodus so that even their dough did not have time enough to rise. 3) The fact that G'd "passed over" the houses of the Israelites which was a major element of the redemption. This "leap-frogging" severed Israel's previous dependence on the Egyptians which had appeared as incapable of separation. I have explained the nature of the good being inextricably intertwined with the evil in my commentary on Exodus 11,5. Redemption meant the tearing asunder of these bonds between good and evil. These three phenomena had to be experienced simultaneously otherwise the whole redemption would not have been possible. If a single element had been lacking the other two would not even have been miraculous at all by themselves. Without the exile experience no other refining process could have been effective and could have borne fruit. We have explained in our commentary on Genesis 46,3 how the descent into the immoral environment of Egypt was a necessary prelude to "rescuing" the souls that had been taken captive by the forces of the קליפה at the time Adam had eaten from the tree of knowledge. This is also the mystical dimension of Kohelet 8,9: "there is a time when one man rules over another to his detriment." Had the Exodus not occurred as abruptly as it did, the Israelites might well have returned to Egypt to become ever more deeply mired in that moral morass. This idea is best expressed by the author of the <i>Haggadah shel Pessach</i> who claims that: "if G'd had not taken us out of there (at the time), then both we and our forefathers would have remained subservient to Pharaoh in Egypt." This is what the Torah means in 12,39 when it testifies that "they could not tarry any longer." The principal element of the redemption was the פסיחה, "the skipping over." Hillel (<i>Pessachim</i> 115) symbolised the importance of the simultaneous occurrence of these three elements when he insisted that we must consume the meat, the bitter herbs and the unleavened bread as a single "sandwich."
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ולא יהיה בכם נגף למשחית, "so there will be no plague against you to destroy, etc." What is meant is that the destructive force (angel of death) will have no excuse to attack you rather than his other natural targets; he will notice the blood on the doorposts of your homes as if it were the seal of the Almighty and be afraid to approach and inflict harm. This was the reason G'd commanded the Israelites to use the blood as a sign. Should you say that in that case any Egyptian hiding out in the house of an Israelite which bore the sign of that blood could escape the plague, the Torah wrote בכם, the restrictions on the angel of death applied only "to you." The "light" of having performed the commandment illuminated only Israel; we find confirmation of this in Isaiah 60,2: ועליך יזרח ה וכבודו עליך יראה, "but upon you the Lord will shine and His Presence will be seen over you."
  
  Verse 14
  
   חקת עולם תחגהו, "you will celebrate it as an everlasting statute." Why did the Torah not only use the expression לדורותיכם, "for your generations" which it uses normally? While it is true that the <i>Mechilta</i> states that the word "your generations" would imply only the minimum, i.e. two generations, and the expression חקת עולם means forever, it is still peculiar that the Torah had to use both expressions. The reason is connected to the discussion in <i>Berachot</i> 12 about the verse "in order that you remember the day you came out of Egypt for all the days of your life (including messianic times)." The opposing interpretation of that verse claims that the words "all the days of your life" mean "the whole days of your life" i.e. including the nights (Deut. 17,3). If the Torah had only used the words חקות עולם, I might have concluded that this day is to be observed only during periods when the Jewish people are free and independent; when they are in exile, however, I could argue that there would be no occasion to especially mark that date, therefore the Torah had to add the word לדורותיכם to tell us that the Passover rites are to be observed not only when we are free and independent but even when we are in exile. It is a statute, חוקה, and does not depend on our circumstances.
  
  Verse 15
  
   שבעת ימים מצות תאכלו, "You shall eat unleavened bread for seven days, etc." This is connected to the fact that the Israelites' dough did not rise due to the suddenness of the redemption. You may well ask how the Torah could legislate (verse 14) a memorial for something that had not even taken place yet? After all, the dough did not rise because of the constant motion of the people carrying it on their backs, something that occurred on the morrow! They had not even slaughtered the Passover lamb yet and already the Torah speaks of an annual memorial to something that had not happened as yet! The whole Exodus would not occur until after the Israelites had slaughtered the Passover and eaten it with unleavended bread, and had thereby acquired the merit enabling G'd to take them out of Egypt! This is the day which G'd would remember for them in order to take them out, etc.
  In support of our contention that the Torah here does not speak of a commandment to eat unleavened bread for seven days, you will note that <i>Pessachim</i> 120 arrives at the conclusion that the mention of "seven days you shall eat unleavened bread" in our verse is not a commandment but a voluntary observance, the commandment to eat unleavened bread applying only on the night the Passover is eaten; the duty to eat unleavened bread became effective only on the evening preceding the Exodus. In later generations, the eating of unleavened bread was not a reminder of a miracle at all. Perhaps the manner in which the Torah reports this legislation is meant to tell us that the eating of unleavened bread on the night of the Passover will be accounted for the people eating it as if they had eaten unleavened bread during all the seven days of that holiday.
  G'd commanded two kinds of מקראי קדש, "holy convocations," one on the first day, i.e. the 15th of Nissan and one on the seventh day, i.e. the 21st day of Nissan. The latter "holy convocation" was in respect of the final stage of the redemption, the drowning of the pursuing Egyptians in the sea. There were two separate miracles which needed to be commemorated then.
  Another reason accounting for the seven days from the 15th to the 21st of Nissan being considered as a unit, i.e. שבעת ימים instead of שבעה ימים, is because G'd did not formulate the prohibition not to eat leavened bread as an outright commandent, such as "do not eat חמץ." I would have thought that a person who does not eat leavened matter during these days is neither culpable nor has he acquired special merit. The Torah therefore implies that not eating חמץ is equivalent to eating מצה and that such a person has acquired the merit of seven consecutive positive commandments (one for each day he did not eat חמץ.) [I believe the author refers to the fact that the prohibition of eating leavened matter in verse 19 is phrased impersonally, i.e. "anyone who eats leavened matter will be cut off from his people," whereas the repetition in verse 20 which addresses itself directly to the people makes no mention of seven days. If this is not the correct interpretation we must assume an uncorrected error in all the earlier manuscripts. Somewhat remarkably, the author does not comment on either verse 19 or verse 20 in this chapter. Ed.]
  The reason the Torah already mentioned seven days here is that the Israelites should be occupied with the performance of מצות right until the moment on the seventh day when the last stage of the redemption would be completed after G'd had displayed even greater miracles than previously.
  There is another mystical reason for the number seven, the root of the souls of the Jewish people being equated with שבעה עינים, as we know from Zachariah 3,9, and the community of Israel is therefore frequently referred to as בת שבעה, "the seven-fold one," compare <i>Zohar</i> volume 3 page 6). [According to Rabbi Moshe Cordovero in his פרדס רמונים the expression שבעת ימים is a reference to the emanation בינה which presides over the 6 days preceding it, i.e. which are subordinate to it. Ed.]
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ושמרתם את המצות, "You shall guard the unleavened breads, etc." G'd told us that just as He had carefully guarded that date and had not redeemed us a single day later than the timetable He had planned, so we should be careful not to allow the dough for the unleavened bread to remain inactive a minute too long ; otherwise it might begin to rise.
  The Torah added: "you shall observe this day" to teach that not only must we be very careful in the preparation of the unleavened bread, but we must also be very careful with our calendar calculations so as not to observe the Passover on the wrong day of the month. We cannot substitute a different day for celebrating this holiday. The reason is that what occurred happened בעצם i.e. this word is to be read in both directions. The careful watch over the dough and the careful observance of the correct date are both because of what occurred on that very day. We are to emulate what G'd did at that time to the best of our ability.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   ויקרא משה לכל זקני ישראל, Moses called all the elders of Israel, etc. Although G'd had told Moses to speak to the whole community of Israel we must interpret this commandment as similar to Leviticus 4,13 where the Torah speaks of: "if the whole community of Isael committed an unintentional sin, etc." In that instance the Torah also refers to the elders, as <i>Torat Kohanim</i> explains on that verse. The words following, i.e. ויאמר אליהם, may mean that Moses addressed the rest of the people just as became customary with informing the people of any of the other commandments of the Torah.
  Alternatively, Moses only told the elders and they in turn told the people. In that event this commandment would be different from all the other commandments in the Torah. The reason that the Israelites were not addressed by Moses directly could be that they had not yet entered the holy covenant, had not yet been circumcised. As a result they needed an additional intermediary. The elders had their own method of prevailing on the people to accept this legislation.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   ושמרתם את הדבר הזה, "You will observe this matter." According to the plain meaning of this verse the Torah tells that such matters as the sprinkling of the blood of the paschal lamb would also be performed in future generations. However, we have no reports to indicate that these details were ever observed again. We do not find that either the <i>Mishnah</i> or the Talmud ever instituted this as a rabbinic requirement. I believe that the words לחק לך on the one hand, and ולבניך on the other hand, mean that the application of the Passover law is not identical for future generations. As for as you, i.e. the present generation is concerned, all the aforementioned details apply. As to לבניך עד עולם only certain details of the Passover in Egypt will apply. The verse relies on legislation repeated in the Torah elsewhere to arrive at the pertinent observances to be observed in the future. The repetition of the purpose of these observances in Egypt, i.e. to keep the angel of death away from the homes of the Jews makes it plain that certain of the details would not apply in the future when G'd would not kill the firstborns.
  
  Verse 25
  
   והיה כי תבאו אל הארץ, "It will be when you come to the land, etc." According to the plain meaning of the verse the commandment mentioned here does not apply until after the Israelites enter the Holy Land. If that were so, however, why did G'd appear to have changed His mind when He commanded the Israelites to observe the Passover in the second year of their wanderings in the desert "at the appropriate time and in all its details" (Numbers 9,1)?
  It would appear that this verse contains an assurance that if the Israelites would conduct themselves meritoriously they would already observe the following year's Passover in their homeland. The delay occurred only because of the Israelites' disobedience and rebelliousness which commenced already before the completion of the Exodus at the Sea of Reeds (compare Psalms 106,7: "they rebelled at the sea, at the Sea of Reeds"). All these factors delayed the conquest of the Holy Land. When G'd saw that they were still in the desert He had to issue a command that they should observe the Passover even in the desert. Up to that point in the Book of Numbers they had only been commanded to observe the Passover once they arrived in the Holy Land. While it is true- as the prophet Isaiah has said- that G'd knows of all future developments in advance (Isaiah 41,4), He had held back with issuing instructions which would indicate that the trek through the desert would be beset with problems.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   וילכו ויעשו בני ישראל כאשר צוה השם, The children of Israel went and did as G'd commanded, etc." The Torah had to repeat כן עשו, "they did so," to underline that they obeyed what Moses had commanded them in the name of G'd though they did not understand the meaning of all these regulations. Had the Torah not written the words כן עשו, we could have thought that they did so because they understood it all.
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   ויקם פרעה לילה, Pharaoh rose up during the night, etc. The reason that the Torah mentions "at night," something that was obvious, is that according to the <i>Zohar</i> 2, page 38 that night was as bright as daylight. I have already found an allusion to this fact in Exodus 13,8 where the Torah instructs the Jewish father to tell his sons about the happenings during that night ביום ההוא, "on that day." The Torah means that the father should not fail to mention that one of the things that occurred during that night was that the night turned into day. In the event that we would think that the daylight during that night shone for both the Egyptians and the Israelites, the Torah emphasises that when Pharaoh rose he thought it was night because for him it was dark.
  
  Verse 31
  
   ויקרא למשה ולאהרון לילה, "He called for Moses and Aaron at night, etc." The reason that the Torah repeats the word לילה, night, could be that Pharaoh was afraid that inasmuch as he had forbidden Moses and Aaron to see him again on pain of death (10,28), they would use this as an excuse not to see him, fearing it was a trap to give Pharaoh an excuse to execute them. By emphasising the word לילה Pharaoh indicated that he had only threatened them on "the day you will see my face, etc." Since it was night, they had no reason to be afraid. Alternatively, Pharaoh meant that seeing it was dark they would not see his face anyways, and his threat applied only to their seeing his face.
  One could also interpret this verse by viewing the word לילה as part of Moses' answer. Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron, whereupon the latter responded that it was now night, i.e. not the time to conduct negotiations. Moses may have added that G'd had forbidden any of the Israelites to leave their houses during that night (12,22) until morning.
  Upon hearing this Pharaoh said: קומו צאו, "arise and depart." In other words Pharaoh freed the Israelites by this proclamation. The expression קומו, "arise," may even contain a hint of Pharaoh's granting the Israelites a "higher status" than they had possessed heretofore. <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 58,8 explains Genesis 23,17 where the field and cave of Machpelah are described as ויקם, having arisen. Whereas previously, before Abraham's purchase, the field and cave belonged to a low-life such as Efron, the field and cave "rose" to a higher status by becoming the property of a man of the calibre of Abraham. At any rate, Pharaoh believed that by declaring the Israelites a free people without any further ado, he could free himself of the plague of the dying of the firstborn. If they did not leave immediately, their continued stay could not be blamed on him.
  Another meaning of the words קומו צאו is that it is an accusation. Seeing that Moses and Aaron had refused to come to Pharaoh, he called upon them to rise from their beds for their own benefit, i.e. "the reason I have called you was so that you should leave the country." Accordingly, Moses and Aaron explained that their failure to get up from their beds immediately was not lack of respect for the king but לילה, G'd had ordered them not to leave their houses during that night.
  גם אתם גם בני ישראל, "both you and the children of Israel." Why did Pharaoh say גם, also, already before mentioning that Moses and Aaron were to leave? Besides, why did Moses and Aaron need Pharaoh's permission to leave that he said to them: "depart from amongst my people?" They were not his prisoners! Perhaps the wording of Pharaoh's dismissal reveals that subconsciously he had always wanted to arrest Moses and Aaron. When he now gave orders that the Israelites could leave, he had to first reverse his thinking about detaining Moses and Aaron individually. None of this would have been discernible if the word גם had been used only in connection with the departure of the Israelites as a people.
  Still another meaning of this verse is that Pharaoh not only discharged the Israelites but he expelled them. The words גם אתם may then be interpreted thus: "Although you are no longer under my control as slaves, I do not want you to reside in my country any longer." This was a new element. Now the point had been reached of which G'd had said to Moses in 11,1: "when he will finally discharge you completely he will not only discharge you but he will expel you." The words גם בני ישראל refer to the women and the children; the word גם, also, in connection with גם צאנכם in verse 32 refers to the other items such as the animals Pharaoh himself was to supply (compare 10,25).
  
  Verse 32
  
   וברכתם גם אותי, "bless me also." The past tense here is to be interpreted as a wish, i.e. "bless me too." Pharaoh meant that not only should the plague stop but that the result of Moses' blessing should be the process of the rehabilitation of Egypt.
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   עשו כדבר משה, they did in accordance with Moses' instructions. The Torah stresses that the reason the Israelites "borrowed" all this silver, gold, etc., was not because they were greedy for material goods but because Moses had instructed them to. The Torah may also teach us an object lesson in what Maimonides wrote in chapter nine of his <i>Hilchot Yesodey Hatorah</i> that if a prophet orders the people to commit an act which is against Torah law and such an order is of a temporary nature, an emergency situation, the people are to accept the prophet's instructions as long as the violation is not in the realm of idol worship. The people here were not happy about deceiving the Egyptians by making them think they were borrowing these trinkets intending to return them in a few days. Seeing that Moses was a duly accredited prophet, however, they complied with bis instructions in spite of their misgivings.
  
  Verse 36
  
   וישאילום, וינצלו את מצרים, they let them have what they asked; they emptied Egypt (of valuables). All this was a result of G'd giving the people favour in the eyes of the Egyptians so that the Egyptians lent them these trinkets against their will (the will of the Israelites). This proves that the Israelites were not prepared at that time to leave Egypt permanently else they themselves would have asked not only for what the Egyptians volunteered but for much more in order to enrich themselves. When the Torah writes that: "they emptied Egypt," the subject are the Egyptians themselves. From the above we see how correct the Talmud was in <i>Berachot</i> 9 where it is stated that the Israelites were so enamoured of the idea of leaving Egypt that financial gain did not interest them at that time. As a result G'd helped them acquire great possessions in a miraculous manner. All of this was a reward for their meritorious behaviour. [The author implies that if the Israelites had displayed greed by asking for a lot they never would have received as much as they did. Ed.]
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
   מצות כי לא חמץ, unleavened breads because it was not leavened. The Torah means that the reason they baked Matzot was that they did not have permission to eat leavened bread; as a result they had to hasten in order to bake מצות. These loaves turned out to be matzot even though some time had elapsed between the kneading of the dough and the baking. Possibly, they kept the dough in motion in order to prevent it from becoming leavened. When the Torah bothered to graphically describe that "their kneading bowls were slung as bundles in their dresses over their shoulders" (verse 34), such a description would not be justified unless we were to learn something from it. Surely the Israelites had some other place where they could have carried their dough. The Torah wants to teach us that they deliberately vibrated the dough to keep it from rising. The process was facilitated by the fact that they had not added yeast to the dough in the first place. The Torah describes that the reason the dough did not have a chance to become leavened before the Exodus as being: "for they were being expelled from Egypt."
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
   ויהי מקץ שלושים שנה, It was at the end of 430 yers, etc." The Torah does not tell us what happened at that time, otherwise why would the word ויהי be repeated immediately afterwards. If the Torah had alluded to the time of the Exodus the second ויהי would be superfluous. Another thing requiring exegesis is what painful element is alluded to in the word ויהי in this instance.
  Perhaps the painful element referred to is the very length of time it took for the people to be redeemed. Had they possessed the necessary merit they would not have had to wait until the pre-arranged timetable, i.e. מקץ, the end of the time originally allocated for their bondage. Alternatively, the pain alluded to is the very length of the 430 years mentioned earlier as the time the people sojourned in Egypt.
  ויהי בעצם, it was on that same day, etc. The Torah may use the expression to tell us that though the Israelites departed on that day, the troubles of the Egyptians had not come to an end. We have a reference to the Egyptians being busy on that day burying their dead (Numbers 33,4) whereas at the same time the Israelites left Egypt their heads held high.
  
  Verse 42
  
   ליל שמורים הוא לה׳ It was a night of vigil for G׳d, etc. The verse refers specifically to those miracles G'd performed at night. 1) In the days of Abraham when the latter defeated the four kings with his 318 men at night (Genesis 14,15); 2) during the Exodus when G'd is reported to have killed the firstborn at midnight (12,29). 3) In the days of Hezekiah when the angel Gabriel smote the army of Sancheriv on that night (Kings II 19,35). 4) In the days of Mordechai and Esther when the king could not sleep (Esther 6,1). 5) The redemption of the Jewish people in the future.
  Concerning the miracle in Abraham's time, the Torah says here "it was a night of vigilance for G'd," because G'd had demonstrated His truth as mentioned in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 42. According to the <i>Midrash</i> there were some people who did not believe that G'd had saved Abraham from Nimrod's furnace in Ur Kasdim at the time. When they heard about how Abraham defeated these four kings, they changed their minds. The verse goes on to say "to take them out of Egypt," a reference to what happened during this night; the words הוא הלילה, are an allusion to the night in the future when G'd would smite the army of Sancheriv. The allusion to what would happen in the time of Mordechai and Esther is contained in the words הזה לה׳, whereas the reference to the redemption of the future is provided by the words שמורים לכל בני ישראל לדרותם, i.e. at the end of the exiles, may it happen soon.
  
  Verse 43
  
   ויאמר ה׳…זאת חוקת הפסח, G'd said: "this is the statute of the Passover, etc." It is puzzling why this verse does not follow the usual procedure of introducing a direct commandment, i.e. "speak to the children of Israel, etc." According to what we wrote on verse 3 that this paragraph was said on the 14th of Nissan there was no need to write: "speak to the children of Israel" because it is a continuation of what is written in verse 3, i.e. "speak to the whole community, etc." We must explain then why this paragraph is not recorded as part of what Moses said in that verse. The answer is that this whole commandment is designed for observance of the Passover in future generations only, hence it was revealed after the Exodus. The principle reason for the legislation is to inform Israel that every detail mentioned here is essential for performance of the Passover in the future.
  I have seen a view expressed in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 19,5 according to which G'd despatched a special wind from Paradise which lent its fragrance to Moses' Passover. When the Israelites inhaled this fragrance they all begged Moses to allow them a taste of his Passover lamb. Moses replied they could not do this as they had not been circumcised, seeing it states in our verse that you have to be circumcised in order to eat from the Passover. Thereupon the Israelites performed the rite of circumcision upon themselves. According to this <i>Midrash</i> we can easily explain why the Torah here did not write: "speak to the children of Israel, etc." An alternative explanation is that this paragraph was addressed only to Moses and Aaron and that G'd commanded them that uncircumcised people should not eat from the Passover. After the Israelites came to Moses and wanted to eat from his Passover they decided to circumcise themselves. [after all the commandment to circumcise themselves dated back to Abrahamitic times and was not valid only for consumption of the Passover. Ed.]
  According to the aforementioned <i>Midrash</i> how was it possible that Moses would let everyone partake of his Passover seeing it could only be eaten by people who had been invited prior to its being slaughtered? Perhaps Moses only promised them that they could eat from it in order to encourage them to perform circumcision. As soon as the Israelites had circumcised themselves they found that their own Passover exuded the same fragrance as that of Moses so that they did not need to ask him to share it with them. I have seen a proof that the words of that <i>Midrash</i> are true, i.e. that the Israelites had not been prepared to circumcise themselves up to that point. We read in Ezekiel 20,8: "they rebelled against Me and did not want to listen to Me, and I threatened to pour out My wrath over them in the land of Egypt." Clearly, the prophet speaks of the Israelites' unwillingness to observe even the few commandments of G'd which applied at that time, primarily that of circumcision.
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
   וכי יגור אתך גר, "When a stranger will sojourn with you, etc." This was Moses' authority to accept converts from amongst the Egyptians. The reason the Torah writes אתך, "with you" (sing), is that such conversions had to be personally approved by Moses. There is also a hint here that G'd agreed to this only reluctantly, i.e. לרצון משה, and that is why the Torah wrote אתך גר, "he is a stranger (proselyte) with you, (but not with Me). G'd's reluctance was due to Moses' inability to examine G'd's hidden reasons. We all know what the result of Moses' accepting such proselytes was and how they triggered the sin of the golden calf.
  המול לו כל זכר, "let all his males be circumcised, etc." Just as failure to circumcise a slave prevents such a slave from participating in the Passover, so failure of a proselyte to circumcise all his male slaves is a prerequisite before the proselyte himself can eat of the Passover. The reason that the Torah adds ואז יקרב, "and then he may approach," is to tell us that he does not need to appoint a natural born Jew to slaughter his Passover offering but that he may do so himself. This is why the Torah adds: "he will be just like a natural born Jew."
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
   ויהי בעצם היום הזה, It was on the self-same day, etc. The reason the Torah records the Exodus immediately after concluding the legislation of the Passover ceremonies is to remind us that the fulfilment of this מצוה is what triggered the redemption from Egypt. The Israelites had no other credentials than performance of this commandment.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   והיה בי יביאך ה׳ אל ארע הכנעני, "It will be when G'd brings you to the land of the Canaanite, etc." The reason that this particular commandment is conditional on arrival in the Holy Land is either in accordance with what I have written on Exodus 12,25, or in order that the story of the Exodus should not be forgotten once the Israelites had lived in the Holy Land for many generations.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   והגדת לבנך, "you shall tell your son, etc." The expression והגדת instead of ואמרת is unusual and our sages in <i>Shabbat</i> 87 state that the term implies "words which are as tough as tendons." Another peculiarity is the expression ביום ההוא, "on that day," whereas immediately afterwards the verse concludes with the expression בעבור זה, "on account of this." The <i>Haggadah shel Pessach</i> as well as the <i>Mechilta</i> understand the verse as referring to a time when Matzah and bitter herbs are in front of you, i.e. at night. Seeing that I know that the time for that recital is at night, why did the Torah have to mention "on that day" at all? Furthermore, why do we need the word לאמור seeing that the Torah already wrote והגדת, "you shall tell?"
  We may have to understand all this in accordance with the statement in <i>Pessachim</i> 116 that when one recites the Passover story one begins with aspects which reflect discredit and concludes with aspects which reflect credit on the Jewish people. The discredit consists of the fact that our ancestors were pagans, something one can hardly boast about. The Torah therefore hints at this procedure by writing והגדת, "you will relate matters which are as tough as tendons;" you will conclude with אמירה, i.e. לאמור, words which recall that you were meritorious. The words ביום ההוא are a hint of the future redemption when the night will be called "day" (compare Psalms 139,13). It is also a reminder that the night preceding the morning of the Exodus was illuminated for the Jews (see our comment on 12,30). The Torah adds the words בעבור זה so that we will not err and conduct these ceremonies during the hours which belong to the day but at the time when we have to consume Matzah, i.e. in the evening. Possibly the words והגדת and ביום ההוא have been placed next to one another in order that we will also include the miraculous way in which that night turned into bright daylight for the Jews.
  Another reason that the Torah had to write the word לאמור in addition to והגדת is that the former was addressed to "your son." A father of girls or a husband not blessed with children might have concluded that since he had no son he would be free from the obligation to conduct the annual סדר celebration; the Torah writes לאמור, to tell us that even if the person is all alone he must relate what happened during that night to himself. Seeing that this is so, you may well ask why the Torah had to speak about a father telling his son at all? Perhaps I would not have known that under certain conditions one must "tell oneself" the <i>Haggadah shel Pessach</i> unless the Torah had used extra verbiage. Perhaps the Torah hinted that if someone is particular about telling of the Exodus, G'd will eventually grant him a son to whom he can relate these events.
  בעבור זה, "on account of this, etc." Perhaps the word זה (numerical value 12) alludes to 12 commandments connected with the Passover observance. The first three are the lamb, the unleavened bread, and the bitter herbs; then there is the <i>Haggadah</i> followed by the seven days of the festival and the benediction over wine on the night of the festival. The Torah has to phrase it as בעבור זה עשה because the seven days of the festival do not count as seven separate commandments in the list of 613 commandments.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   והיה כי יביאך, "It will be when He will bring you, etc." The Torah underlines once more that it is G'd who will bring you to the Holy Land so that you should not forget about His commandments in the belief that you yourself have achieved all this, especially after your border will gradually extend further and further. Although this commandment is not applicable until after conquest of the land, it remains in force even if the land is lost as it is a commandment that involves the body and not the earth. <i>Kidushin</i> 36 teaches that all commandments which are performed by one's body apply throughout the ages and wherever a Jew resides.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   והיה כי ישאלך בנך, "It will be when your son enquires of you, etc." The Torah means that when your son observes you perform the ceremony of redeeming a firstborn he will ask you the reason for that commandment. In that event you are obligated to explain the meaning of the commandment. If the son does not ask you, you are not obligated to answer him except on the night of the Passover. This is the reason the Torah added the word מחר, "tomorrow;" This means that even if your son will ask you already tomorrow you are immediately obligated to tell him the reason for this commandment. The Torah adds the word לאמור to indicate that what is meant is a situation when your son expects an answer to his question. If the son, however, simply asks מה זאת, i.e. "what is this all about?" a derisive way of questioning, then you are under no obligation to answer him at that time.
  The question need not necessarily be exactly "what is this all about?" Any question whose upshot appears to be that the questioner wants to be told what our tradition is all about is to be answered forthwith. It is clear therefore that the Torah does not speak of the night of the Passover but of the commandment to sanctify the firstborn of the womb. When our sages (<i>Mechilta)</i> comment that the four occasions when the Torah cites the sons as asking refer to four different types of children this is all homiletics.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  ‎[This is a comment to the Torah’s‎‏ ‏statement, “It shall be a sign upon your Handידכה ‏‎.”] Our Rabbis ‎of blessed memory said (Menachot 37a), “’Yadchah (spelled with an extra hey implies the weaker ‎hand (yad kehah), which is the left hand. We need to understand why Hashem did not choose the ‎right hand to perform this mitzvah, since it is greater. Our Rabbis say that this is in order that (the ‎tefillin) be aligned next to the heart, which is towards the left side (of the body), and their words ‎are true. However it appears to me that there is an additional reason, for the Torah itself gives a ‎reason for the matter in saying, “Because with a strong hand.” You need to know that HaShem has ‎‎2 aspects within His attributes. The first is called “the great hand, yad hagedolah”, and the other is ‎called “the strong hand, yad hachazakah”. “The great hand” represents (G-d’s) aspect of kindness ‎and goodness; “the strong hand” represents His strength, which He repays the wicked according to ‎their wickedness. In removing Bnei Yisrael from Egypt, Hashem stretched out “the strong hand” ‎and struck His enemies with ten plagues. For this reason G-d said that tefillin, which contain the ‎written remembrance (of these events), should be placed on our weak hand (our left hand), which‏ ‏represents “the strong hand” that‏ ‏removed us from Egypt. This is why the‏ ‏pasuk here says, “for ‎with the strength of a hand.” This is correct. Granted that it says in many places (regarding ‎punishment), “the great‏ ‏hand,” in those instances G-d’s attribute‏ ‏of mercy concurred with the ‎attribute of justice, but the essence of justice is still‏ ‏performed through the “strong hand.”‎‏ ‏‎{Ed. ‎Note - Thus, despite the term‏ ‏‎“strong,” the “strong hand” which‎‏ ‏represents justice is, in fact, ‎weaker‏ ‏than the “great hand” which‏ ‏represents mercy. To symbolize the‏ ‏vengeance that G-d ‎exacted from‏ ‏Egypt through His “weaker hand,” we‏ ‏don our tefillin, which memorialize‏ ‏these ‎events, on our weaker hand.}‎
  
  Verse 17
  
   ויהי בשלח פרעה את העם, It happened when Pharaoh discharged the people, etc. Why does the Torah employ the word ויהי which always indicates some painful experience? The Torah should have described the Exodus in glowing terms! Besides, why does the Torah attribute the Exodus to Pharaoh rather than to G'd? After all, He took us out of Egypt, something the Torah does not tire of mentioning on numerous occasions!
  The word ויהי may be justified in view of the pursuit by Pharaoh and the resulting fear the Israelites were to experience shortly. The Torah hints that the reason such a pursuit occurred was because Pharaoh had a hand in the Exodus, i.e. G'd had waited till Pharaoh himself had been willing to liberate the Jews. If it had all been G'd's doing such a pursuit would not have occurred. As soon as the Jews departed Pharaoh schemed to find a justification to pursue them and to convince his people that the attempt to bring the Israelites back would be worthwhile. We will explain later Pharaoh's reasoning in greater detail. All Pharaoh's scheming constituted something negative for the Israelites. It was far from a foregone conclusion that G'd would simply kill the Egyptians. We know from <i>Megillah</i> 10 that G'd is greatly concerned when the necessity arises to destroy His creatures. We do not recite the whole of Hallel on the seventh day of Passover when G'd eliminated the last of our Egyptian enemies because "when G'd's creatures drown in the sea it is no cause for rejoicing." Pharaoh had deluded himself that it was up to him to decide whether or not to allow the Israelites to depart. If so, he could just as easily renege as he had done during the course of his protracted encounters with Moses and Aaron. Israel had ample reason to be concerned about such an eventuality. For all these reasons the introductory ויהי is more than justified. In fact the conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of the words ולא נחם, indicates that Israel had additional reasons to be concerned of negative developments on the horizon.
  Another detail to watch in our verse is the word עם. The <i>Zohar</i> second part, page 45 states that whenever Israel is described as עם it is an allusion to the mixed multitude of converts that joined the Israelites at the Exodus. In our portion you will find the Israelites are variously described as בני ישראל and as העם. For instance, in the next verse already the departing Israelites are referred to as בני ישראל. Apparently G'd wanted to make certain that we realised that the people described as העם were not natural born Jews. Our sages in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 42,6 consider Israel's corruption in the desert as inspired by these converts. They were the ones who wanted to appoint a new leader to take them back to Egypt (Numbers 14,4). They were also the ones who said: "make a god for us who will walk before us, etc." (Exodus 32,1). All this is alluded to in the word ויהי at the beginning of our paragraph. מThe meaning of the words בשלח פרעה את העם is that whereas G'd liberated the Israelites, Pharaoh allowed the newly converted fellow travellers to depart. G'd had been interested only in acquiring for Himself a great nation as His inheritance. Pharaoh's reasoning in allowing these newly convertedd Jews to depart with the main body of the Jewish people was that they would somehow prevail on the natural born Israelites to return to Egypt. In view of this we can understand even better why G'd did not let the Israelites travel a route to Canaan which would have taken them through territory owned by the Philistines although it was the shortest route. We may understand the word קרוב as describing people who had only recently converted to Judaism and were not yet rooted firmly in sanctity. When people like that faced the Philistines they might turn back and return to Egypt as the lesser of two evils.
  The word קרוב may also suggest that these people came close to becoming sinful and as a corollary to also corrupt the (natural born) Israelites. They would indict themselves by their reaction when they would realise they were expected to battle the Philistines. As a result they would regret their recent conversion and would return to Egypt. The letter ו before ולא נחם would refer therefore to another potentially painful aspect of their departure courtesy of Pharaoh.
  We also have a tradition mentioned in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 20,3 that Pharaoh accompanied the Israelites begging them to pray for him. The merit Pharaoh acquired by seeing the Israelites off enabled him to survive longer and pose a threat for Israel. We can deduce what negative effect Pharaoh's accompanying Israel had for the people by comparing this with the story related in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 96 according to which Nebuchadnezzar was greatly rewarded for recalling a messenger bearing a letter to Chizkiyah king of Yehudah congratulating him on his recovery from his sickness. In the original draft of that letter Nebuchadnezzar's scribe had extended greetings to Chizkiyah and to G'd in that order. Upon reflection, Nebuchadnezzar realised he should have first extended greetings to G'd. He personally ran after the messenger to recall him and change the order of greetings. The angel Gabriel interfered with Nebuchadnezzar after he had travelled only four steps. Rabbi Yochanan said that if the angel Gabriel had not stopped Nebuchadnezzar there would have been no remedy for Israel. Nebuchadnezzar's gesture of running four steps in order to accord due respect to G'd resulted in his being allowed to destroy the Holy Temple and the Jewish state. Imagine what negative effects for the Jewish people Pharaoh's gesture in accompanying the Israelites must have had on their fate! G'd apparently changed the Israelites's route to one that would discourage Pharaoh from continuing to accompany them. Had the Israelites travelled in the direction of the land of the Philistines, Pharaoh might well have accompanied them all the way and acquired great merit in the eyes of G'd. Put differently: The reason G'd did not lead the Israelites through the land of the Philistines was in order to deny Pharaoh sufficient merit to entitle him to succeed in his quest for the Israelites to return to Egypt.
  According to this approach, the extra letter ו in ולא נחם is a hint that even the short distance Pharaoh accompanied the Israelites caused the Israelites sufficient discomfort so that they viewed themselves in real danger when Pharaoh pursued them a few days later. <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 21 refers to this by saying that the words ולא קרב זה אל זה כל הלילה indicate that Pharaoh's merit had not yet been neutralised by the Israelites' repentance until the latter cried out to G'd, i.e. מה תצעק אלי in verse 15.
  When the Torah continues: כי אמר, "for G'd had said, etc." this is as if the Torah wrote "and because G'd said, etc." It refers to an additional reason that G'd did not let the people face the Philistines, i.e. the lack of faith in G'd of the newly converted ערב רב.
  
  Verse 18
  
   וחמושים עלו בני ישראל, and the Israelites went up armed, etc. It is possible that if the Israelites had not been armed they would not have listened to Moses' (G'd's) order to make an about turn away from the land of the Philistines so that they would not face an immediate battle. The Israelites therefore needed two reasons for not returning to Egypt at the slightest danger, i.e. possession of arms and the unlikelihood of having to use these arms. Combining these two factors would result in לא ינחם, that they would not have second thoughts.
  
  Verse 19
  
   פקד יפקד אלוקים, "when G'd will surely remember you, etc." The reason the Torah repeats the word פקד is in order to emphasise the manner in which Moses kept faith with the promise made to Joseph by his brothers. The first time the word פקד simply means that G'd will certainly keep His promise to redeem the Israelites. This included only removal of the negative aspects of the Jews' exile. There was, however, also a positive aspect to the bondage, the one described in Genesis 15,14, namely that the Israelites would leave Egypt as wealthy people. According to <i>Bechorot</i> 5 not a single Israelite took less than ninety donkeys' loads of silver and gold out of Egypt. Joseph foresaw that the Israelites' preoccupation with loading the animals with all these valuables were a reason for their leaving his bones behind; this is why he made the brothers swear that even the preoccupation with their newly acquired wealth should not make them forget his bones at that time. In any event Moses was the only one who instead of loading his animals with valuables went in search of Joseph's remains and eventually loaded Joseph's bier on his donkey (compare <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 20,19). At a later date G'd rewarded Moses by letting him keep the splinters of the precious stones from which he carved the second set of tablets.
  מזה אתכם, "with you from this place." The word מזה does not mean "from here," i.e. that Joseph thought the brothers would have to locate his remains exactly in the place where he made them swear this oath. Joseph used the expression as the reason he asked the brothers to swear such an oath. He considered it as a small repayment of all the favours he had done for the brothers during their stay in Egypt. He went so far as to hint that taking his bones out of Egypt for burial in the Holy Land would compensate for the time when they had separated themselves from their brotherhood with him; the angel had told Joseph in Genesis 37,17 that the brothers נסעו מזה "had departed from זה" (the number 12, symbol for the 12 brothers, compare <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 84). Joseph used the words מזה אתכם to indicate that if the brothers would fulfil their oath he would consider them as having re-instated him in their midst. The sin they had committed against him at that time would then have been wiped out. In other words, Joseph would forgive the brothers posthumously, for simply swearing the oath.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   וה׳ הולך לפניהם יומם, And G'd would walk in front of them by day, etc." The Torah chooses the word לנחותם to indicate that G'd made the journey comfortable. When it was hot G'd made the cloud spread over them to protect them against the sun. The cloud performed this function only by day. The cloud described here has nothing to do with the column of cloud which preceded the Israelites which smoothed rough passages and showed them the way to go. We have some proof for this in Deut. 1,33 where the Torah is specific by stating that the cloud in front of them was "to seek you out a place where to pitch your tents. The column of fire by night was to show you the way you were to walk, and a cloud by day." The Torah speaks of three separate phenomena then, 1) to seek you out the way; this cloud was with them all the time. 2) The column of fire to enable them to see at night. 3) a cloud by day. The latter was the cloud which we described as providing shade against the heat of the sun. We do not agree with Rashi who understands the word לנחותם as להנחותם, and that the letter ה is missing. Rashi tries to prove his point by citing לראותכם (Deut. 1,33) as a parallel. According to our interpretation the letter ה is also not missing in the verse in Deuteronomy.
  ולילה בעמוד אש להאיר, and at night in a pillar of fire to provide light." According to <i>Shabbat</i> 22 the Israelites "walked" during the entire forty years only by light provided by G'd which was so powerful that it enabled them to look even into the darkest spot. [The discussion in the Talmud centers around the question why Aaron had to light the candelabra in the Tabernacle when G'd had already illuminated all with His own light. Ed.] The Talmud cannot speak of the hours of darkness as this would not agree with the language employed there. If that were the meaning, what does the Talmud mean "they marched only by the light of the heavenly fire?" Surely the Talmud means that the Israelites did not march by sunlight during the days. Why then would the night not be as bright as the day so that they had no need for a special column of fire at all? If we want to understand what took place at that time we must pay attention to the words ללכת יומם ולילה, "to walk by day and by night." Why was the Torah not satisfied with writing: "in order to provide light for them," and had to add the words: "to walk by day and by night?"
  We must conclude therefore that A) the light G'd provided for the Israelites at that time never departed from the camp of the Israelites as our sages explained, but that B) it also never extended beyond the boundaries of that camp either. There was a good reason for this. In the terrible desert which normally is the domain of impurity, a region in which the forces of the קליפה are at home (<i>Zohar</i> section 1, page 126), the Israelites were the beneficiaries of the heavenly light within the boundaries of their camp; outside their camp it was night (dark) for them just as it was for everybody else. Normally, the Israelites did not travel at night. Whenever G'd wanted them to travel at night, however, they did not require the light dispensed by the pillar of fire within their camp as G'd's light illuminated every place within their camp. The pillar of fire was needed only to illuminate the way beyond the boundaries of their camp. This is what the Torah had in mind when it wrote להאיר להם, "to provide light for them." The reason G'd had to provide this additional light was "so that they could travel by this light both by day and by night." Just as the Israelites were able to see into the distance by day without recourse to the pillar of fire, so at night the pillar of fire provided illumination for them equal to that of the sunlight by day. This then explains the wording of the Torah לראותכם בדרך אשר תלכו בה (Deut.1,33), "to enable you to see by it." This is not in agreement with Rashi's explanation.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   דבר אל בוי ישראל וישובו, "speak to the children of Israel so that they will turn backwards, etc." Anyone who reads this verse cannot help wondering why G'd would give an order designed to trick Pharaoh into pursuit of the Israelites, when He has many other means at His disposal to bring about the same result?
  In view of our awareness that G'd wants to try and put Israel in a favourable light so as to justify the favours He does for His people, it is even harder to understand how G'd devised a scheme which resulted in the Israelites expressing their dismay at the developments which followed in the most sarcastic manner when they accused Moses of leading them into the desert to die as if there were not enough burial grounds in Egypt (14,11). Actually, the arguments the Israelites used against Moses were not new ones as the Torah itself testifies. However, G'd displayed extreme wisdom here by luring Pharaoh into the kind of sin (pursuit of the Israelites) which would give Him an opportunity to demonstrate to Israel that He would exact true vengeance on Pharaoh. G'd did not want to spell out more detail than to say that the Israelites' action in turning backwards would encourage Pharaoh to pursue them, as a result of which G'd would deal with him severely. Having thus informed the Israelites of what to expect they should have been able to face these developments with calm. Unfortunately, even though the Israelites had been warned what to expect, G'd did not succeed completely as we observe from the reactions of various groups of Israelites in the verses following. Having read of the Israelites' reaction after G'd had given them advance notice of Pharaoh's pursuit you may imagine how much more violent their reaction would have been had this development taken them entirely by surprise.
  
  Verse 3
  
   ואמר פרעה…. נבוכים הם בארץ, "and Pharaoh will say 'they are entangled in the land, etc.'" This would be Pharaoh's reaction when his spies brought him up-to-date on Israel's travels.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ויגד למלך…כי ברח העם, ויהפך לבב פרעה, "when the king was told that the people had fled, Pharaoh had a change of heart, etc." Why does the Torah speak about the Israelites "fleeing" instead of their "going?" If the words ויהפך לבב פרעה mean that Pharaoh now developed remorse about what he had done this would be very peculiar seeing that he had never "done" what he did voluntarily! He had dismissed the Israelites only as the result of having suffered extremely serious plagues, so much so that Egypt was in danger of total collapse. How could the Torah then ascribe Pharaoh's dismissal of the Israelites to something "he had done?" One can only change one's mind if one's mind had operated with balanced judgment, not if one acted under duress! Furthermore, what does the expression "what is this we have done" mean in this context? The people had no more acted voluntarily than had their king!
  Perhaps we have to fall back on the <i>Zohar's</i> premise that every time the Torah speaks about העם what is meant is the new multitude of converts commonly known as ערב רב. Accordingly, the report Pharaoh received about "the people" having fled referred to the new converts whom Pharaoh sent along with the Israelites in order for them to bring about the Israelites' return to Egypt. These people had now decided to throw in their lot with the Israelites permanently. Inasmuch as they had been Egyptian subjects, their defection could properly be described as the flight of Pharaoh's people.
  ויהפך לבב פרעה, Pharaoh had a change of heart, etc. This means that Pharaoh was sorry now that he had sent these new converts along with the Israelites. He did not regret letting the Israelites go. When the Egyptians exclaimed: "what did we do?" this refers to the Egyptians' surprise at their own stupidity in having sent these converts along with the Israelites. They explained their stupidity as being the result of allowing the Israelites to depart as free men. (According to <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> 208 Pharaoh had even executed a deed granting the Israelites the status as free men.) The words <i>shilachnu me-ovdenu</i> then are a reference to this document granting the Israelites their freedom. Even though it was conceivable that the Israelites would decide to return, they would do so as free and equal citizens, not as slaves. The Egyptian people's upset was very real for in the absence of the Israelites to perform slave labour all the work the Israelites had performed up to this point would now become something they had to do for themselves as well as for the government. The people who joined Pharaoh in the pursuit were concerned mostly with bringing back the new converts described as העם. G'd did not need to influence Pharaoh to make a decision concerning this pursuit at all. However, G'd influenced Pharaoh to also pursue the Israelites themselves by allowing him to think that the latter had become entangled in the land.
  Pharaoh was also motivated by another consideration which I have already discussed in 10,7, namely that his whole obstinacy was based on the miscalculation that G'd was not all-powerful and that is why He resorted to deceptive tactics. Pharaoh and his servants had reasoned that if G'd were all powerful He would do things outright instead of achieving His aims by devious means. On the day G'd killed the firstborn the Egyptians finally admitted to themselves that G'd could indeed do whatever He wanted including destruction of the universe itself if He so desired. In view of this, the Egyptians concluded that the request of G'd transmitted through Moses to let the Israelites travel three days into the desert could be taken at face value and was not a scheme to leave and then not to return. They discounted Pharaoh's repeated concern that the fact that the Israelites were not prepared to leave anyone or anything behind was proof of their intent not to return, and they credited this to the Israelites' declared intent to celebrate a holiday, something that is best done in the midst of one's family and possessions. It was considerations such as these that prompted the Egyptians to "lend" the Israelites their valuables. They did not suspect G'd of having influenced their decision to lend these valuables to the Israelites as they reasoned that if G'd had wanted to He could have forced them to hand over all of their possessions to the departing Jews. Their reasoning was reinforced by the knowledge that the Israelites had become thoroughly familiar with all their valuables during the plague of darkness without exploiting their opportunity to steal these goods at a time when they could have done without fear of being discovered.
  When the informer told Pharaoh that "the people" had fled, he meant that the Jews had decided not to return at the end of three days as had been the commonly held belief at the time of their departure. Pharaoh and the Egyptians were now convinced that the Israelites under Moses' leadership had made this decision on their own, as their G'd would never have become a party to deception. Such considerations then all contributed to Pharaoh, his servants, and his people undergoing a change of heart in their attitude towards the Israelites. They never regretted having let them go at that time, as they had only let them go for a holiday. They regretted their stupidity in giving the people a letter releasing them from bondage. This had been an unpardonable stupidity because even their G'd had never demanded this. They reasoned that what they should have done in the first place was to send a military escort with the Israelites to assure their return at the end of the three days.
  Another way of looking at what happened is this: When the news reached Pharaoh that the Israelites had "fled," Pharaoh reconsidered his premise that the Israelite G'd was all-knowing and all-powerful. This G'd apparently had been forced to use deception because He was not omnipotent. This is why He kept His intention that the Israelites should depart permanently a secret up until now. 
  The Torah advisedly speaks of the לבב, "a dual heart" of Pharaoh undergoing a change. Pharaoh's considerations were due to conflicting feelings (i.e. "two hearts"). Originally, He had thought that G'd was unable to orchestrate the Israelites' exodus otherwise He would not have had to almost beg him to let the Israelites go. As a result, he, Pharaoh had refused to let them go. Next, Pharaoh had convinced himself that G'd's love for the Jewish people might only be temporary. In the meantime Pharaoh had come to realise that his estimate of G'd liking the Jewish people only temporarily had also been wrong and as a result of both these considerations of telling him to let the Israelites go, he had done so in the firm belief that there was nothing he could do to stop this process. Now, in retrospect, he realised that he had been wrong after all, that G'd had lacked the power to orchestrate the Exodus without help from Pharaoh himself. This is why he decided to mount the pursuit.
  
  Verse 6
  
   ואת עמו לקח עמו. "and he took his people with him. The Egyptian people had never been involved in the negotiations with Moses and Aaron. Pharaoh had to convince the Egyptians that what he was about to do had a chance to succeed as the people were greatly afraid The words לקח עמו in this context mean that "he convinced them."
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויחזק ה׳ את לב פרעה, G'd hardened the heart of Pharaoh, etc. The Torah means that G'd needed to harden the heart of Pharaoh otherwise he would not have had the courage to face a nation which had recently left Egypt with their heads held high. The various considerations we described above were part of this process the Torah describes as "G'd hardened the heart of Pharaoh."
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ופרעה הקריב….והנה מצרים נוסע אחריהם, when Pharaoh drew close the Israelites raised their eyes and saw that Egypt was marching after them, etc. Why was this whole line necessary? Would the words: "they caught up with them while they were encamped by the sea" not have sufficed to describe what took place? Why did the verse commence by telling us about what Pharaoh did and conclude by telling us what Egypt was doing? The Torah should have continued that "Pharaoh was marching after them;" Why is the word נסע "was marching" in the singular when many Egyptians are being described as marching?
  In order to understand this whole verse we must first understand the Israelites' comments to Moses: "did you take us out of Egypt because there are not enough burial places in Egypt? What did you do to us, etc.?" Looking at these words one gains the impression that the Israelites were surprised that the Egyptians pursued them. How could this be seeing that G'd had told them beforehand that their whole maneuver was designed to fool Pharaoh and cause him to pursue them? Why did they suddenly become afraid? Possibly they did not realise that Pharaoh had so much military capability left after all that happened. Even so, in view of the assurances the Israelites had from G'd that He would deal harshly with Pharaoh why did they display this mortal fear? 
  We must fall back on what our sages have taught as described in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 21,5 that when the Israelites noticed Pharaoh pursuing them they naturally turned their eyes heavenwards expecting G'd to manifest Himself and to smite the Egyptians. Imagine the Israelites' surprise when what they saw was the guardian angel of Egypt whose name is <i>Mitzrayim</i> flying through the air. It was then that they became afraid as they realised that this angel had now come out in order to help his protegees, the Egyptians. It is an accepted theory that the fortunes of these guardian angels are bound up with their charges. When the protegees of such guardian angels suffer a defeat so does the guardian angel himself. [In fact according to the Kabbalists when G'd wants to destroy a people, He first destroys their guardian angel. After that, even if the people appear still to be going strong, their fate has already been sealed. Ed.] We are told in <i>Yuma</i> 69 that Alexander the Great was in the habit of observing the guardian angel of Macedonia at work whenever he went into battle. It is customary for a minister to take up position on the right side of the king and not in front of the people. Normally, a king who travels into battle with his troops takes up his position behind the infantry. In this instance the Israelites had the impression that the guardian angel of Egypt was still going strong, far from being the first one to be defeated by G'd. The Torah also describes Pharaoh הקריב, as coming close, i.e. travelling ahead of his troops not behind them. The reason the Israelites were able to see the guardian angel of Egypt at all was because the guardian angel was positioned next to the king who travelled ahead of his troops. This unusual spectacle frightened the Israelites. They believed that celestial forces were now arraigned against them. In view of all this, the fact that G'd had told them that the Egyptians would pursue them and He would deal harshly with Pharaoh was no longer enough for the people to keep their cool.
  There were two reasons why G'd had not interfered with the guardian angel at that time. 1) G'd was looking for a legal excuse to kill that guardian angel. The <i>Zohar</i>, section two, page 52 interprets 14,30 "Israel saw <i>Mitzrayim</i> dead on the beaches of the sea," as a reference to the guardian angel of Egypt. The second reason G'd allowed the guardian angel of Egypt to adopt such a visibly threatening posture was for Israel's benefit. G'd wanted Israel to do תשובה, to repent. They needed to acquire the merit of repentance in order to justify that G'd should perform the great miracle of splitting the Sea of Reeds on their behalf. This was something G'd had not promised them previously. <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 21,5 also points out that the unusual form (causative) ופרעה הקריב "and Pharaoh caused himself to come close," instead of the usual ופרעה קרב, "and Pharaoh approached," is a clear indication of G'd's purpose being to cause the Israelites to do תשובה. In the event, G'd's expectations were fulfilled as the Torah reports that "the children of Israel cried out to G'd" (14,10).
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   התיצבו וראו "stand still and see!" Perhaps Moses suggested to the Israelites to stand still in prayer now just as they had stood and prayed in verse 10. We find the expression "standing still" also in connection with Hanna's prayer in Samuel I 1,26.
  אשר יעשה לכם היום, "which He will work for you to-day." G'd emphasised the word "to-day" because He did not want the people to worry that Pharaoh's punishment would be as long delayed as it had been in Egypt when it took 12 months from the time they first heard the news that Moses would be the redeemer.
  אשר ראיתם את מצרים, "the way you have seen Egypt, etc." G'd explained that the reason He had allowed the Egyptians to assume such a threatening posture was only because they would never again assume a threatening posture such as this. The Egyptians would soon collapse in spite of their fear-inspiring guardian angel.
  
  Verse 14
  
   ה׳ ילחם לכם, "G'd will fight on your behalf, etc." Inasmuch as the reason the Israelites had been frightened had been that they saw themselves confronting celestial forces, G'd tells them that the most powerful celestial force, He Himself, will fight on their behalf. When G'd is involved personally, even a thousand celestial forces equal to the guardian angel of Egypt are nothing to be afraid of.
  By emphasising the attribute השם i.e. the attribute of Mercy, the Torah suggests that even the attribute of Mercy concurred with the retribution G'd was about to exact from the Egyptians. The Torah writes ילחם לכם, "He will fight on your behalf," because from Israel's point of view this would be a manifestation of the attribute of Mercy. Moreover, the word ילחם implies much more than mere assistance. G'd was going to conduct the entire war single-handedly, hence ואתם תחרישו "you have to keep silent."
  We find a comment in the introduction to <i>Eychah Rabbati</i> 30 according to which four different righteous people when in difficulties each asked something different from G'd. The one who represented the highest level of righteousness refrained from asking at all. The model for this approach quoted is King Chizkiyah who said (when facing the onslaught of Sancheriv): "I neither possess the strength to kill, nor to pursue, nor even to recite hymns of praise; hence I will sleep on my bed and You G'd will do what needs to be done." G'd did indeed kill the army of Sancheriv without any involvement of King Chizkiyah or his forces (Kings II chapter 19). When Moses told the people that all they had to contribute was their silence, he implied that their present state of righteousness was of the same calibre as that of King Chizkiyah. According to the interpretation we offered that the word התיצבו means to stand still in prayer, we have to understand the words: "but you shall remain silent," as addressed to the attribute of Justice. The Israelites were to offer prayers in order to silence the attribute of Justice which might otherwise appeal to G'd claiming that they were not worthy of the miracle about to be performed on their behalf.
  
  Verse 15
  
  מה תצעק אלי, "why are you crying out to Me, etc.?" The word "to Me" is difficult. Who else was Moses supposed to cry out to if not to G'd? We find both in Jonah 2,3 and in Psalms 118,5 that in times of distress one is supposed to cry out to G'd as did both Jonah and David successfully. If G'd meant that Moses indulged in too much prayer that would seem an unjustified criticism as long as Moses' prayer had not yet been answered. Besides, we see from G'd's instructions in verse 16 that Moses was to raise his staff that G'd did answer his prayer. If so, why did G'd ask Moses: "why do you cry out to Me? What is G'd's answer "speak to the children of Israel so that they will move on" supposed to mean? Where were they supposed to move to? The Egyptians were behind them and the sea was in front! If G'd meant that they should move after they would observe the sea split, G'd should first have told Moses to raise his staff and afterwards have given the command that the Israelites were to move into the bed of the sea!
  We have to refer to <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 21,7 where Samael is described as opposing the impending miracle claiming that until very recently the Israelites had worshiped idols with the same fervor as the Egyptians. In other words, the Israelites were subject to the attribute of Justice. G'd (i.e. the attribute of Mercy) told Moses that the Israelites (or he) were addressing themselves to the wrong attribute in their prayers for help. We have a tradition based on Deut. 32,18 צור ילדך תשי, "you have weakened the Rock which begot you," that G'd's respective attributes are "strengthened" or "weakened" in accordance with the deeds we perform or do not perform here on earth. While it was true that the attribute of Mercy was anxious to perform a life-saving miracle on behalf of the Israelites, they had not yet qualified for such a miracle by their deeds. G'd advised Moses "speak to the children of Israel to perform an act of faith such as entering the sea so that I can activate My attribute of Mercy and perform the miracle that I have in mind." Following such a demonstration of faith Moses was to raise his staff to enable G'd to perform the splitting of the Sea of Reeds. When G'd said to Moses: "why do you cry out to Me?," He meant: "the matter is altogether not in My hands." If and when Moses had spoken to the children of Israel and they had demonstrated the necessary mesasure of faith, only then: "raise your staff, etc., and divide the sea!" This is precisely what happened after Nachshon ben Aminadav of the tribe of Yehudah walked into the sea up to his neck before the sea had split. <i>Sotah</i> 69 reports concerning him that the waters of the sea were about to drown him. In view of the foregoing none of the verses present a problem, neither as to content nor as to their sequence. The principal reason the Israelites had been handed over to the attribute of Justice was that they had said they were better off serving Egypt than dying in the desert. This is why G'd (the attribute of Mercy) had declared that their appeal to Him at that stage was useless.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ואני הנני מחזק את לב מצרים, "And I, behold I will harden the heart of Egypt, etc." G'd's attribute of Mercy informed the Israelites from a sense of compassion that they should not be worried when they saw that the sea did not close after they had crossed, but remained open for the Egyptian cavalry to descend into in hot pursuit. He explained that this was only the preamble of G'd dealing with the entire Egyptian army and wiping them out.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ויסע מלאך האלוקים, The angel of the Lord travelled, etc. This verse is in perfect agreement with what we explained on 13,21 that the Israelites enjoyed the presence of three distinct clouds which accompanied them and served their specific needs. 1) The cloud which travelled ahead of them to serve as a moving pathfinder indicating the direction the Israelites were to take. 2) The cloud which protected them from the heat of the sun. 3) the pillar of fire which lit up the way for them at night. In our verse G'd informs us of what He did on that particular night (of the 21st of Nissan). The angel of the Lord referred to in our verse as "travelling" was the cloud which normally travelled ahead of the Israelites showing them the way and which is described in Deut. 1,33 as travelling in front of the Israelites. In this instance this cloud moved behind them. The Torah also informs us that the cloud whose daytime function it was to protect the Israelites from the sun's heat also now took up its position behind the camp of the Israelites. In other words the two clouds normally in front of the Israelites moved behind them. The reason the second cloud was needed in that position was in order to darken the atmosphere in front of the Egyptians so that they could not know exactly where the Israelites were encamped.; this is why the Torah says: "the cloud remained (in its position) and (the other cloud) lit up the night. Seeing that the camp of the Israelites was brightly illuminated by the pillar of fire, the other cloud had to blot out that light from in front of the Egyptians. [The term "angel of the Lord" is used to tell us that the angel assumed the form of a cloud, etc. Ed.]
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויבא בין מחנה מצרים, and it came between the camp of Egypt, etc. It is possible that this cloud filled the entire space between the two camps and filled it with darkness. The Torah only had to write this verse to acquaint us with this detail seeing that the cloud which separated the two camps has already been mentioned in verse 19.
  
  Verse 21
  
   ויט משה את ידו, Moses inclined his hand, etc. Although the Torah reports that G'd made a strong east wind blow all night which dried out the sea, this referred only to the deep waters. G'd did not want the Israelites to have to descend to the very depths and to have to get tired by walking too far. This is why He first "froze" the deep parts of the sea by means of the east wind. If not for this consideration, G'd would have dispensed with the east wind altogether.
  It is of interest to know whether Moses inclined his hand as a signal for the sea to split at the beginning of the night or at the end of the night. From the wording of the verse we may almost prove that it was close to morning. This is difficult, however, because if it was so how could one discern that the splitting of the sea was brought about by Moses' action? We therefore have to understand the verse thus: "Moses inclined his hand after G'd had already made an east wind blow during the whole night which dried out the (deeper) parts of the sea;" as soon as Moses inclined his hand the waters split. This would then be in line with my commentary on verse 15 that all this occurred after Nachshon had waded into the sea in response to G'd's challenge to demonstrate an act of faith. Moses had held off with inclining his hand until after Nachshon was in the sea. The Israelites then followed when the sea split. This also conforms to the way <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 21 describes what happened. Another way of explaining the sequence of events is this: when the Torah writes "He turned the sea into dry land," all the waters of the sea crystallised in such a way that the Israelites did not need to descend into the bed of the sea, whereas the east wind had dried out all the waters of the sea. I consider the first explanation as more likely to be correct.
  כל הלילה, all night long. The wind blew all night and the sea split at the end of the night causing the Israelites to begin marching through it.
  
  Verse 22
  
   בתזך הים ביבשה, in the midst of the sea on dry land. The words "in the midst of the sea" mean in the inner part of (what had formerly been) the sea; the word ביבשה means that the sea bed was not muddy but completely dry.
  והמים להם הזמה, and the waters formed a wall for them, etc. This means that parts of the waters had not been blown aside by the wind. The words: "on their right and on their left" mean that those waters did not form an actual wall but merely that they surrounded the Israelites on either side.
  
  Verse 23
  
   וירדפו מצרים, Egypt pursued, etc. Even though the Torah says: "the cloud remained in place" (verse 20), what is mentioned here occurred in daylight already at a time when the cloud was not as impenetrable so that the Egyptians could begin to discern where the Israelites were positioned. This enabled them to start their pursuit.
  
  Verse 24
  
   ויהי באשמרת הבקר, It happened during the morning watch, etc. We need to know why G'd chose to perform this act of retribution in the morning and not during the night which is traditionally the time for the attribute of Justice to be active. I have seen in <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> item 235 that this is exactly what the angel Gabriel argued before G'd. G'd answered him that he should wait until the hour during which the patriarch Abraham started out on the way to offer his son Isaac as an offering to G'd (we read in Genesis 22,3 that this occurred early in the morning). In other words, although the morning is not the time to exact vengeance G'd reversed His usual procedure for the sake of Abraham's descendants just as Abraham at the time had reversed his natural feelings of love and mercy towards his son in favour of obedience to G'd's request. Israel benefited in that G'd performed the miracle personally, to match the fact that Abraham had personally saddled his donkey at the time though he had hundreds of servants at his disposal to perform that task for him. The Torah writes: "G'd looked down on the camp of Egypt; this means that He Himself went into action. The fact that the Egyptians drowned in daylight enabled the Israelites to witness the death of their enemies.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   נטה את ידך..וישובו המים, "Incline your hand so that the waters may come back, etc." Why was it necessary for Moses to incline his hand in order to make the waters come back? Surely, the division of the waters was only for the time it took for the Israelites to cross? G'd had not revised the laws of nature permanently! In fact <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 22 states that when the last of the Israelites ascended from the sea, the last of the Egyptians entered the sea, implying that the sea would come back by itself.
  Perhaps the sea reasoned that the area where the Jews had crossed was meant to remain a crossing and that just as the Israelites could cross so could the Egyptians. Actually, G'd had decreed that the waters should not close immediately behind the Israelites in order to lure the Egyptians into pursuit. This is something the sea was not aware of. The sea did not concern itself with this, having kept its original promise to G'd at the creation to split when the time came. When Moses inclined his hand this was a signal to the sea that it had completed its task.
  We have a rule in <i>Masechet Yom Tov</i> 5 that if a collegium of judges has made a ruling of even a temporary nature, this decree remains in force until a collegium of at least an equal number of judges declares the original ruling as void. This is also what happened here.
  Another reason why it was necessary for Moses to incline his hand was simply that though the waters of the sea would indeed come back on their own, this would occur at such a slow speed that the Egyptians would be able to escape. Indeed, we have an opinion that some of the Egyptians who were close to shore were able to save themselves. As a result of Moses inclining his hand the waters returned with a rush as indicated by the word לאיתנו. Alternatively, seeing Moses had been the agent who struck the sea it was only fitting that it should be he who restored the sea to its original position. We find support for this view in Isaiah 63,12.
  Still another reason why G'd asked Moses to incline his hand prior to the waters returning was to give the sea a signal not to allow a single rider or chariot of the Egyptians to escape. Not even those who were close to the shore should be given a chance to save themselves. We know that the waters complied as the Torah writes that "the waters covered them and that not a single Egyptian survived."
  
  Verse 27
  
   לאיתנו, to its original position. <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 21,6 understands this expression as לתנאי הראשון, to its original condition or contract which was made between the waters and G'd at the time G'd said in Genesis 1,9 that the waters should gather to one place. Why does the <i>Midrash</i> describe this as the "first condition," when the first condition of the waters was its state of being divided, not possessing molecular adhesion. The directive that the waters should congregate i.e. adhere to each other was the "second condition!" Perhaps what is meant by our verse is that after the waters had returned to their original state they realised that Moses had not destroyed their cohesion but that he had now allowed them to again resume their previous cohesion. It is possible that although the waters knew about the agreement made at the time with G'd, they had not imagined that when the time came to honour this agreement that the result would be so radical i.e. that they would literally form walls of stone (frozen water). When things went back to normal the waters realised that what had transpired was only part of the original agreement, and that G'd had not added new conditions. We must try and understand this agreement in depth, seeing that according to the <i>Midrash</i> the waters first refused to part at Moses' request, claiming that inasmuch as they had been created before man they did not have to take orders from a human being. G'd had to incline His right hand together with the right hand of Moses (Isaiah 63,12 "who made His glorious arm march at the right hand of Moses, who divided the waters before them, etc."). Another problem with the verse is that we know that selected individuals did experience that the waters were split on their behalf; an example is the sainted Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair (<i>Chulin</i> 7). If G'd's contract with the waters at the time had been restricted to the sea splitting for the Jews at the time of the Exodus, by what power did Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair accomplish such a miracle?
  We must perceive the condition or contract implied in the word איתנו, as an overriding condition applying to the work of creation as a whole, namely that all creatures, be they inert or alive submit to the requirements of the Torah and the people who are its carriers. In fact the authority of the Torah scholars in this respect equals that of the Creator Himself. This is the reason that individuals such a Joshua could order the moon and the sun to suspend their motion in the sky, etc. The statement we just made is the mystical dimension of Isaiah 43,1: "Jacob your creator, Israel who has formed you;" In commenting on this verse in <i>Vayikra Rabbah</i> 36,4 our sages claim that G'd asked the universe a rhetorical question: "who has created you, who has fashioned you if not Israel, and all this by means of the power contained in Torah." I have dealt with this also in my commentary on the word בראשית at the beginning of the Torah.
  At the time of the Exodus the Israelites had not yet received the Torah therefore the decree that Torah scholars could dictate to the forces of nature did not apply as yet. This is why the sea's consent was needed for it to split at the behest of Moses, and the sea was able to argue that Moses had no authority seeing he (man) had been created only on the sixth day of creation and was therefore junior to it which had been created on the third day. The sea simply hinted that Moses could not claim to order it around by reason of his mastery of the Torah. If he had truly possessed mastery of Torah which had been created prior to the universe, he himself could have claimed to be senior to the sea. G'd therefore had to resort to a stratagem by extending His own right hand alongside that of Moses' right hand. This was a sophisticated way of telling the sea that Moses did indeed possess mastery of the Torah and therefore was entitled to order the sea about. The significance of the right hand in this respect is anchored in the Torah itself in Deut. 33,2: "from His right hand He flashed lightning at them." As soon as the sea noticed G'd's right hand, it split without further ado. Henceforth every צדיק who lived after the Israelites had received the Torah at Mount Sinai could present "a copy" of the agreement G'd had made with His creation to submit to instructions issued by those who represented mastery of Torah. Such people possessed not only the power to effect changes in the laws of nature, but they could inflict penalties on nature if it chose to disobey them.
  ומצרים נסים לקראתו, while the Egyptians were fleeing towards it. Although the Egyptians were fleeing from the onrushing waters, they found that the sea was coming towards its original place. As a result they found themselves fleeing towards the waters regardless of which direction they were headed for. We find something similar in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 18 and <i>Sanhedrin</i> 110 describing the descent of Korach and his supporters into the bowels of the earth. The "mouth" of the earth is described as following the direction where any one of Korach or his companions happened to be standing.
  וינער ה׳ את מצרים בתוך הים, G'd hurled Egypt into the sea. This statement is necessary seeing there are expert swimmers who are often able to stay above the waves even during a storm. The Torah says that G'd hurled such expert swimmers into the sea so that they too had no chance to survive. According to <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 21 the reference to מצרים as distinct from מצריים, the Egyptians, means that G'd hurled the guardian angel of Egypt into the sea by pouring strong rain upon him.
  
  Verse 28
  
   לכל חיל פרעה, Pharaoh's entire army, etc. This refers to the fact that the chariots and their riders who were unable to speed up slowed down the infantry which was marching behind the cavalry. The waters simply covered them wherever they were so that not a single one of them escaped.
  
  Verse 29
  
   ובני ישראל הלכו ביבשה בתוך הים, but the Israelites had walked through the sea on dry ground. The reason the Torah states this fact a second time is merely to tell us that the Egyptians were aware of this fact and also of the fact that the sea had formed a wall for the Israelites, whereas they themselves went down deeper into the earth. This was fulfilment of the prophecy in verse 18 that the Egyptians would become aware of the true nature of G'd. It is worth reading Ibn Ezra's commentary on verse 27 where he lambasts the commentators who tried to explain away the miracle. He debunks the theory that Moses was well informed about the times of low tide and high tide respectively, whereas Pharaoh was ignorant of this and this is why he drowned with his army. The fact that the Israelites marched on dry land as described and did not merely wade through mud which had recently been covered by the sea, plus the fact that the Egyptians observed the waters forming a wall on either side of the Israelites made it clear that all of this had nothing at all to do with high tides and low tides.
  
  Verse 30
  
   ביום ההוא, on that day, etc. The Torah simply means that the salvation only occurred on that day, not previously; even though the Exodus had occurred, the Israelites had not yet acquired much confidence in themselves vis-a-vis the Egyptians.
  וירא ישראל את מצרים מת, Israel observed Egypt dead, etc. Why did the Torah have to tell us that the Egyptians were dead? How could they be alive after they had drowned? The <i>Mechilta</i> explains this verse by saying that the Israelites observed the death of the Egyptians. Accordingly, the Egyptians did not finally die until they were washed up on the beaches. G'd arranged this in such a way that either party should clearly observe what was happening to their adversaries. The Egyptians' last emotion before they died should be one of shame vis-a-vis the Israelites. We have to read the words מת על שפת הים as belonging together.
  
  Verse 31
  
   וייראו העם את ה׳… ואת משה עבדו The people feared the Lord …and they believed in His servant Moses. This was not fear of punishment but awe of the Majesty of G'd. The fear of punishment they had possessed already prior to the Exodus. According to what we explained on 12,43 that the Israelites did not accept the commandment of the King (G'd), they did not even fear to be punished by G'd otherwise they would not have remained uncircumcised until that time. At any rate the fear described in this verse is that they stood in awe at G'd's Majesty. When the Torah describes the Israelites as "believing," this was the reward for their fear of G'd's Majesty.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   אז ישיר משה, Then Moses began to sing, etc. It would have sufficed for the Torah to write וישר משה, "Moses sang," without the introduction אז, "then." However, the Torah wanted to tell us of the preparation which resulted in that song of jubilation. After Israel acquired the fear of G'd's Majesty, which in turn resulted in a profound measure of faith both in G'd and in Moses, they were divinely inspired to sing this song of thanksgiving.
  The reason the Torah writes ישיר "will sing," instead of שר, sang, something that would be so much more appropriate with the word אז is, that to this day we sing this song daily in our morning prayers. Had the Torah written אז שר משה, we would have assumed that the song was appropriate only for the people who had been present when the sea was split.
  ויאמרו לאמור, אשירה, they said saying: "I will sing, etc." This means that the Israelites said this to one another. The idea was that they wanted to coordinate their song; they did not want each one to use his own formulation. The fact that they succeeded in this is reflected in the singular "I will sing!"
  כי גאה גאה, for He has triumphed gloriously, etc. As a rule songs of praise should commence with mention of the collapse of G'd's enemies similar to what Solomon said in Proverbs 11,10: ובאבוד רשעים רנה "when the wicked perish there is jubilation." Accordingly, we understand the words גאה גאה as referring to Pharaoh who was so boastful that his very name was "the boastful one." Normally, boastful people consider themselves superior to their peers. Inasmuch as their peers do not amount to much, neither does their own pride. Pharaoh was more presumptious than the average braggart, however, as he thought himself superior even to G'd. This is why Moses wrote גאה גאה, the braggart of all braggarts.
  We may also understand the expression as analogous to Psalms 93,1 "The Lord is king, He is robed in splendour." As long as G'd had not disposed of Pharaoh He was known simply as גאה, glorious; after G'd disposed of the braggart Pharaoh He assumed an additional dimension of glory, hence גאה גאה. The repetition of the expression גאה may also reflect that G'd is glorious both in the celestial and in the terrestrial spheres. This would explain why no additional subject is appended after the word ורכבו. We may also understand the verse as follows: "I will sing to the Lord because He has proven so glorious; the words כי גאה גאה may also be read together with the rest of the verse, i.e. "He has flung into the sea both the horse and its boastful rider."
  
  Verse 2
  
   עזי וזמרת כה, "The Lord is my strength and song." The normal procedure when one composes a song for G'd, praises Him or prays to Him, is to mention first how G'd relates to oneself before mentioning how G'd related to one's ancestors. Thus we find that the men of the Great Assembly who edited our major prayers began the עמידה by first referring to G'd as "our G'd," i.e. the G'd of the petitioner and only afterwards did they define G'd as also the G'd of the patriarchs. The Israelites were similarly motivated when they first referred to what G'd meant to them (each individual Jew), how G'd had proven a Saviour for them in their present situation acting as the merciful G'd (tetragram). They concluded the statement referring to their personal relationship with G'd by saying זה אלי ואנוהו, "this is my G'd and I will glorify Him," and only afterwards did they describe the same G'd in His capacity as the G'd of their fathers. Our sages copied this pattern when they formulated our prayers where we say אלוקינו ואלוקי אבותינו, "our G'd who was already the G'd of our ancestors." I have already explained why the Israelites in this instance chose to describe G'd in the singular as "my G'd" instead of as "our G'd."
  
  Verse 3
  
   ה׳ איש מלחמה, "The Lord is a man of war," etc. This means that even when G'd operates with the attribute of Mercy He is still "a man of war." The fact that He conducts war does not imply that He abandons the attribute of Mercy. His name remains י־ה־ו־ה and all that this implies just as we find in Maleachi 3,6: כי אני ה׳ לא שניתי, "for I the merciful G'd have not changed, etc." G'd has made this plain also at the beginning of פרשת וארא where He told Moses אני השם, I am the attribute of Mercy.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   תהומות יכסיומו, the deeps covered them, etc. The reason the Torah speaks of תהום in the plural must be viewed in light of my comment on 14,21 that half the sea was frozen whereas the other half was split. Each part was originally part of what is called תהום. Read what I have written on 15,8: "the deeps were congealed, etc."
  ירדו במצולות, they descended into the depths, etc. This is an allusion to all those champion swimmers who made strenuous efforts to escape from the depths as I have discussed in connection with 14,27.
  
  Verse 6
  
   ימינך ה׳ נאדרי בכח, "Your right hand O Lord is glorious in power," The Israelites marvelled at the power displayed by G'd even when operating as the attribute of Mercy. Even that attribute "dashed the enemy to pieces." Alternatively, one may read this verse "backwards." "When is Your right hand visibly powerful? When it dashes the enemy to pieces." Then the fear of You overcomes people as described in verse 16.
  
  Verse 7
  
   וברב גאונך תהרוס קמיך, "And in the greatness of Your glory You destroy those who rise up against You." The verse tells us that G'd performs miracles to underline that it is He who destroys His opponents. In order that we should not think that G'd has to extend Himself in order to accomplish this, the Israelites added: "even when You merely send forth Your wrath they already turn to straw."
  
  Verse 8
  
   נערמו מים, גצבו כמו נר, "the waters were piled up, stood upright like a wall." This verse describes three distinct activities performed by G'd when He split the sea. 1) The waters split and remained in one place as a heap so as to make a path available for the Israelites to cross. 2) The waters which would normally replace the newly created vacuum in the centre of the sea did not spill into that vacuum but piled up along the sides forming a veritable wall. 3) As already mentioned in my comments on 14,21 it was not the entire depth of the sea which was split, but the deeper layers of water were frozen so as to enable the Israelites to march through relatively high ground and not to have to descend to what had been the bottom of the sea. The expression קפאו, "were frozen already," reflects what we have said earlier that the freeze of the lower waters in the sea preceded the splitting of the upper levels of the sea. The expression לב ים refers to the lower level of the sea which froze. The reason that the Israelites again used the word תהומות in the plural was that G'd made them travel along twelve separate lanes, each tribe having a lane to itself as we know from <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 24,1.
  
  Verse 9
  
   אמר אויב ארדף אשיג, The enemy had said to himself: "I will pursue, I will overtake, etc." The reason that the Israelites repeated what we knew already about the Egyptians pursuing the Israelites was to extol the manner in which G'd performed the miracle at the sea. G'd had succeeded in lulling the Egyptians into a sense of false security so that they did not consider the pursuit into the sea as hazardous.
  אחלק שלל, "I will divide the spoils." The wicked Pharaoh intended to accomplish three things. 1) Something in which all would share equally, i.e. division of the spoils. 2) He wanted to take the Jews back as slaves as they had been before. He said: "my lust shall be satisfied upon them." He referred to the sense of accomplishment he would feel once he captured the Israelites to make them slaves again. He also hinted that he would treat them at will and oppress them more harshly than previously. 3) He planned to kill Moses and Aaron as well as the elders and leaders of the people. This is what he referred to when he said (in the words of the Israelites) "I will draw my sword and my hand will destroy them." We have an example of the previous Pharaoh attempting to kill Moses by the sword (Exodus 2,15) where <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 1,31 describes Pharaoh as unsuccessfully attempting to kill Moses by the sword.
  
  Verse 10
  
   נשפת ברוחך, "You blew with Your wind, etc." This verse enumerates three disasters corresponding to three of Pharaoh's intentions. The reason that Pharaoh (and the Egyptians) were covered by the sea was because he had said: "I will divide the spoils." Even though under normal conditions the horses could have saved themselves by swimming, he was made to lose his own most treasured property, his horses. He and the Egyptians died a slow death as retribution for their declared intention to oppress the Jews even more harshly and to kill their leaders. This is why the Israelites referred to צללו. The <i>Mechilta</i> describes the words כעופרת like lead, as describing how the individual Egyptians were tossed up and down repeatedly by the waves. In their song the Israelites spoke about במים אדירים, powerful waters, to describe two features. A) the descent, i.e. צללו כעופרת; B) their inability to die at once; this is alluded to in the words במים אדירים, the powerful waves which kept tossing the Egyptians up into the air. Israel praised the Lord in recognition of all these phenomena.
  
  Verse 11
  
   מי כמוך באלים השם, "Who is comparable to You amongst the deities O Lord?" Israel describes that they had seen the guardian angel of Egypt die; hence they could say that absolutely no celestial force compares to the Lord our G'd.
  Another dimension of this verse is based on an observation in <i>Chagigah</i> 16 where our sages draw a comparison between G'd and terrestrial kings. The latter is unrecognisable when he chooses to hide amongst his people (soldiers). G'd is never unrecognisable when He is surrounded by His armies. The word באלים means that even when G'd is amongst celestial forces, He is immediately recognised as such.
  According to the <i>Mechilta</i> there is still another meaning to this comparison between G'd and other powers; whereas a king of flesh and blood inspires greater fear amongst his distant subjects than amongst those near at home, the reverse is true of G'd as we know from Leviticus 10,3: בקרובי אקדש. The composer of this song bemoans the fact that in the "distance," i.e. in the celestial regions, G'd is revered at all times, whereas here on earth He is revered only when He displays such miracles as the splitting of the sea, i.e. when He is נאדר בקדש.
  Still another meaning of the comparison drawn by the composer of this song is based on Daniel 7,10 where the waters of the mythical river Dinor are described as the product of the sweat of the <i>Chayot</i> [permanent kind of angels Ed.] which proclaim the holiness of G'd and to whom this is an awe-inspiring experience, i.e. נאדר בקודש (compare <i>Chagigah</i> 13).
  נורא תהלות עשה פלא, "fearful in praises doing wonders?" Everyone ought to be afraid to tell His praises seeing His deeds are so wonderful that no one is able to acknowledge them adequately. How dare one even express an appreciation of G'd's wonderful works knowing one's own inadequacy?
  
  Verse 12
  
   נטית ימינך תבלעימו ארץ, "when You inclined Your right hand the earth swallowed them." <i>Mechilta</i> describes the sea as tossing the Egyptians onto the dry land and the earth as tossing them right back into the sea. The dry land argued with the sea saying: "considering that I was cursed by G'd for having merely absorbed a single human being's blood, i.e. Abel's, at the time, what will G'd do to me if I will accept an entire population of human beings unless G'd swears an oath to me not to demand an accounting from me? [this is based on the meaning of "right hand" often being equated with an oath. Ed.] Targum Yonathan also explains our verse in this sense. We learn from here that the sea did not want to accept the Egyptians and tossed them out. This contradicts something we have learned in <i>Pessachim</i> 118. G'd is quoted as saying to the guardian angel of the sea: "spit them out onto the dry land." The guardian angel of the sea retorted: "Lord of the universe, is there then a servant who has been given a gift by his master (food for the fish according to Rashi) and the master subsequently demands the gift back?" To this argument G'd replied: "I will give you a gift worth one and a half times the original gift if you give Me back the original gift." The sea replied: "can a servant take a master to court?" G'd answered: "I will guarantee My promise by giving you the river Kishon as a pledge." Upon hearing this the sea immediately disgorged the bodies of the Egyptians onto the dry land and the Israelites were able to see that they were dead. It is clear from that story in the Talmud that the sea was quite unwilling to toss the Egyptians onto the dry land. Why then was the sea not overjoyed when the dry land refused the bodies of the Egyptians and tossed them back into the sea? Besides, why did G'd have to repay the sea from the camp of Siserah (900 chariots versus the Egyptians' 600 chariots, compare Judges 4,13)? Why did He not repay the sea personally so that He did not have to give the sea the river Kishon as a pledge?
  Another difficulty is the fact that generally speaking the sea does not retain either people or animals but tosses them on to the beaches either on the day they drown or a few days later. According to the view of our sages the sea would prefer to retain these bodies; Rashi and Rashbam suggest that the sea needs these bodies in order to provide food for the fish. If all this is true we must try and understand why, in the case of the Egyptians, the sea made strenuous efforts to get rid of these bodies instead of retaining them as food for the fish? Perhaps the bodies which the earth tossed back had already begun to decompose and would not only have polluted the sea but had also become unfit as food for the fish. This does not seem a satisfactory answer seeing that G'd would not have prevented the earth from providing a burial for the dead Egyptians if only in order to satisfy the commandment in Deut. 21,23 not to allow a person who has been hanged to remain unburied overnight. The shame of the people G'd had executed did not have to be perpetuated beyond the time of their death so that they should serve as a frightening example.
  It is not generally our custom to explain aggadic sayings of our sages. In this instance, however, it is necessary to do so in order to understand the plain meaning of the verse, and in order not to allow the impression that different <i>Midrashim</i> are at odds with one another. We have already referred to a <i>Mechilta</i> on 14,30 where the Torah told us that the Israelites saw the Egyptians dead on the beaches of the sea. They beheld the Egyptians in their last gasps just before they died completely. This was in order for the Egyptians to see that the Israelites had been saved from the onrushing waters of the returning sea. This comment by the <i>Mechilta</i> throws light on the two apparently contradictory <i>Midrashim.</i> When the sea asked G'd not to have to disgorge the Egyptians (to give back the gift) this was because G'd had ordered the sea to toss the Egyptians out while they were still alive. G'd's reason was to cause joy to His friends the Israelites whereas the Egyptians would feel ashamed when they noticed that the Israelites had been saved. Although there is no direct mention of the fact that the Egyptians still had some life in them when they were tossed ashore, our sages relied on traditions handed down to them throughout the generations. In view of this, the argument of the sea that a master does not demand return of a gift bestowed on a servant makes good sense. The sea was anxious to be allowed to complete its task of killing those who had angered the Lord. All of G'd's creatures, be they in the celestial or the terrestial spheres, share the desire to carry out G'd's commandments seeing that compared to human beings they have so few opportunities to carry out G'd's commandments. You will find on the same folio in <i>Pessachim</i> that the Talmud tells of how anxious the angel Gabriel was to be the instrument which saved Abraham from the fiery furnace of Nimrod, and that G'd did not withhold his reward allowing Gabriel to save three other human beings (Chanayah, Mishael, and Azaryah) as a reward for his volunteering to save Abraham. This teaches us that it is considered a meritorious deed for angels to perform deeds of loving kindness for the righteous. The sea was similarly motivated and that is why it objected to being asked to disgorge the Egyptians prematurely. When G'd offered to compensate the sea by allowing it to acquire the merit of drowning Siserah's 900 chariots when the time would be ripe, this was certainly a fair compensation.
  The sea had another reason for asking that the Egyptians be deprived of all vestiges of life while they were in the sea. It is the nature of the souls of the Gentiles to remain wherever their bodies died as we know from Kohelet 3,19 where Solomon tells us that the "souls" of the beasts descend into the bowels of the earth. Idol worshipers are compared to animals and when they happen to die while in the sea the guardian angel of the sea acquires their souls. The concern of the sea was therefore that it did not want the earth (dry land) to acquire these "souls" rather than its own guardian angel. The sea's feelings were reflected when it exclaimed: "is there such a thing as a master taking back a gift?" G'd therefore replied that at a future date He would compensate the sea handsomely. G'd meant that He would give the "sea" i.e. the river Kishon, live bodies who would drown therein. The sea had never been interested in the bodies, only in the so-called souls. Seeing this was so, it did not want the dead bodies the earth was tossing at it as the sea is not a natural habitat for dead bodies. On the other hand, earth generally is the habitat for dead bodies seeing that the bodies of human beings are composed of earth as the primary raw material. G'd therefore forced Earth to receive the bodies of the dead Egyptians, seeing it was no more than natural.
  Do not ask that according to the Talmud in <i>Pessachim</i> the fish opened their mouths thanking G'd when G'd paid off the sea, proving that they were very interested in the bodies of the dead soldiers. It is possible that when the sea receives fully alive human bodies the fish derive some benefit therefrom. Once the bodies die the fish are no longer interested in them. The song of the fish was in appreciation of their food supply.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   אז נבהלו אלופי אדום, Then the chiefs of Edom were frightened. The word אז refers does not refer to what happened at this time, but to what will happen when the final redemption of the Jewish people is at hand. The same is true of the prophecy of Bileam concerning Edom being laid waste (Numbers 24,18). The same applies to the feelings of Moab and Ammon whose lands will be appropriated by Israel in that future. The reason that Ammon is not mentioned separately in the song the Israelites sang after crossing the sea, although it too was the product of Lot's daughter sleeping with him is, that it will share the general fate of the land of the Canaanites which Israel had not captured up to that time. The Torah therefore speaks of the ישבי כנען, people living in Canaan at the time though they might not have a legitimate claim on that land. The reason the Torah uses the past tense is to assure us that this future is as assured as if it had already happened.
  
  Verse 16
  
   הפול עליהם אימתה ופחד, "Terror and dread will fall upon them, etc." Both this verse and the one following it refer to two separate conquests of the Holy Land, one during the period of Moses/Joshua and the other at the time when the Messiah will arrive. This is the reason the author of the song appears to repeat what he says.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ה׳ ימלך לעולם ועד, "The Lord will rule for ever and ever." The author implies that the reason he did not speak about the Lord having reigned in the past is because of the challenge to G'd's rule described in verse 19. Inasmuch as G'd has exacted retribution from only one nation which has not recognised His sovereignty in the world it would be inappropriate to extol G'd as having ruled in the past. כי בא סוס פרעה, "For the horses of Pharaoh came, etc." The fact that G'd disposed of the challenge represented by Pharaoh was not yet proof of the impotence of all the powers which compete with G'd on earth and which different nations worship. G'd's true sovereignty will be established only when He deals with all competing deities.
  Another way of understanding the sequence of the words in these two verses plus the fact that G'd is described as sovereign only in the future is this: "The Lord will rule only in the future because all of Pharaoh's horses and their riders perished as one man. As a result the only ones left to tell about G'd's mighty deeds were the Israelites who were saved in the midst of the sea." Had there been a few Egyptians who had saved themselves and those Egyptians had told the rest of the world of their experiences this would have suitably impressed the world. As it was, only the Israelites who had already recognised G'd's sovereignty were around to tell the tale. This was not enough to convince the pagans.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ויסע משה את ישראל, Moses made Israel move on, etc. This was the only march which was initiated by Moses. Every subsequent move occurred at G'd's initiative.
  
  Verse 23
  
   ויבאו מרתה, They arrived at Marah, etc. Why is this place sometimes referred to as Marah and other times as Maratah? Apparently the original name of the oasis was Maratah and the spring it contained did not have a separate name.
  The Torah added: "they could not drink the waters of Marah," meaning that the spring itself was now named Marah because its waters were bitter. The name Marah therefore also became the name of the oasis after the Israelites had camped there and G'd had shown Moses how to make the waters of that spring palatable. The words כי מרים הם were an allusion to an experience the Israelites were going to have.
  
  Verse 24
  
   וילונו העם על משה, The people murmured against Moses, etc. The Torah criticises the manner in which the people provoked a quarrel. The Torah does not deny the validity of a people asking for drinkable water, i.e. the question: "what are we to drink?" They should have asked for their needs in an appropriate manner.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   אם שמוע תשמעו לקול ה׳ אלוקיך, "if you will carefully listen to the voice of the Lord your G'd, etc." This means that if the Israelites would hearken to the statutes and social legislation Moses introduced in the name of G'd immediately after this experience and they would observe them, they would also merit to listen to His other commandments and hear these commandments directly from G'd's mouth. [the reference is to the impending revelation at Mount Sinai. Ed.] In Deut. 4,33 Moses reminded the Israelites of their experience when he asked rhetorically: "Has any nation ever heard the sound of G'd's voice out of the fire and remained alive as you have done?" According to <i>Sanhedrin</i> 56 G'd gave the Israelites some of the Sabbath legislation as well as the laws of דינים, jurisprudence, while they were at Marah. The words שם ניסהו, "there He tested them," must be understood as a trial preceding the revelation at Mount Sinai. If the Israelites would prove receptive to the laws revealed at Marah there was reason to believe they would accept the entire Torah at Sinai when the time came.
  Actually, the Torah alludes to four distinct commandments here, ללמוד וללמד, לשמור ולעשות, to study the law, to teach it, to observe the prohibitions, and to carry out the aspects demanding action. The words: אם שמוע תשמע allude to the duty to study these laws. The repetition implies the demand that one should commit what one has learned to memory. It also suggests that one should grow fond of studying G'd's laws. One should not feel one has already done enough studying. The words: והישר בעיניו תעשה, "you will do what is right in His eyes," refer to the teaching of G'd's laws for free, similar to what we have been told in <i>Nedarim</i> 37 that just as Moses did not charge us for teaching the Torah, so we should not charge others for teaching them the Torah. The word ישר refers to G'd who in His goodness gave the Torah to His creatures expecting His creatures in turn to hand it on for free. The words: והאזנת למצותיו, imply carrying out positive commandments, whereas the words: ושמרת כל חוקיו imply not violating negative commandments.
  אשר שמתי במצרים, "which I put upon the Egyptians, etc." The reason G'd mentioned that He had brought diseases upon the Egyptians, something we are all aware of, is to prevent us from making an error. If G'd had not referred to the past we could have thought that He only promised not to inflict these diseases upon us, whereas if we contracted them without His active intervention we would not be protected against them. G'd reminds us that just as He made sure we were not infected by the diseases with which He struck the Egyptians so we would remain totally immune to any of the germs which caused these diseases in the Egyptians.
  כי אני ה׳ רפאך, "For I the Lord am your Healer." The Torah here refers to diseases which are not due to Divine intervention such as the common cold contracted due to one's carelessness, etc. (compare <i>Ketuvot</i> 30). G'd undertakes to protect us even against such diseases which are not normally controlled by Him if we live according to His precepts.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   וילונו כל עדת בני ישראל…במדבר, The entire congregation of Israel murmured…in the desert. Their complaint was addressed to the fact that they had to wander through the desert. The route to the land of Canaan was well known and they had expected that Moses would take them along that route. G'd had His own reasons why He did not lead them along the accepted route. The Israelites believed that it was Moses' choice to lead them on this strange route through the desert.
  
  Verse 3
  
   ביד ה׳ בארץ מצרים, "by the hand of G'd, in the land of Egypt." They meant that if they had still been in Egypt and would have refused to leave they would have died by the hand of G'd in Egypt. They preferred to have died for that sin rather than to die in the desert from hunger without having sinned. The situation is reminiscent of Lamentations 4,9: "those who died by the sword are better off than those who died from hunger."
  בשבתנו על סיר הבשר, "while we sat by the flesh-pots, etc." This verse clearly shows that the people who uttered this slander were not the ones who had performed slave labour, but had been overseers. The labourers had never had anything to eat but unleavened bread. Possibly the speakers were the well known Datan and Aviram who were known for their wickedness.
  בשבתנו על, "when we sat by, etc." Possibly the reason they felt satisfaction when they ate bread was because they also had meat to eat with it.
  Alternatively, it may mean that though they had already stilled their hunger by eating bread, they ate meat after having had their fill of bread. It is possible that the detail "by the flesh-pots" as opposed to "we ate meat," means that they did not eat the meat for some considerable time after it had been cooked and had already lost some of its taste, but that they sat by the pots waiting for the meat to be thoroughly cooked and then eating it at once. These people may have hinted to Moses that though he might tell them to go ahead and slaughter their livestock so that they would have meat to eat, this would not represent a permanent solution, seeing that in Egypt they had enjoyed a regular meat-based diet.
  The verse may also explain why the Torah had previously described the whole congregation of Israel as complaining against Moses and Aaron. Under normal circumstances it is most unlikely that everyone in such a large group of people should be of the same mind when it came to complaining against G'd and Moses, His prophet. The fact that they were all of one mind in this case required the existence of two preconditions. There were two groups of people of which one demanded bread whereas the other demanded meat. The group of people which mentioned the time they sat by the flesh-pots were the wealthy Jews. Although they were a small minority, the Torah mentioned them first as in times of negative developments one usually mentions the extremists first. Afterwards the Torah mentioned the people whose principal diet had been bread, though they had enjoyed an abundant supply of that, i.e. "we ate bread to our satisfaction." Now that these people found themselves in an uninhabited desert they grew restless pending their leader providing them with their necessities.
  
  Verse 4
  
   ויאמר ה׳ אל משה הנני ממטיר לכם לחם מן השמים, G'd said to Moses: "I am about to cause bread to rain down for you from heaven." It is interesting that in this instance G'd did not instruct Moses to tell the people the news by saying לאמור. It is also interesting that whereas G'd started out by addressing Moses directly, He ended by referring to the people in the third person, i.e. to "find out if the people will walk in My ways or not." We can best explain this on the basis of <i>Yuma</i> 75 that the manna fell for the righteous in front of his tent so that the צדיק did not have to trouble himself to go outside the camp to collect it, whereas the manna for the majority of the people fell in a single area outside the camp and they went outside in order to collect it. The words: "here I shall cause it to rain down for you," were addressed to the righteous, whereas for the people who had displayed a lack of faith the manna fell outside the camp so that they experienced some effort in collecting it.
  The reason that G'd did not preface the prophecy with the customary לאמור was because G'd would command them once more with all the details concerning the manna in the paragraph following. This is why at this moment G'd simply provided Moses with an answer to the people's request, whereas in verse eleven G'd tells Moses to address the people concerning both their demands for bread and meat. The glory of G'd appeared immediately after Moses told the people what was about to happen.
  למען אנסנו, "in order that I may prove them, etc." The heavenly bread required no further preparation by the people to make it fit to eat. This would allow them unlimited time to study G'd's laws. Having this time at their disposal they could show G'd if they would put it to good use.
  Another meaning of the word "I will test them," is the fact that they would only receive a day's supply at a time, דבר יום ביומו; in this way they would remain dependent on G'd's goodwill on a daily basis.
  
  Verse 5
  
   והכינו את אשר יביאו, "and they shall prepare that which they shall bring in, etc." The "bringing of the manna into the camp was in itself part of the process called "preparation." They had to do this on Friday so as not to violate the Sabbath by bringing the manna into the camp on that day. This is why Moses phrased the Sabbath legislation as including: "let no one go outside his place" (i.e. the camp, verse 29).
  
  Verse 6
  
   ערב וידעתם כי ה׳ הוציא אתכם, "in the evening you will realise that G'd took you out, etc." The fact that the Israelites had not previously asked for meat is proof that they had considered such a request unrealistic, that they did not believe that they would ever be supplied with meat in the desert. They did not even mention the word meat until they wished they had died in proximity to the flesh-pots, etc. G'd now was anxious to demonstrate that He Who had taken them out of Egypt and crushed their enemies could also provide for them wherever they were. G'd intended to teach the Israelites a moral lesson, such as we find in Isaiah 44,18 where the prophet scores the people for "having besmeared their eyes so that they neither saw nor understood." G'd insisted that they would realise that He had taken them out of Egypt when they observed what would happen in the evening as opposed to what would happen in the morning (seeing that they had considered the supply of meat the most unlikely thing that could happen).
  
  Verse 7
  
   ובקר וראיתם את כבוד השם. "And in the morning you will see the glory of the Lord." The "morning" referred to is the one referred to in verses 8-10. This appearance of G'd's glory occurred on the day following. According to this interpretation the letter ו in the word וראיתם must be understood as a conjunctive letter, i.e. "in addition to what G'd had said you will also experience some kind of revelation of the glory of G'd." Alternatively, the meaning of the word ובקר, "in the morning also," is that at that time the Israelites would have another opportunity to realise that it was G'd (and not Moses) who had taken them out of Egypt. The verse then is a continuation of verse 6: "in the evening you will realise, etc." According to this interpretation the letter ו in וראיתם is not a conjunctive but introduces a new thought.
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויאמר משה בתת ה׳ לכם, Moses said: "when G'd gives you, etc." Whereas previously Moses had not spelled out what would happen in the evening and in the morning, he now spelled this out in detail.
  
  Verse 9
  
   ויאמר משה אל אהרון, Moses said to Aaron, etc. It is possible that Moses spoke this verse on the first day when he said to the people that they would recognise that it was G'd who had taken them out of Egypt and not he or Aaron. It is also possible that Moses spoke to Aaron only on the following day and that the reference to "evening" in verse 6 did not refer to the evening of that day, but to the evening following provision of the quail; in that case Moses refrained from mentioning what happened in the morning.
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויהי כדבר אהרון, It came to pass, as Aaron spoke, etc. G'd is described as if He was sitting waiting for the Israelites to look in His direction. He appeared through the cloud immediately after Aaron had delivered Moses' message to the people.
  
  Verse 11
  
  וידבר ה׳ אל משה לאמור. G'd told Moses to say: It is difficult to understand why the Torah writes לאמור in verse 11 when G'd had not yet completed the instructions He gave to Moses. The word לאמור in verse 12 would have been perfectly adequate.
  We may have to explain this by remembering what we learned in <i>Yuma 4</i> according to which one must not reveal anything one has been told by anyone unless given specific permission to do so. Accordingly, when G'd said: "I have heard, etc." these were G'd's words to Moses, and as such Moses would not have had permission to reveal them to anyone unless he was given permission to do so. The word לאמור in verse 11 was that permission. Permitting someone to reveal something does not mean a directive to do so. When G'd wanted to ensure that Moses used this permission to reveal his conversation with Him, G'd had to instruct him to do so. Hence we find in verse 12: דבר אליהם, "speak to them," that Moses was to relate those parts of the conversation between himself and G'd which had a direct bearing on the Israelites' activities. The first לאמור indicated merely permission to say something, whereas the לאמור in verse 12 introduces things Moses was obligated to communicate to the Israelites. This is also the reason there is a subtle change in the manner G'd speaks of the Israelites. Whereas prior to the instructions דבר אליהם, G'd spoke about the Israelites, from that moment on He addresses them (תאכלו not יאכלו) even while speaking through Moses. Moses was to first address the Israelites, i.e. דבר אליהם telling them what G'd had said to him, namely that He had heard the complaints of the Israelites. He was not to tell them the part about his being G'd's messenger. The second message Moses was to relate, the one introduced by the word לאמור, concerned the fact that the Israelites would eat meat on the evening of that day. The word לאמור was necessary although it followed דבר אליהם to ensure that Moses would tell the Israelites this in the name of G'd. The whole sequence then means: "tell the Israelites that I am telling them 'you will eat meat by evening.'" In this instance the word לאמור replaces the normal expression כה אמר השם. The concluding words of the verse: כי אני השם אלוקיכם, are justified then. Had it not been not for the word לאמור one could have assumed that Moses promised the meat on his own authority.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ויאמרו איש אל אחיו מן הוא, They said to one another it is manna, etc. We need to understand why this whole verse is necessary. Perhaps G'd caused them to say מן instead of מה, and this remained the name of this heavenly bread. This would correspond to a commentary on Psalms 46,9 in <i>Berachot</i> 7 where the word <i>Shammot,</i> desolation, is read instead as <i>Shemot,</i> names. According to the Talmud, G'd Himself named different phenomena in His world. The words כי לא ידעו, "for he (the people) did not know what it was," would be the reason why G'd had to supply the name. This may have been the reason the Israelites eventually lamented the nature of the manna. Perhaps the Israelites were very clever calling it מן as they realised (verse 31) that this word itself was something unusual and reflected the Spirit of G'd.
  
  Verse 16
  
   איש לפי אכלו, everyone according to his capacity to eat. This does not refer to the individual's eating capacity but to the number of people in his household. The reason the Torah speaks about a single individual's capacity to eat, i.e. אכלו is because the head of the household determines how many people depend on him. Nonetheless he could collect on behalf of people who though dwelling in his tent did not depend on him. You will find confirmation of this approach when you study the way the Torah describes who collected how much. In verse 17 we are told that each person had collected an amount corresponding to individual need, whereas in verse 16 we are told that after they measured what they had collected they found that each one had collected exactly one Omer per head. If that is all that mattered, why did the Torah have to add: "according to the number of persons in his tent?" Clearly, the Torah wanted to include persons in a tent for whose maintenance the head of the household was not responsible. You will find studying what the Talmud Yuma 75 has to say on the subject very illuminating.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ויאמר משה…אל יותר ממנו עד בקר, Moses said…not to leave over from it till the following morning. It is possible that Moses issued this directive on his own. He did so because he knew that G'd would provide daily rations. He interpreted G'd's intention as being that one day's food supply should not serve as preparation for the following day's needs. This may be why the Torah phrases Israel's disobedience as "they did not listen to Moses," instead of simply saying: "they left some over till the morning."
  Furthermore, why was it not sufficient to say: "they did not listen and left some over?" This would have told us that they did not listen to the one who had given the instructions. According to our interpretation the meaning of "and they did not listen" means the reason they ignored Moses' instructions was that they were clever enough to perceive that the instructions originated with Moses and not with G'd. This also explains the fact that Moses had introduced the instructions he gave concerning collecting the manna in verse 16 as being in the name of G'd. He had not done so previously. If the manna turned bad and sprouted worms this shows that G'd agreed with Moses' intiative.
  It is also possible that every instruction Moses issued originated with G'd; seeing Moses had already introduced his directives concerning collection of the manna as instructions given to him by G'd, he did not see the need to re-emphasize this at every juncture. The Israelites misunderstood this, thinking Moses had acted on his own. They also did not know that instructions issued by a prophet are to be obeyed even if the prophet did not receive specific instructions concerning them from G'd.
  
  Verse 20
  
   וירם תולעים, it developed worms. The reason the Torah tells us about this prior to telling us that the left-over manna rotted is, that normally we find worms develop only in foods which are sweet whereas these do not rot and stink. Since we have been told that the normal taste of the manna was like that of wafers covered with honey, we would have expected it to develop worms but not to rot and to give off a foul odour. The Torah therefore tells us that not only did it develop worms but it also rotted and began to stink.
  Verse 24 proves that our interpretation is correct, seeing that in that verse the absence of the foul odour is mentioned prior to the absence of worms. By reporting matters in that sequence the Torah tells us that even the worms which would normally develop did not develop overnight.
  I have noted that the <i>Mechilta</i> does not explain things the way we do; perhaps the author felt that the development of the worms preceded the decomposure of the manna although usually decomposure is the cause of the worms emerging (even though sweet foods do not rot and create foul odours).
  I believe it is likely that the <i>Mechilta</i> felt that the message of the Torah in relating these details was that worms by definition are the product of something which has gone rotten. Onkelos translates the word ויבאש as רע ביש, "bad and evil." Evil may be defined as the result of ignoring or violating the commandments of the Torah; a person who commits sins will eventually sprout worms. The mystical dimension of the existence of worms, i.e. parasites, is the sin committed by Adam when he ate from the tree of knowledge. It was an interaction of the fruit and the air (which he had polluted by his sin) which produced the first worm. All this is alluded to in the strangely worded וירם תולעים, "it raised worms," the cause being ויבאש, that something sinful had been committed with the manna. The Torah confirms this by its long-winded report in verse 24 where the Israelites are described as conforming with the instructions Moses had given concerning the treatment of the manna which had fallen on Friday. The thrust of that whole verse is to inform us that since no violation of the law had been committed there was no rotting and no worms were generated. When we are told in various stories in the Talmud that the bodies of certain righteous people did not produce worms after death, this merely confirms the nature and origin of worms. Compare <i>Baba Metzia</i> 84 about the single worm that grew out of the ear of Rabbi Eleazar son of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. That single worm was attributed to a sin committed with that ear.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ויגידו למשה, they told Moses about it. This proves that Moses had not previously informed them of what G'd had said. It is hard to reconcile this with the well known prohibition for a prophet to suppress a prophecy that has been revealed to him (<i>Sanhedrin</i> 89). Moses' failure to inform the people seems especially peculiar seeing that by withholding such information he would prevent the performance of a מצוה. The author cites a variety of reasons why we cannot assume that Moses had forgotten to communicate part of G'd's instructions to the people.
  Actually, Moses did have good reason to act as he did. He made this plain when he said: "this is what G'd has said: 'tomorrow is a solemn day of rest for G'd;'" You will observe that Moses did not include the customary לאמור when he referred to what G'd had said. By omitting the word "to say," Moses hinted that G'd had not instructed him to communicate this commandment to the Israelites already earlier during the week. In view of what we have learned in <i>Yuma</i> 4 Moses was under obligation not to reveal any communication from G'd unless he had been given either permission to do so or he had been commanded to do so. In this instance G'd had done neither. We have discussed all this in our commentary on verse 11 of this chapter. The proof of the correctness of Moses' conduct is evident from verse 5 where G'd neither told him to tell the people nor permitted him to convey the information at that time. Moses had simply not been appointed as G'd's messenger concerning this detail of the Shabbat/manna legislation. This is why after the Israelites reported to him that a double measure of manna had fallen Moses merely acknowledged that he had known about this all along. He implied that G'd had sealed his lips in this regard.
  We now have to analyse who gave Moses permission to reveal even at this stage that G'd had already told him about all this previously.
  I believe that Moses was clever enough to figure out why G'd had not wanted him to tell the people about this at the time. He reasoned that G'd wanted to implant faith in the people that the whole Sabbath legislation was fair and justified. If they would experience the way G'd provided for them on the Sabbath by an event orchestrated by G'd Himself, as opposed to a message relayed by a prophet, the psychological effect would be so much greater. They had to be surprised to find provision for the Sabbath already on Friday. If G'd would command them not to commit certain types of work on the Sabbath after He had already made the performance of such work unnecessary, it would be easy to accept the restrictions which are part of the Sabbath. This why <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 25,11 considers that observance of the Sabbath is equivalent to observing all the commandments. It was a commandment the Israelites embraced wholeheartedly after seeing that it was really a gift from G'd to them. Had Moses told the people that no manna would fall on the Sabbath and as a result the people would have tried to collect more than the usual amount on Friday, they would not have considered the fact that they came home with twice the usual amount as a miracle. By not telling them in advance, the people collected what they thought was the normal amount. When they came home and measured it and found that it was twice the usual amount they realised that G'd had performed a miracle for them and the Sabbath assumed great significance.
  Should you argue that in the end Moses did issue instructions to the people not to collect more than the regular amount, this was only in order to keep them aware of the miracle that G'd provided on Fridays for the needs of the Sabbath. A miracle did not need to be performed in order to demonstrate that Moses' conduct had been justified.
  Furthermore, even if G'd had informed the Israelites through Moses of the commandments for Sabbath well in advance, there would still have remained room for error. We have learned in <i>Menachot</i> 65 that when Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai had dealings with the heretic sect of Bayssus and he challenged them for proof of their contention that the festival of Shavuot must occur on a Sunday, one of their elders claimed that seeing that Moses loved the Jewish people and he was aware that the holiday of Shavuot is only one day, he determined that it should occur on Sunday in order for the Jews to enjoy two successive days of rest. <i>Tossaphot</i> on that folio comment as follows: "he (Moses) ruled that this should be so, and G'd agreed with him." This proves that there are people who believe that even though a halachic ruling originated with Moses, G'd had to give His consent to such a ruling.
  You might still ask why Moses had to tell the Israelites all this at this stage. Surely the miracle they had just witnessed would have convinced them that the Sabbath legislation had originated with G'd? The fact is that once the Israelites noticed that no manna fell on the Sabbath they might have concluded that the whole manna supply had come to an end. Moses therefore had to explain to them that the only reason there was no manna on the Sabbath was because G'd had said so; there was no other reason. This would be proved to the people conclusively as soon as the manna began to descend again on the day after that Sabbath. Moses had to tell the people things that he normally should not have revealed in order to prevent them from going to collect manna on the Sabbath. Moses did not tell the people explicitly not to go out and collect manna. He only told them that they would not find any manna in the field if they went to collect it.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   אכלהו היום כי שבת היום, "eat it to-day for to-day is a Sabbath, etc." Why did Moses have to command the people to eat the manna? Perhaps this was because he had previously told them to leave aside what was left to keep it till the following morning. He had not spelled out to them that they not only could keep it but were also allowed to eat it. Although we do not have Moses on record as having forbidden the consumption of any left-over manna on other days, it seems evident from the verses about the way to treat the manna on the Sabbath that he must have forbidden the left-overs. Perhaps the prohibition of such left-overs stems from the same consideration as the prohibition to consume meat from sacrificial offerings after the time limit allocated to such a sacrifice has expired. Compare <i>Chulin</i> 114 where our sages state that "anything which I have declared as rejected by Me, you must not eat." Moses' emphasis on "eat it to-day," clearly indicates that it was not to be eaten after to-day. Moses added the words "for to-day is a Sabbath," in order that the Israelites should not form the impression that the prohibition to eat yesterday's manna on the morrow also applied to the Sabbath.
  The last words in the verse may also be understood as the rationale for the people not being able to find manna in the field on that day. In other words: "the reason you will not find manna in the field to-morrow is that to-morrow is a Sabbath for G'd." We may have an allusion here to what Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said in the <i>Zohar</i> second part page 88: "The food supply for the six weekdays descends from the celestial spheres on the Sabbath; this supply then descends further on a daily basis." Moses only excluded the manna from being found on the Sabbath in our world, i.e. בשדה, in the celestial world it could be found on the Sabbath.
  
  Verse 26
  
   ששת ימים תלקטהו, "During six days you will collect it, etc." This is meant as a warning not to go out on the Sabbath in order to collect manna; the meaning of the words לא יהיה בו, refers to the activity of collection. Moses had already announced that there would not be any manna when He said: "you will not find it in the field." This is the reason that G'd became so angry (verse 28) asking "how long will you refuse to observe My commandments?" He referred to the people violating a negative commandment. Where else do we find that G'd had forbidden the attempt to collect manna on the Sabbath if not in verse 25? If you were to assume that the prohibition was to be derived from verse 26, this is hardly possible seeing that our verse speaks only about what to do, not about what not to do. At best it would be considered as לאו הבא מכלל עשה, a negative commandment which is a corollary of a positive commandment (<i>Pessachim</i> 41). It would not be justifiable to refer to a violation of such a commandment with the words "you have refused, etc."
  
  Verse 27
  
   ולא מצאו, and they did not find any. The Torah means that these people would have collected it if they had found some.
  
  Verse 28
  
   עד אנה מאנתם, "how long are you going to refuse?" Since I have have explained (verse 22) that Moses did not commit a mistake by not telling the people earlier about the Sabbath restrictions, why did G'd include him in the people whom He accused of repeatedly refusing to keep His commandments? Our sages in <i>Baba Kama</i> 92 cite a proverb according to which "the good suffer with the bad." This statement seems to confirm that the fact that Moses did not tell the Israelites about the Sabbath restrictions earlier was not something which caused the Israelites to commit a sin. Nonetheless I believe G'd would not have included Moses in His accusation unless He had some complaint against Moses himself. I have taken a look at verse 29 where Moses tells the people that G'd has given them the Sabbath as a gift, and that this was the reason He provided a double portion of manna on Friday. This is also why they should stay at home on the Sabbath. The question we must answer is when did G'd inform Moses of the rules laid down in that verse? If G'd told Moses about all this after He had asked: "how long will you refuse, etc.?" then the problem is why did G'd not tell Moses sooner to inform Israel of these restrictions on the Sabbath? If G'd told Moses already several days earlier, how is it that Moses did not inform the people sooner?
  I believe that here we have touched on the point where Moses erred. He thought that G'd's failure to tell him: "tell the Israelites, etc.," was reason enough for him to confirm only that part of G'd's revelation to him which the people had already found out. Thus, when the people told him their surprise at finding a double portion of manna on Friday (verse 22), Moses only confirmed the fact that he had known about this (verse 23). He did not add that the fact that a double portion of manna had fallen on that day meant that they were not to go out in search of it on the Sabbath. He was therefore indirectly responsible for some of the people going out in search of manna on the Sabbath. These people were not bent on violating G'd's commandment. They felt that since they had not been told specifically that it was forbidden to go out of the camp in search of manna (or anything else for that matter), they did not commit a wrong. As far as they were concerned the prohibition only took effect when Moses told them in verse 29 that leaving the camp on the Sabbath was forbidden. It was only after Moses' announcement that the people "rested on the seventh day" as reported in verse 30. We now understand why G'd had not exempted Moses from the accusation of: "how long are you going to refuse to observe My commandments, etc.?" As soon as Moses heard G'd's accusation and he realised that G'd had included him in it, he immediately proceeded to tell the people about the regulations pertaining to the Sabbath. All of these were the natural corollary of when G'd had told him in verse 5 "they shall prepare whatever they will bring (into the camp). I do not believe that Moses' omission constituted enough of an error for G'd to have included him in such a serious accusation as "how long will you refuse to observe My commandments?" After all, Moses had not been commanded to inform the people of these regulations. While it is true that Moses should have extrapolated from what G'd had told him and should have warned the people of what they were not to do, failure to extrapolate was certainly not something punishable. This explains then why the sages in <i>Baba Kama</i> felt called upon to describe Moses' inclusion in G'd's complaint as merely due to the fact that "the good suffer with the bad."
  מצותי ותורותי, "My commandments and My laws." What did G'd mean when He used the plural? We find that the Israelites violated two commandments. 1) G'd told them not to leave any of the manna for the following day. Some people defied this commandment. 2) G'd told them not to go out and collect on the Sabbath. Some people went out in order to collect. As to the expression ותורותי, this too referred to two separate instructions. 1) G'd had instructed them to collect 1 Omer per member of each household, whereas the people collected more (tried to). On the Sabbath some people demonstrated that the fact G'd had already given them a double ration on Friday was not enough for them; they went out in search of more on the morrow. Had they found some they would have wound up with more than 1 Omer per head per day. 2) They did not believe G'd who had said that there would not be any manna on the Sabbath but they went out to collect, etc. There is no greater sin than not to believe either in G'd or in Moses His servant.
  
  Verse 29
  
   ראו כי ה׳ נתן לכם השבת, "See that the Lord has given you the Sabbath, etc." I have already explained that Moses felt that he did not have to spell out this commandment for the people as they had witnessed what happened and surely could draw the right conclusions therefrom. Seeing that G'd personally had revealed this commandment to them, he felt that they had absorbed it with the most potent of their senses, the sense of sight. When he said to the people: "let no one leave his place (of abode), he merely explained that the reason that G'd had not made any manna fall on that day was to save the people the bother to go and pick it up.
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   ויאמר משה זה הדבר אשר צוה השם, Moses said: "This is the thing which G'd has commanded, etc." Why did the Torah have to write the word דבר, thing? Furthermore, to whom did Moses address this commandment? If he addressed it to Aaron, why is it not part of verse 33 where Moses commands Aaron to fill a bottle with manna? There seems to be a duplication here.
  I believe we must understand Moses' intention as follows. "This is the thing that G'd commanded: 'fill one Omer of it.'" G'd did not say who was supposed to take the Omer of manna and fill it. G'd did not even say in which manner this Omer of manna should be taken, neither did He specify where it was to be deposited. All that emanated from G'd's mouth were the words: "fill an Omer of it." When Moses spoke to Aaron on the subject he used his own intelligence to guide him. The word למשמרת can have two meanings. We have a rule that when a word is capable of being interpreted in two ways we give equal weight to either possibility; as a result, any action that has to be undertaken in response to a commandment which is ambiguous has to satisfy the requirements of either interpretation because we are not competent to exclude either interpretation. In this instance the two possible meanings of the words are: A) to safeguard the manna which has been set aside from becoming ritually defiled; B) to safeguard it against anyone stealing it or otherwise misappropriating it. Moses secured it against possible theft by decreeing that the bottle of manna should be stored in the Holy Tabernacle; after all this was the place where other nationally important properties such as the tablets with the Ten Commandments as well as the original Torah scroll would be being kept. It was clear to Moses that the place to keep something that G'd wanted the people to see after many generations was the Temple or its equivalent. You will find later on that G'd also instructed the staff of Aaron which had flowered to be preserved in the Holy Tabernacle. The censers of the 250 men who had sided with Korach in his uprising were also kept within the precincts of the Holy Tabernacle as covers for the altar (compare Numbers 17,25, and 17,3-4). The <i>Mechilta</i> on our verse speculates on the material that the bottle was made of and concludes it was of a transparent nature, i.e. silica- based earthenware. When such a container made of earthenware has a tight-fitting lid, its contents are not subject to ritual impurity. When G'd had spoken about the function of the manna in the bottle being למשמרת, Moses understood this word to possess both meanings. The reason Aaron was to take the bottle and fill it was because he was a Priest who perfomed the service in the Holy Tabernacle. He would also ensure that this bottle and its contents would remain ritually pure.
  We may also follow a different approach. When Moses first heard the prophecy about the bottle of manna to be preserved for future generations, he arranged to tell the Israelites all this in its proper sequence. He then found himself unable to determine who should fill the bottle and where it was to be stored. In fact he did not know how to carry out this commandment. He then received further detailed instructions from G'd so that all his doubts were resolved. This is the reason that we find at the end of the paragraph (verse 34) that Moses did as G'd had commanded and that as a result Aaron placed the bottle in front of the Holy Ark. The reason the Torah states this detail is to tell us that Moses did not arrange the details on his own, but that just as the detail about where the bottle was to be placed had been communicated by G'd, so the other details which G'd is not on record as having spelled out were also communicated to Moses by G'd Himself.
  If we follow our first approach then the words כאשר צוה ה׳ אל משה mean that G'd considered whatever Moses decided on his own as if He Himself had directed Moses to do it.
  למשמרת לדרתיכם, "to be preserved throughout your generations." The reason the Torah speaks of the plural is that this bottle of manna would be featured twice in the future; once during the lifetime of the prophet Jeremiah, and in the still more distant future according to <i>Mechilta</i> 21 and <i>Tanchuma</i> 3 on our verse. Jeremiah used the bottle to answer the Jews who claimed that they could not devote time to Torah study as they would not then have time to earn their livelihood. He reminded them that those who study Torah would have their needs taken care of by G'd just as He had done when the Israelites were in th desert. The same would hold true in messianic times. This bottle of manna is reputed to be one of three items which the prophet Elijah will restore to the Israelites prior to the arrival of the Messiah.
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   את המן אכלו ארבעים שנה, they ate the manna for forty years. There is a good reason why the Torah refers twice to the Israelites eating manna for forty years. Once the people entered the Holy Land they ate manna which had been stored in their vessels, whereas up to the time they crossed the river Jordan they ate manna which had come from heaven on that same day. We have no difficulty in understanding that the longer something of celestial origin remains in our atmosphere, our domain, the more terrestrial it became in nature. The Torah therefore was forced to mention that the manna which the Israelites ate in the desert was in a class by itself. In <i>Kidushin</i> 38 the Talmud asks: "how can the Torah speak about the Israelites eating manna for forty years? They did not receive the first portion of manna until 30 days after the Exodus! The answer given is that their cakes (the unleavened bread they took out of Egypt) tasted like manna.
  It has occurred to me that there must be a reason why the Torah describes the eating of the first manna as אכלו את המן, whereas the second eating is described in the reverse order, i.e. את המן אכלו. I suggest that when the Torah emphasises the length of time the Israelites ate the manna, i.e. forty years, the emphasis is on the taste, i.e. the eating. Hence the Torah first mentions the word אכלו. When the Torah wishes to describe the precise time frame during which the manna fell it places the word המן in front of the word אכלו, seeing that the Israelites consumed "canned manna" for some time afterwards. It emerges that they did not eat "first rate" manna either during the first 30 days after the Exodus or during the thirty odd days after Moses' death.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויחנו ברפידים ואין מים, they camped at Refidim and there was no water, etc. According to <i>Bechorot</i> 5 the name "Refidim" is an allusion to רפיון ידים מן התורה, a slackening of adherence to Torah which itself is compared to water. Inasmuch as the Israelites neglected the study of Torah, G'd neglected to provide them with water.
  
  Verse 2
  
   ויוב העם עם משה, The people quarrelled with Moses, etc. The quarrel consisted of the people demanding that Moses supply them with water; seeing that it was clear that Moses was not in a position to supply them with water, the request was only the preamble to a quarrel. If the people had really wanted to ask Moses for water they would have asked him to cry out to G'd just as their successors did forty years later in Numbers 21,7 when G'd had sent poisonous snakes against them. In this instance they did not even ask Moses to pray after he had told them not to try G'd by quarrelling with him. Alternatively, they demanded water much as a creditor demands repayment of a debt from his friend. It is somewhat strange that they used the plural תנו when demanding that Moses give them water; after all they spoke only to Moses. We may therefore assume that they included G'd in their demand. This would also explain why Moses accused them of including G'd as someone whom they "tried." When Moses mentioned G'd last, i.e."why do you quarrel with me and with G'd?," he meant that they knew very well that G'd was able to supply anything He wanted; their sin was in doubting whether G'd was in their midst.
  
  Verse 3
  
   ויצמא שם העם למים, The people thirsted there for water, etc. One cannot help wondering why G'd subjected the people to such a trial that they came close to dying of thirst. Most ordinary people would turn heretics if subjected to this kind of trial. Besides, it is even harder to understand Moses who did not take the initiative and offer prayers on behalf of the people and their suffering instead of crying out to G'd that the people were about to stone him in their frustration? Moses' prayer sounds as if he was insensitive to the people's thirst, concerned only with his own death by stoning!
  It appears that G'd's purpose in subjecting the people to this test was to train them to raise their eyes heavenwards, to pray and to implore G'd in times of need because this is an important principle in matters of faith and attempts to perfect one's personality. You will note that G'd applied this same psychology when He allocated manna to the Israelites on a daily basis instead of giving them a weekly or monthly supply at a time. He also denied them this miraculous bread until they had pleaded with Him for sustenance. As soon as the people pleaded with G'd, He responded positively. In our paragraph we find that the Israelites contented themselves with complaining to Moses; They did not consider that their fate was subject to G'd's personal providence. As a result their situation grew steadily worse so that the Torah describes their thirst as overpowering. The Torah mentions that G'd tested them because they had not seen fit to request help from Him. When they asked if G'd were indeed in their midst or not, they demonstrated that they were not prepared to acknowledge that G'd guided their affairs by special providence. The only way G'd could prove that He was indeed in their midst was to allow the situation to become so critical that the people would learn to turn to Him as a result of the intensity of their thirst. Moses realised all this; this is why he refrained from praying to G'd sooner. When he saw that the situation had become intolerable, he asked G'd: "what shall I do for this people?" He meant "how can I deflect the people's complaint from me personally and have the people turn to You?" Clearly, Moses realised that the solution to the problem did not depend merely on prayer otherwise he would have prayed just as he had done when he faced the Sea of Reeds. He argued further that עוד מעט, if G'd were to allow the situation to deteriorate still further, the natural result of the people's frustration would be that they would stone him. It could well be that eventually and in desperation, the people would finally turn to G'd in prayer but by that time they would have killed him as a leader who had failed them.
  It was this latter argument which G'd accepted; I have been troubled by the thought that a people who had witnessed so many miracles in Egypt, at the sea, and in the desert did not turn in prayer to the G'd who had performed all these miracles. After all, these people were aware of the efficacy of prayer having seen how G'd sent them their redeemer immediately after they had appealed to G'd in Exodus 2,23. G'd had told Moses specifically that He sent him in response to the people's groaning. Perhaps the people thought that as long as G'd was in their midst there was no need for prayer. What would have been the point of G'd bringing them into the desert if He did not intend to supply their needs? If G'd did not intend to supply their needs they would be lost anyways, so what good would prayer do? They concluded therefore that the only reason they had no water was because G'd was not in their midst.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   עבור לפני העם, "pass before the people, etc." Perhaps G'd was aware that the thirst amongst the people was very great and that they would be in danger of their lives very shortly. This is why He told Moses to pass in front of them on a path which suggested to them that he went to find water in order to quench the fire of their thirst. He was not to take a route unknown to the people and not visible to them. He was also to take along the elders to confirm the people's impression that Moses was going in search of water and not to isolate himself in prayer.
  אשר הכית בו את היאור, "with which you have struck the river Nile." This in itself would be a remarkable miracle seeing that the very staff which had made the water of the Nile fetid, undrinkable, and turned it into blood, would now produce water for the Israelites to drink. This would also deflate the irreligious heretics who denied the fact that Moses' staff possessed miraculous powers.
  
  Verse 6
  
   הנני עומד לפניך, "I will be standing there before you, etc." The word לפניך refers to the place Moses was standing on when G'd spoke to him, whereas the word שם immediately afterwards refers to the rock. G'd emphasised that the whole earth is filled with His glory on a permanent basis and that He does not have to change location. However, there are sites where His presence is more manifest than in others. Alternatively, the degree in which G'd manifests Himself in certain locations is determined by the preparation that location has undergone in order to be a site fit for G'd to reveal Himself.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויבא עמלק וילחם עם ישראל, Amalek came and fought with Israel, etc. G'd punished the people for having neglected Torah which is compared to both fire and water (compare Jeremiah 23,29: "Behold My word is like fire"). The fiery sword and the thirst for water were the punishment which fitted the crime.
  
  Verse 9
  
   ויאמר משה אל יהושע, Moses said to Joshua, etc. As soon as Moses realised that the sin for which the Israelites were being punished was their neglect of Torah he said to himself that the most suitable person to confront Amalek was Joshua. The Torah itself testifies in Exodus 33,11 that Joshua did not move from the tent as he was busy studying Torah. (the word אהל is traditionally equated with the "tent in which one studies Torah). Moses instructed Joshua to choose people of similar stature in order to overcome Amalek. It turned out that this strategy worked.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ושים באזני יהושע, "and read it aloud to Joshua, etc." We need to understand why G'd instructed Moses to address this message only to Joshua. Perhaps the reason was the fact that despite Joshua's valiant efforts to overcome Amalek he had succeeded only in weakening him. Joshua became unduly concerned that G'd had not wiped out Amalek as He had wiped out the Egyptian army. G'd therefore wanted to reassure him. By telling Moses to be sure to make Joshua hear this message, G'd wanted to tell him that He, G'd, had heard Joshua's unspoken concern. He told Joshua not to worry, that in due course He would wipe out Amalek completely from beneath the sky.
  The repetition of the words מחה אמחה, may be an allusion to two occasions when a major battle would be fought against Amalek, one by King Saul, the other by Mordechai. The third and last such battle will occur prior to the coming of the Messiah.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וישמע יחרו כהן מדין, Yitro the priest of Midian heard, etc. Why did the Torah tell us that Yitro was a priest? Being a priest in a pagan society is hardly to someone's credit, why did the Torah then tell us about this? [the author bases himself on the rule that one does not remind a בעל תשובה of his past. Ed.]
  Perhaps in this case the Torah wanted us to know the greatness of Yitro who converted to Judaism although he occupied an exalted position in his country at the cost of his prominence and probably even his wealth. Actually, the Torah describes Yitro in a contradictory role. Although he was leader in his country and as such could have chosen prominent sons-in-law for his daughters, he chose an unknown (to him), i.e. Moses as his son-in-law. The Torah therefore describes him both as a leader in Midian and as Moses' father-in-law. At the time, the other aspirants for Tzipporah's hand in marriage resented Yitro's choosing an itinerant foreigner over them. Concerning Yitro's position as an ardent idol worshiper, something that is implied in his title "priest," the Torah compliments him in verse 11 when he declared that he had found that the Lord was superior to any other kind of deity. The fact that a Gentile who occupied an exalted position in his own country and who was a religious dignitary to boot made a 180 degree turn becomes remarkable for the Jewish people only after the Torah tells us who this Gentile was prior to his conversion.
  An additional reason why the Torah may have chosen to tell us something about Yitro's former career is that G'd had revealed all He had done to Yitro. He had not added nor subtracted anything which had occurred. Only people who occupy prominent positions of authority are granted such a comprehensive insight by G'd. We have described how Joshua was singled out by G'd to be privy to information not granted to the rest of the people.
  את כל אשר עשה אלוקים, all that the Lord had done, etc. This is also a compliment to Yitro. He endeavoured to know all the details of what had taken place. It proves that Yitro was what we term a philo-semite, a genuine friend of the Jewish people. When one hates someone, though one is aware of that person's superiority, one minimises the complimentary remarks one makes about such a person. The reverse is true if one loves someone; one is liable to be very lavish in one's praise of such a person. The Torah's description of Yitro is such that we realise that he was a true friend of the Israelites. Seeing that the Torah told us that Yitro heard "everything G'd had done for Israel," why did the Torah repeat "that G'd had taken the Israelites out of Egypt?" Surely this was part of what Yitro had heard!
  We may assume that Yitro had been well aware that no slave had ever escaped from Egypt (<i>Mechilta</i> on verse 11). According to <i>Sanhedrin</i> 106 Yitro had been one of Pharaoh's advisers, and as such had been thoroughly familiar with the system by which Egypt made sure its prisoners could not escape. When he heard about the Israelites having left Egypt he simply could not believe this. The Torah therefore had to repeat this aspect of G'd's achievements as one that Yitro had heard about. Once he found what he had heard to be true, he became convinced of the greatness of his son-in-law Moses. This is why the Torah linked the names of G'd and Moses. It was Yitro's understanding that G'd had gone out of His way to enhance the reputation of His prophet Moses. When the Torah describes what Yitro heard and the order in which it impressed him, it does not link the Exodus to the other miracles and achievements by G'd otherwise it would have described Yitro hearing וכי הוציא, "and that He took out, etc." The Exodus is presented as a separate achievement by G'd in Yitro's understanding, i.e. the one that made all the other miracles he heard about believable.
  Hearing about "all that G'd had done" enabled Yitro to believe the rumours he had heard. Our sages in <i>Zevachim</i> 116 disagree as to which of the various miracles Yitro heard about had impressed him the most. Some felt that it was the splitting of the Sea of Reeds; others said it was the defeat of Amalek. This whole argument is parallel to our own perception. According to the rabbis who hold that Yitro was most impressed by the fact that the Israelites defeated Amalek it makes sense that Yitro and his pilgrimage is related in the Torah immediately after the story of how the Israelites defeated Amalek. Yitro had reasoned that though G'd had exacted retribution from Pharaoh who had proved inordinately disobedient to G'd, this did not prove that what G'd had done was for the sake of the Israelites. The Israelites had simply become the beneficiaries of Pharaoh and the Egyptians being punished. Yitro thought that if he had been correct in his assessment the Exodus of the Israelites did not mean that they would be able to maintain themselves as a nation in competition with all the other nations. When G'd saved the Israelites from the attack by Amalek, Yitro realised that they were indeed G'd's chosen people, that what had occurred was the beginning of a new world order.
  The Torah mentions the fact that Yitro heard about the Exodus immediately before reporting that he brought Tzipporah and her children to Moses. We can understand this in connection with <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 4,4 where Moses wanted to take his family to Egypt with him. At the time Yitro wanted to know why Moses wanted to subject his family to the strain of travel and the suffering in Egypt. Moses told him that when the Israelites would leave Egypt and receive the Torah at Mount Sinai he would be keenly aware of the absence of his family at that event. Hearing this Yitro allowed Moses to take his family along. Having heard about the imminence of the Israelites' arrival at Mount Sinai, Yitro felt obliged to bring Tzipporah and her children to Moses without delay.
  
  Verse 2
  
   ויקח יתרו חתן משה, Yitro, Moses' father-in-law took, etc. The reason Yitro is again described as Moses' father-in-law is that it was only due to his status as the father-in-law of such a great man that his peers did not prevent him from travelling to Mount Sinai and becoming Jewish. It was customary in those days to put heretics to death, seeing that the religions were all national in character and defection was equivalent to treason. Perhaps the Torah also hints here that though Yitro was known by an entirely different title, i.e. The Priest of Midian, he now spurned that title and wished to be known simply as Moses' father-in-law.
  אחר שלוחיה, after he had sent her away. The reason that the Torah is careful to describe Tzipporah's remaining in her father's home in Midian as: "after Moses had sent her away," needs to be analysed. Were it not for the <i>Midrash</i> we have quoted I would have to assume that Moses actually divorced his wife when he found that he was a full time messenger of G'd and could not devote time to his family. It was reasonable for Eliezer to remain with his mother seeing he had only just been born. Gershom too was presumably still a minor and as such an encumbrance to Moses in his mission. Moreover, according to the <i>Mechilta</i> on our verse Moses and Yitro had agreed at the time of his marriage to Tzipporah that the first born son would belong to the mother (to be raised as a pagan) whereas the other would belong to the father. At any rate, there was a good reason why both children had remained with their mother. When the Torah reports Yitro as bringing both his wife and his children to Moses personally, this is a tremendous compliment for Yitro. He did not need to expose himself to possible rejection by his erstwhile son-in-law. According to the interpretation in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 4,4 that Moses had not divorced Tzipporah but had relied on his father-in-law to see to it that the family would be reunited at the appropriate time, we may understand the words אחר שלוחיה, as referring to messages sent by Tzipporah in order to find out exactly where the Israelites were encamped. Yitro did not undertake the journey until after Moses had made it plain that he would welcome both him and his family.
  
  Verse 3
  
   שם האחד גרשם, the name of the one was Gershom, etc. Although the reason Moses named this son Gershom has already been mentioned in Exodus 2,22, it had to be repeated here in order to inform us that we are talking about the same son already mentioned in chapter 2 (though this may have been 60 years earlier) and not another son (by the same name but born of a different mother).
  Furthermore, the Torah may have had to mention that the reason was not that Yitro had expelled Moses from his home. While it is true that Moses said: "I used to be a stranger in a strange country" (obviously not referring to his being expelled by Yitro), he may have phrased it thus so that Yitro should not hear that he had referred to expulsion by him. The Torah repeats here once more that the reason for Gershom's name was Moses' grateful acknowledgement of having prospered as a fugitive in a strange land.
  
  Verse 4
  
   ושם האחד אליעזר, and the name of the one was Eliezer, etc. The reason that Eliezer, Moses' second son is referred to as האחד, "the one," instead of the "second one," is that the reason for Eliezer being named as he was refers to an event which occurred even before Gershom was born. G'd had first saved Moses' life from the sword of Pharaoh before he had enabled him to settle down in Midian.
  The reason the Torah does not mention Eliezer's name first is that it first wanted to stress that Moses was in a strange land at the time the children were born. The Torah retraces events only after the main point that Moses was in a strange land has been established. An alternative explanation, one which I have mentioned on Exodus 2,22, is that when Moses spoke about a "strange land," he referred to our globe, this present life. He did not feel at home in this life, ever. This feeling of being a stranger in a strange land preceded even the time when G'd saved him from the sword of Pharaoh. Moses' whole attitude to life on earth has to be evaluated in that light. This throws a different light on the fact that his life on earth was saved by G'd after he had killed the Egyptian. The Torah had to spell out what precisely G'd saved Moses from or I would have thought that G'd saved Moses from some danger after he had settled in Midian. At any rate, there was something unique about the time when G'd saved Moses' life miraculously.
  
  Verse 5
  
   אל המדבר, to the desert, etc. The reason the Torah adds: "to the place where Israel was encamped" is in order to explain how it was they knew where to locate the Israelites in the great desert. Moses had previously informed his family of the location of his encounter with the burning bush and that G'd had told him in 3,12: "you shall serve the Lord upon this mountain." This explains why the Torah was able to describe the mountain as "the mountain of G'd where they were encamped" already at this juncture.
  
  Verse 6
  
   אני חתנך…ואשתך ושני בניה, "I, your father-in-law as well as your wife and her two sons, etc." Why did the Torah change the order in which Moses' wife and children are mentioned from the order in which they were mentioned in verse five? In verse five the sons are described as belonging to Moses and are mentioned first, whereas here Tzipporah is mentioned first and the sons are described as being hers! <i>Mechilta</i> on our verse explains that Yitro sent word to Moses that if he would not come out to meet him because he was his father-in-law, at least he should come out to meet and to welcome his wife and children. We may therefore assume that the Torah used the same approach in once mentioning Tzipporah before the children and once after the children. If Moses would not come out to welcome Tzipporah as his wife, at least he should welcome her as the mother of his children. When the arrival of these persons in the desert is mentioned, however, they are mentioned in order of their respective importance. This is why the sons are mentioned ahead of Tzipporah. Even though in this instance Yitro mentioned the fact that he was Moses' father-in-law before mentioning his own name, whereas in verse five his name is mentioned before his status as Moses' father-in-law, in verse five the Torah speaks objectively, whereas in our verse the Torah quotes Yitro. Seeing that Yitro was a modest individual he would not mention his name first. Moses would go out to honour Yitro because he was his father-in-law even if he had no other claim to honour. You will find something similar in Samuel I 24,11 where David honoured Saul even though the latter tried to kill him.
  ושני בניה עמה, and her two sons with her. The reason the Torah wrote the word עמה, with her, is to continue the trend of thought mentioned earlier. Yitro said: "if you do not come out on account of her or your children, at least come out to meet her and the children together."
  
  Verse 7
  
   ויצא משה לקראת חתנו, Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, etc. Seeing that Yitro had pleaded that Moses welcome either his wife or his sons or both, the Torah is at pains to tell us that Moses considered Yitro as deserving to be welcomed by him in his own right, hence the emphasis on לקראת חתנו. Perhaps Moses even went so far as to demonstrate this point by going only to Yitro's tent at this point, ignoring his wife and children till somewhat later. <i>Mechilta</i> makes the additional point that seeing that Moses prostrated himself in front of Yitro this is proof that he went out in order to honour Yitro. Our sages say that Moses honoured Yitro greatly. If the Torah had not stressed that Moses went to meet his father-in-law, how would I have known that he did not go out in order to welcome his wife and sons specifically?
  וישתחו וישק לו, He prostrated himself and kissed him, etc. Our rabbis in the <i>Mechilta</i> say that it was not clear who prostrated himself before whom and who kissed whom. When the Torah wrote איש in "they asked each other how they were," it became clear that Moses prostrated himself as he qualified for the description איש. The fact that the Torah does not mention that two people prostrated themselves makes it plain that only one of the two prostrated himself before the other. Should you argue that Yitro too has been referred to as איש in Exodus 2,21 where Moses is reported as agreeing to stay with Yitro, there is a subtle difference when Moses is called איש and when Yitro is called איש. Let me first explain the precise nature of the title איש, seeing that every male adult is called איש, if only to distinguish him from his female mate. We even find the term איש applied to animals such as in Genesis 7,2 where the Torah speaks of the pure animals which Noach is to take into the ark with him. The meaning of the word איש undergoes a change when it is used together with the name of the person concerned. In such instances it describes that person as someone of breeding and nobility. We find an example of the word איש or אנשים being used as a complimentary description in Numbers 13,3 where the people whom Moses had selected as spies were described as all being אנשים after we had already been told their names. On the other hand, when the word איש is used in lieu of a name it does not denote exceptional qualities such as Genesis 37,15 the man who found Joseph unable to locate his brothers in Shechem. The same applies in Genesis 24,21 where Eliezer is referred to as האיש. We are told in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 16, that the use of the word אנשים is complimentary only when the actual names of these people are recorded also. When G'd asked Bileam who the אנשים were who had come to him that night, (Numbers 22,9), clearly no compliment was intended. On the other hand, in Exodus 11,3, when Moses is described as האיש משה גדול מאד the word האיש is clearly highly complimentary. The same is true even of Exodus 32,23 when the mixed multitude refer to the fact that Moses had not returned from the Mountain. These people described Moses as the most perfect human being they had ever encountered. In the case of Yitro we do not find that the word איש is applied to him by the Torah in conjunction with his name, only in lieu of his name. When he is referred to in that context, the word האיש, (i.e. a pronoun) has neither a complimentary nor a derogatary meaning. The word is simply one used to describe a male. 
  In our verse it is a toss-up if the word איש is used in lieu of a pronoun or if it is a compliment for someone previously mentioned by name and therefore complimentary. The word is positioned between Yitro (actually חתנו) and Moses so that it is extremely difficult to know its meaning. If we are to assume that it is used as a pronoun for a male, both Moses and Yitro could be the subject referred to. It cannot refer to both Moses and Yitro seeing the Torah described only one of the two persons as prostrating himself. At the same time the Torah does not aim to confuse us but to inform us. I believe there is no choice but to understand that the subject is Moses, that the Torah wishes to point out that in spite of Moses being such a highly placed person he prostrated himself before his father-in-law to show him respect and honour.
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויספר משה לחתנו, Moses told his father-in-law, etc. Although the Torah told us that Yitro had heard all that G'd had done, there may have been some details which he had not heard about. Alternatively, Yitro had assumed that what he had heard previously was grossly exaggerated; Moses now explained to him that what he heard was true to the last detail. It is also possible that until Moses told him otherwise Yitro had been under the impression that the Israelites were still vassals of the Egyptians, not totally free. Moses told him of the slaying of the guardian angel of the Egyptians, something that Yitro could not have heard about from any other source as only the Israelites had seen the "dead" guardian angel (<i>Zohar</i> second volume page 52). Once Yitro heard about this he knew that the Egyptians did no longer have any hold over the Israelites.
  Perhaps the Torah itself alludes to this with the words את כל התלאה אשר מצאתם בדרך ויצילם השם, "all the travail that had come upon them on the way from which G'd had saved them." Seeing Yitro had been a religious leader he would be familiar with the fact that different nations had guardian angels in the celestial regions; Moses told Yitro about the personal pursuit by that guardian angel and how the Israelites had been very frightened of that guardian angel. When Yitro heard about all this he exclaimed: "blessed be the Lord who has delivered this nation from the hand of <i>Mitzrayim</i> (the guardian angel)."
  
  Verse 9
  
   ויחד יתרו על כל הטובה, Yitro rejoiced over all the goodness, etc." Onkelos translates the word ויחד as וחדי, the aramaic word for "he was glad." Why did the Torah have to use an aramaic word in this instance instead of using a Hebrew word familiar to all of us? Although we learned in <i>Sotah</i> 32 that certain sections of the Torah may be read publicly in any language, we still need to know why the Torah chose an aramaic expression here in the original.
  It appears that Yitro was so overjoyed when he heard about the total liberation of the Jewish people that his skin broke out in goose-pimples. It is a well known fact that when a person experiences an unexpected overpowering feeling of joy he develops a physical reaction; sometimes he may pass out or even die from shock. Read what I have written on Genesis 45,26 about Jacob's reaction when told that Joseph was still alive. Although Yitro had previously heard part of the good news, the story Moses told him about the death of the guardian angel of Egypt made his skin crawl.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   עתה ידעתי כי גדול ה׳ מכל האלוקים, "Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods;" Yitro acknowledged that although all other nations have spiritual representatives in the celestial regions, some of whom are very powerful and both protect their protegees and assist them in their wars, they do not exact retribution from the adversaries of their protegees as does G'd. Only G'd operates on the principle of the punishment fitting the crime. Only the G'd of Israel would drown people who themselves had drowned others, etc. When the celestial representatives of other nations act in defense of their protegees one cannot recognise this as what happens to their adversaries seems totally unrelated to what these people had perpetrated. In the case of the G'd of Israel, every one of the plagues He brought upon Egypt was retribution for a specific wrong committed by that people and their king.
  
  Verse 12
  
   ויקח יתרו… עולה וזבחים, Yitro took total offerings and meat offerings, etc. Yitro was clever in offering numerous peace offerings. He did this in order to be able to play host to many Jewish dignitaries. This is the reason it does not say: "he invited Aaron and the elders," but "Aaron and the elders came to eat with Moses' father-in-law before the Lord." They did not need to await an invitation because the quantity of Yitro's offerings spoke for itself. He certainly would not have allowed all this meat to go to waste as it would have been forbidden to do so. The elders honoured Yitro by joining him without a personal invitation being extended to them.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   כי יבא אלי העם לדרוש אלוקים "for the people come to me to seek out G'd." What did Moses want to accomplish with this reply? Did Yitro not see for himself that the people came to Moses to seek out G'd (judgment approved by G'd)? Yitro's question had been why Moses followed a particular procedure, one which was inconvenient for the people. He did not ask what Moses was doing.
  I believe that Moses referred to the emphasis Yitro had placed on the words אשר אתה עשה לעם, "which you are doing to the people." Moses understood that Yitro implied that Moses forced the people to appear before him, that he was not willing to let other people function as judges, and that as a result the people suffered inconvenience. If only Moses were willing to delegate he could save the people all this inconvenience. Moses replied to this accusation by saying that the matter was not of his choosing but that the people insisted on bringing their problems to him personally. He also explained to Yitro who could not understand why the people were willing to put up with this inconvenience that "anyone who has some matter comes to me." The <i>Zohar</i> second volume page 78 explains the words דבר בא אלי to mean that "a Divine ruling comes to me," i.e. Moses' decision would be divinely inspired. Since no other judge had been so favoured by G'd, the people are willing to put up with the inconvenience.
  As a result of these considerations there was no point in appointing other judges for the people to go to. Moses concluded by saying: "I make them know the statutes of G'd;" this too was something no one else was able to do.
  Yitro was not sure that he had understood Moses' words correctly seeing that they were capable of two interpretations. 1) Moses could have meant that inasmuch as the people came to him voluntarily he felt he had to fulfil the מצוה to settle arguments between two people personally. 2) The people did not want anyone else but Moses to preside over their litigation as I have already explained. Yitro worded his proposal in such a way that it would fit either of the reasons Moses had mentioned why he alone had to preside over litigation. Concerning Moses' argument that he wanted to fulfil the מצוה of judging personally, Yitro said: לא טוב הדבר, "this is not a good method." He then proceeded to explain why it was not a good system. Concerning Moses' argument that the people insisted that only he should be their judge, Yitro said: "I will give you some advice, etc." He presented his scheme in such a way that both litigants in a quarrel would return home satisfied. Should one of them not be satisfied he would still have the option of Moses personally hearing his case. The total number of cases submitted to Moses would be greatly reduced. As a result there would be a great reduction in personal tensions. If, per chance, the lower court would declare itself incompetent to settle an issue, והיה (verse 22), the judges of that court could in turn come to Moses and submit the problem to him. Yitro demonstrated to Moses that the fact that people wanted him to hear their problems personally did not obligate him unless they could not be made happy any other way.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   נבול תבול, "you will surely become weary, etc." Yitro repeated the word נבול because it has two meanings. We apply this term to describe anything which has lost some of its original strength, and as a result has become weary, fatigued, relative to its original state. Nonetheless the subject under discussion is still able to perform its basic task though with greater exertion. The second meaning of נבול is a feeling of weariness which is felt so keenly that the subject is unable to carry out his regular routine at all. Yitro warned Moses that though, intially, he would feel only slightly weary, eventually he would become so weary, נבול תבול, that he would be unable to function at all. Yitro underlined this by saying: "you will not be able to carry on by yourself." Alternatively, the reason he repeated the word was simply because he wanted to illustrate how both Moses and the litigants would become weary.
  גם אתה גם העם הזה, "both you and this people, etc." Yitro used the word גם twice to indicate that not only Moses whose powers were very great and close to inexhaustible would tire (seeing he had to preside over litigation daily for many hours), but also the people who would have to stand in line would find this too tiresome.
  The <i>Mechilta</i> understands the word גם as referring to Aaron, whereas the word העם would refer to the seventy elders. We need to understand the reason for this interpretation. If they considered only the word גם they would have had to explain these two words in the same way as we have done. However, the sages realised that if Moses would follow Yitro's advice he would have had to appoint close to 80,000 judges. He therefore indicated that even seventy elders were far too few. The sages therefore understood the word גם to refer to the additional judges Moses would have to appoint. They interpreted the second גם to refer to judges in addition to Moses. In each instance the word גם added a new element. According to the sages, the first גם meant that although Moses was such a superior judge, others, less competent would also have to be appointed, whereas the second גם meant that although the elders were numerous, even their number did not suffice to ensure that the litigation procedure would run smoothly and promptly. It is also possible that the words גם אתה included the people who would feel weary because of standing in line, waiting. Yitro added a second גם to tell Moses that even if he co-opted the seventy elders this would still be far short of what was needed.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   ואתה תחזה מכל העם אנשי חיל "and you shall seek out from amongst all the people able men, etc." This does not mean that the people should appoint the judges, but that Moses should look for suitable candidates. The Torah also hints that inasmuch as Moses would do the appointing, he could view himself as the judge seeing his appointees were his delegates.
  מכל העם, "from amongst all the people, etc." This means that although Moses might find candidates acceptable to him he should not appoint them until they also proved acceptable to all the people and the people asked for these men to be appointed as judges.
  אנשי חיל, יראי אלוקים, וגו׳ "able and G'd-fearing men, etc." Yitro spoke of four different qualifications corresponding to the four levels of judges he had suggested, i.e. chiefs of tens, chiefs of fifties, chiefs of hundreds and chiefs of thousands. The expression אנשי חיל is an all encompassing term, i.e. people who possess all the necessary qualifications mentioned to the fullest extent. Such people would be appointed as chiefs of thousands. In order to qualify as a chief of hundreds, Yitro demanded that the judges possess fear of the Lord; the reason that he mentioned יראי אלוקים (instead of יראי השם, for instance) was that their fear of the Lord need comprise only fear of punishment if they trespassed the Lord's commandments. This qualification was adequate to qualify a person to be a chief of hundreds. Although fear of the Lord in His capacity as the tetragram might be perceived as a higher qualification, in this instance it was not. Fear of the Lord as awe of the majesty represented by G'd includes awareness of all of G'd's attributes including the fact that He may be forgiving, display patience, etc. These latter considerations would make a judge think that if he committed an error G'd would be indulgent with him. It was important to Yitro that the judge would be constantly aware of the penalty he would face if he perverted justice. Yitro's point is best illustrated in <i>Chagigah</i> 4 where the prophet Samuel who had been raised from the dead by the witch employed by King Saul was visibly frightened (Samuel 28,15). If Samuel had reason to be concerned, how much more must ordinary individuals be afraid of G'd's justice. The Talmud reports that Samuel did not make an appearance until Moses himself accompanied him as a protector. The chiefs of thousands also possessed this quality of fear of punishment; in their case they possessed an additional qualification which the chiefs of hundreds did not need to possess. Concerning the qualifications needed in order to be appointed as one of the chiefs of fifties, Yitro demanded that these judges be known as truthful. Although these people did not possess the level of fear of punishment which characterised their colleagues the chiefs of hundreds, their reputation as truthful men sufficed to make them eligible as chiefs of fifties. Finally, in order to qualify as a chief of tens it was only necessary to have a reputation that one spurned ill-gotten gains. Yitro was careful to describe these people as "hating" ill gotten gains. It was not enough that they could curb their desire for such gains; they had to be people who never allowed themselves to lust after such gains. These last-mentioned qualifications were, of course, presumed to be possessed also by the chiefs of fifties and the chiefs of hundreds. If Yitro had meant for these various qualifications he mentioned to be be cumulative, i.e. that even a person who was a chief of tens had to possess all of these attributes, the attributes should have been linked to each other by the conjunctive letter ו i.e. אנשי חיל ויראי אלוקים. 
  It is obvious that if Moses were able to find a sufficient number of people possessing the highest of these attributes this would be wonderful; as it turned out, the Torah reports that Moses was indeed able to find close to 80,000 people who could qualify for the title of אנשי חיל. This also proves that Yitro had spoken of these qualifications in a descending order. Had Yitro intended for these qualifications to be cumulative, the Torah would have had to report that Moses found people who were men of truth, G'd-fearing, hated ill gotten gains, etc. We must certainly not assume that the reason the Torah does not mention Moses as having selected men of truth, G'd-fearing men, etc. was because he could not find such people. The only reason that Yitro had mentioned a variety of qualifications in a descending order was that he was afraid Moses might not be able to find a sufficient number of people with the highest attribute of all.
  I have given some thought as to the reason why Yitro merited that this whole portion bears his name. While it is true that inasmuch as Yitro paid honour to Moses the servant of G'd, G'd repaid him by honouring him, G'd could have found many other ways of compensating Yitro for his good deeds. Why did the Torah have to create the impression that if it had not been for Yitro a priest from Midian, Moses together with G'd's chosen people would not have known how to administer the Israelites' affairs?
  I believe the reason for all this is that G'd wanted to show the Jewish people already at that time and for all future generations that there are great and intelligent men to be found amongst the nations of the world. Vitro was an example of an enlightened Gentile who demonstrated this point beyond question. It is to teach us that if G'd chose the Jewish people as His people this is not because they possess superior intellectual qualities. G'd chose the Jewish people as a reward for the loyalty the patriarchs had shown Him and as an act of love towards this people. There is a discussion in <i>Zevachim</i> 116 as to whether Yitro arrived in the desert prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai or after. According to the view that he arrived prior to the revelation, the point we just made that G'd did not choose the Jewish people because of their intellectual superiority is reinforced. Although the Gentiles number more wise men than the Jews G'd still decided to make us His pilot project. This imposes an additional duty on us to praise Him for having chosen us as an act of love. Even according to the opinion that Yitro arrived in the desert only after מתן תורה, the reason that the Torah reports his arrival before it reports the revelation indicates that the Torah wishes us to learn this lesson.
  
  Verse 22
  
   בכל עת, "at all times." The Torah hints that even at times when Moses was busy receiving instructions from G'd these judges would continue to dispense justice, something that Moses had not been able to do.
  והקל מעליך ונשאו אתך, "so they shall make it easier for you and bear the burden with you." Yitro meant that his suggestion was intended to lighten Moses' burden, not that he would not be allowed to judge any other than the most difficult cases. The idea was that the other judges should share the burden together with Moses.
  
  Verse 23
  
   אם את הדבר הזה תעשה וצוך השם, "if you will do this thing and the Lord will command you, etc." Why did Yitro add the rider about G'd commanding Moses to accept his suggestion? If Yitro wanted for Moses to consult with G'd about the matter, he had already done so in verse 19 when he said: "I will give you an advice and G'd will be with you." Why did he have to repeat himself? Perhaps Yitro was afraid of Moses arguing that after all was said and done he would forfeit the opportunity to perform the commandments of teaching the people G'd's commandments and that it was not the way of the righteous to look for ways to ease their burdens even if they would tire from shouldering them. After all, man was born in order to carry burdens (Job 5,7). In order to forestall such an argument, Yitro said: "and if the Lord will command you." Yitro was not unaware of the physical strength required to be a prophet. We have a description of how Daniel found himself physically weak in the presence of an angel (Daniel 10,8). Imagine how much weaker he would have been had he faced G'd as Moses did on an almost daily basis. Our sages in <i>Nedarim</i> 38 state that the spirit of prophecy rests only on people who are physically superior, of heroic dimensions. Moses had refined his body so that he did not experience weakness even when he had a gruelling day of sitting in judgment. Nonetheless he was only a human being with all that this implies. Yitro told him therefore that he should forego this particular commandment which was capable of fulfilment by others in order to be able to fulfil his task as a prophet in the best manner possible. When Yitro said: "if you do this thing and G'd commands you, you will be able to endure," he meant that if Moses accepted his advice he would be able to endure as a prophet, i.e. when G'd would communicate with him and teach him other commandments because you have husbanded your strength. When Yitro said ויכלת עמוד, you will be able to stand, he meant that Moses would retain sufficient strength to receive G'd's communications while remaining standing on his feet. We have proof that this is what occurred in Exodus 34,2 where G'd tells Moses: "stand with Me there on top of the Mountain," and in Deut. 5,28 where G'd invited Moses: "stand here with Me." Yitro was afraid that unless Moses reduced his present workload this would undermine his physical ability to carry out his prophetic duties to the full.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   בחדש השלישי לצאת בני ישראל, In the third month after the Exodus of the children of Israel, etc. Considering G'd's love for Israel and His urgent desire to give them their fiancee (the Torah), it is difficult to understand why G'd waited until the third month after the Exodus. One of the signs of fondness for one's counterpart is that one does not allow obstacles to stand in the way of one's joining the beloved. We have instances in the Torah when G'd even accelerated the union of lover and beloved such as when Eliezer traversed the distance from the Holy Land (Hebron) to Aram Naharayim in a single day (G'd having telescoped the earth under his feet) only in order to bring about the union of Isaac and Rebeccah even more speedily than was possible without this miracle (compare <i>Sanhedrin</i> 95). In view of this, we could have expected G'd to at least do the same for the Israelites and ensure their arrival at Mount Sinai immediately after they had crossed the Sea of Reeds.
  G'd therefore felt called upon to explain that the fact that מתן תורה was delayed somewhat was not to be interpreted as a lack of ardour of the bride for the groom but was due to the groom not being properly prepared before that date. Having spent so many years in a country full of all kinds of abominations, the Israelites had absorbed much of the spiritual pollution prevailing in Egypt and they required 49 days during which they progressively cleansed themselves of these pollutants and readied themselves for their bride. According to the <i>Zohar</i> third volume page 97 the seven weeks that we count between Passover and Shavuot are to be viewed as seven times the 7 day purification rite that a זבה, a woman suffering from a vaginal discharge, has to undergo before she is ritually pure. When the Torah speaks of לצאת בני ישראל ממצרים, this is not to be understood as a date as much as a cause. Seeing the point of departure of the Israelites was Egypt (and not some other place), it required a certain number of days before the groom could ready himself spiritually for union with a bride such as the Torah. As soon as the Israelites were close to regaining their spiritual purity, i.e. on the first of the third month, they immediately arrived at their destination at Mount Sinai. The Torah describes arrival in the desert of Sinai and arrival opposite the Mountain as occurring practically simultaneously. We find confirmation of this in <i>Shabbat</i> 87 where the Talmud states: "on the day they travelled they arrived." Reviewing all these events I have asked myself that if our perception is correct, why did G'd not telescope the earth underneath the Israelites and bring them to Mount Sinai immediately? They could then have awaited the proper moment for מתן תורה at the end of seven weeks while encamped at Mount Sinai
  However, I have concluded that G'd demonstrated His love for the people by the manner in which He did things. Had He allowed the Israelites to encamp at Mount Sinai immediately and had then made them wait for seven weeks before giving them the Torah, this would not have reflected His love for the people. You do not make the lover wait an inordinate amount of time in the presence of his beloved. G'd therefore chose to reduce the number of days the Israelites were encamped at Mount Sinai prior to the revelation to a minimum. As long a a groom is not aware that the time for the wedding is at hand he does not consider the absence of his bride as painful. Once the time is at hand and the bride is missing he does get upset. The Israelites' sojourn in the desert prior to their arrival in the desert of Sinai has to be viewed in that vein.
  
  Verse 2
  
   ויסעו מרפידים ויבאו מדבר סיני, They journeyed from Refidim and arrived in the desert of Sinai, etc. The position of the verse is peculiar. We have already heard in verse one that the Israelites arrived in the desert of Sinai. Why did the Torah repeat it again? Perhaps we can explain this in terms of a statement in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 105 that "love has a tendency to disregard normal rules." As a result of love, what took place later may be reported earlier. Inasmuch as the day the Israelites accepted the Torah was the day that G'd had been waiting for ever since He created the universe, it is understandable that the Torah reported the arrival of this day at the earliest possible moment. This explains the emphasis of the Torah on ביום הזה באו, "on this day they arrived." The arrival describes the meeting of the lover and his beloved. Heaven and earth both rejoiced that this day had arrived at last.
  Since the Torah repeated the arrival of the Israelites in the desert of Sinai, what does the word ויבאו add to our understanding? Why did the Torah have to add that they camped there? What else were they supposed to do there?
  I believe the Torah wanted to acquaint us with three steps which were essential in the preparation to receive the Torah. G'd became willing to entrust the Torah to the Jewish people as an eternal inheritance after they had taken these three steps..
  The first step was for the Israelites to get a grip on themselves and to study the Torah diligently. Laziness is like a weed which leads one to forfeit whatever achievements in Torah insights one has acquired. You will observe that whenever G'd mentions the Torah He is careful to use such attributes as חוזק, strength, intensity as well as אמץ, fortitude and vigour. Numbers 19,14 אדם כי ימות באהל is one such example. Our sages in <i>Shabbat</i> 83 explain that Torah study must be such that a person is prepared to endure death in order to acquire its insights. He is to study Torah even when at the point of death. The author refers to a book he wrote in his youth called <i>Chefetz Hashem</i> where he commented on <i>Shabbat</i> 88. The Talmud there describes Torah as the elixir of life to those who treat it as if it were on their right side, whereas to those who treat Torah as if it were on their left side it will prove to be a fatal dose of poison. He explained that Rava (the author of that statement) meant that Torah proves an elixir of life only to those who invest all their vigour in studying it. In our verse, the Torah alludes to this by saying that the Israelites "moved away from Refidim." If the Torah had wanted us to know from which location the Israelites journeyed towards the desert of Sinai, this would have had to be stated at the beginning of verse one. The Torah meant that the Israelites put some spiritual distance between their neglect of Torah as demonstrated at a place called Refidim, and their renewed progress towards receiving the Torah. We have explained in 17,8 that the reason Amalek attacked the Israelites was because they had demonstrated neglect of Torah study. In the meantime they had begun to prepare themselves to become worthy of the Torah they were about to receive. This is what the Torah meant with the words ויבאו מדבר סיני.
  The second step which the Israelites had to take in preparation for מתן תורה was to be modest and humble. Our sages say that only people who are humble can be certain that they will not forget their Torah knowledge. They phrase it thus: אין דברי תורה מתקימין אלא במי שמשפיל עצמו ומשים עצמו כמדבר "Words of Torah do not endure except with people who humble themselves to be like the desert."
  (the third thing is) the teaching of the wise coming together with each other, and connecting with a full and whole friendship (heart). Not to be separated from each other, as for that the Talmud teaches us based on the words of Jeremiah, that it's like a sword on those who are [studying] alone. But, we need to come together, grow from each other [from the differences], and treat each other nicely. That is why the Torah uses a singular word, because all the Israelites became like one person - and now they were ready to receive to Torah. (free translation by Abby Stein)
  
  Verse 3
  
   ומשה עלה אל האלוקים, "and Moses went up unto G'd." Why did Moses go up before G'd had asked him to come up? Where to exactly did Moses go up? If he ascended the Mountain, why did the Torah not say so? <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 28, bases itself on Psalms 68,19: עלית למרום, "you went up to celestial regions." If we accept this <i>Midrash</i> at face value, why did G'd afterwards have to call upon Moses from the Mountain if he was already in the celestial regions? Besides, why does the Torah describe Moses as going up to האלוקים instead of to השם seeing that when G'd called to him from the Mountain G'd is described as השם?
  We have to understand what transpired in conjunction with G'd having told Moses already at the burning bush (3,12) that when the Israelites would arrive at this Mountain they would serve the Lord there. The term used there was את האלוקים. Moses, ever the faithful servant of the Lord, did not wait until he would be commanded to ascend the mountain but did so on his own initiative. There was no need to identify where Moses ascended to since the Torah had last spoken about the Mountain. The reason the Torah mentions Moses' destination as being אל האלוקים is precisely because it was the reason for his ascent. Moses felt that if he waited until he would be asked to ascend this would demonstrate both lethargy on his part, perhaps even unwillingness. This clears up all the apparent peculiarities in this verse. We do not believe that our approach contradicts the explanation offered by the <i>Midrash</i> as we view G'd's presence on the Mountain as including the Mountain in the celestial regions.
  ויקרא אליו השם. G'd called out to him. As soon as G'd noticed that Moses was ascending, G'd called out to him. You have to remember that it is in the nature of קדושה, sanctity, not to make the first move towards a person until that person has made active preparations to welcome such sanctity. The <i>Zohar</i> third volume page 92 phrases it is as "invitations from the terrestrial regions being followed by invitations from the celestial regions." This is the mystical dimension of Genesis 2,6: "and a vapour rose from the earth and it irrigated (from above) the whole surface of the earth." When the Torah uses the term ויקרא for G'd calling to Moses it alludes to יקר, precious, (which is part of the word ויקרא.
  מן ההר לאמור, from the Mountain, saying: Seeing that the word of G'd originates in the upper regions of the Heavens, for G'd had not yet descended on the Mountain, the Torah had to tell us that G'd commanded His voice to travel via the Mountain. Moses would hear G'd's instructions from there. The voice would travel in a straight line, in a very narrow channel and Moses would not hear it until he arrived on the Mountain. The two statements 1) ויקרא אליו השם, followed by מן ההר לאמור are to tell us that the word of G'd became audible only once it had "arrived" on the Mountain. Had the Torah not added the word לאמור, I would have thought that G'd's presence had already descended on the Mountain, something which was not the case.
  כה תאמר לבית יעקב..אתם ראיתם, Thus you shalll say to the house of Jacob:…"you have seen, etc." Why did the Torah repeat itself by first saying תאמר and right afterwards תגיד? Our sages in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 28,2 explain that the term בית יעקב refers to the women who have to be addressed by אמירה, the soft-spoken approach, whereas to the בני ישראל Moses was to speak in words that were קשים כגידים, tough as sinews. The difficulty with this comment is that we have no evidence that Moses adopted a different mode of speech when he spoke to the men. He spoke to the men and women simultaneously; he either adopted the soft-spoken method or the hard line, but at any rate he is on record as only making one single address. The <i>Mechilta</i> understands the directive in verse 6 commencing with אלה as a warning not to either add or subtract a single word from what G'd instructed Moses to say. Even if we were to point to verse six where G'd said "these are the words you shall speak to the children of Israel" as a directive to speak sternly to the men only, where is there any mention that Moses addressed the women separately? It is also difficult to detect any harshness in the words Moses directed at the Israelites!
  I believe I know how we have to understand what G'd had in mind. Let us first remind ourselves that it is an accepted principle of the Torah that the Lord G'd of Israel is always concerned with bestowing good on His creatures, more so even than the creatures themselves are anxious to become the recipients of such good. This principle applies in an even greater degree to G'd's chosen people. G'd employs His wisdom in order to give us a chance to acquire merits so that He has reason to increase the reward He wants to give us for מצוה performance. G'd has revealed, for instance, that the reward in store for someone who keeps the commandments out of fear that he will be punished if he fails to keep them is only half of the reward in store for people who observe such commandments out of a feeling of love for G'd. We know this from two verses dealing with the reward in store for keeping the commandments. In Deuteronomy 7,9 the Torah mentions G'd as keeping a reward in store for those who love Him for a thousand generations, whereas in Exodus 20,7 G'd is on record as doing the same for two thousand generations. [In the celestial regions G'd has administrators known as שר. Some of these administrators are in charge of rewards extending for one thousand generations, others are in charge of rewards extending for two thousand generations, compare <i>Pardes Rimonim,</i> Ed.] The reward in store for people who observe the commandments because of fear is entrusted to a שר האלף, a celestial administrator of a lower order, whereas the reward in store for people who observe the commandments out of a feeling of love for G'd is administered by a שר in charge of a higher order, i.e. שר האלפים.
  While performance of the מצות out of a feeling of love for G'd is something very noble, it is also accompanied by a potentially dangerous phenomenon inasmuch as the very love one feels for G'd may make one careless. As a result, one may occasionally trespass and violate a commandment, and even assume that due to one's overall love for G'd and His Torah He would overlook such minor infractions. The reason one feels that way is because this is the way one treats one's friends and wants to be treated by them. In order to understand Moses' behaviour we must keep such considerations in mind. Moses was on such intimate terms with G'd that on occasion he permitted himself unbecoming remarks such as in Exodus 4,13 when he told G'd "send whom You are in the habit of sending." Another occasion when Moses permitted himself an unbecoming comment was in Exodus 5,22 when he asked G'd: "why did You make things worse for the people instead of saving them?" The only reason Moses could make such a slip was because he felt so close to G'd that he lost his sense of awe when facing G'd, something that would never have happened to a person less intimate with G'd. The fact is that G'd does not indulge people with whom He is intimate, He does not apply less stringent yardsticks when judging those who are close to Him. We have G'd on record in Deut. 10,17 as "not regarding persons i.e. not showing preference to those who are close to him, nor accepting a bribe." On the contrary, the closer a person has come to G'd the more exacting the yardstick by which G'd measures him. When a person who is close to G'd commits a minor infraction he is disciplined as we know from Psalms 50,3 וסביביו נסערה מאד, "those who are around Him (close to Him) are greatly agitated." <i>Baba Kama</i> 50 explains this to mean that G'd is so exacting with the pious people even if they deviate only by a hair's breadth.
  When G'd was about to give the Torah to the people He intended to make that event one which would bestow the maximum merit on them. He had two options. 1) To address them with words of love and fondness. The result of such an address would be to implant in the people so much love that they would accept the Torah and qualify for the maximum amount of reward. The disadvantage accompanying such a method of giving the Torah would be the risk that the people would begin to feel so familiar with G'd that they would lose their sense of awe; this could become counter- productive; we have already described possible results of such feelings of familiarity with G'd. In other words, our relationship with G'd may either be based on the master-servant relationship or on the father-son relationship. If it is the former the feeling of awe before G'd will be present at all times, whereas if it is the latter there is always the danger that the "son" may take the love of the "father" for granted and abuse it on occasion. G'd's second alternative was to address the children of Israel in His capacity as a Master speaking to His servants. The advantage of such an approach was that the Israelites would not dare take any of the commandments lightly. On the other hand, such an approach would make it impossible for them to merit the greatest reward possible.
  Keeping all this in mind, G'd opted for a method which would combine both approaches. When He told Moses כה תאמר, He meant that Moses should use the following approach: תאמר לבית יעקב ותגיד, "on the one hand speak to the people in a friendly soft-spoken approach, but תגיד employ also words tough as sinews." G'd meant for the אמירה to be used in Moses' address to some of the people, i.e. בית יעקב, whereas the תגיד was to be used when he addressed the בני ישראל, the remainder of the people. The בית יעקב is a reference to the spiritually less mature part of the people, whereas the term בני ישראל referred to the spiritual elite. Inasmuch as the elite was capable of accepting the Torah and observing it out of a feeling of love for G'd, they had to be reminded of the master-servant relationship which exists between G'd and us; the spiritually less mature section of the people, the בית יעקב on the other hand, had to be won over by stressing the father-son relationship which is part of our relationship with G'd. Every Jew needs to be aware of this dual relationship at all times if he wants to achieve the maximum reward that one can qualify for, and if he wants to avoid the pitfalls of feeling an undue familiarity with G'd. When the sages in the <i>Midrash</i> said that the בית יעקב refers to the women this is homiletics.
  
  Verse 4
  
   אתם ראיתם אשר עשיתי למצרים "You have seen what I have done to Egypt, etc." Why did G'd stress what He had done to Egypt rather than what He had done for the Israelites, i.e. that He had taken them out of bondage in Egypt? After all, it was the latter which obligated the Israelites to accept the Torah and to accept G'd's words gladly as a gesture of gratitude. If G'd only intended to stress the miracles He had performed this would have been included in a statement such as: "I took Israel out of Egypt."
  According to our explanation that G'd operated on two levels when He informed the Israelites of His commandments, we find that He did so also in our verse. When G'd spoke about what He had done to Egypt, He reminded the people of what would happen to anyone who does not observe His commandments. By reminding the people of how He had carried them on the wings of eagles, G'd reminded the people of the loving kindness they could expect in return for observing the Torah's laws meticulously. G'd hinted that should the Jews refuse to observe the commandments He would consider them as in the same class as the Egyptians who had refused to listen to Him and who had paid the price. The words אשר עשיתי also have an additional connotation, namely that having witnessed the great miracles G'd had performed, surely the people would stand in awe of such a G'd. The plagues G'd brought upon the Egyptians by changing the laws of nature were a simultaneous demonstration of G'd's love for the Israelites for whose sake He had gone to such lengths as to re-enact מעשה בראשית. How could someone who reminded himself of having observed G'd manifest Himself in such a manner not develop a love for G'd? The above considerations were both incorporated in the introduction כה תאמר לבית יעקב ותגיד לבני ישראל.
  ואשא אתכם על כנפי נשרים, "I carried you on eagles' wings." G'd went on at length about the feats of love He had performed for the Jewish people. He wanted to show how great was the reward when one performs His commandments because of a feeling of love for G'd. Of course, it requires a great deal of emotional fortitude to always relate to G'd from feelings of love. G'd wanted to encourage such feelings in the Jewish people by reminding them that He had already demonstrated that He treated them as a father treats his son. The "wings of eagles" are a reference to the ענני הכבוד, the clouds of G'd's glory, which were spread beneath the feet of the people so that they did not have to step on obstacles. Moses reminded the people of that in Deut. 8,4: "your feet never swelled during these forty years." Whereas a mere hint such as אשר עשיתי is sufficient to awaken fear of retribution, more words of endearment are required in order to induce love in people. Hence G'd had to be more eloquent about the acts of love He had performed.
  ואבא אתכם אלי, "and I brought you close to Me." In this verse G'd reminded the Jewish people that He had taken the first step to bring them close to Him. This was very remarkable since we have explained repeatedly that the normal procedure of making progress of a spiritual nature is for man to take the first step. In taking the first step to elevate Israel to a higher spiritual level G'd had demonstrated His love for the people in an extraordinary manner. In our mundane life we also always observe that the lower classes make attempts to establish some contact with the higher classes, not vice versa.
  G'd also wanted to remind the people that even after He had taken them out of Egypt they had not shown Him the obedience due but had rebelled, such as at the Sea of Reeds, before they received the manna and the quail, etc. Nonetheless G'd had made every effort to bring them close to Him.
  G'd also hinted at what is spelled out in greater detail by the author of the <i>Haggadah shel Pessach</i> who says: "if G'd had not taken our forefathers out of Egypt when He did, both we and our forefathers would have remained there enslaved to Pharaoh, etc." The reason that G'd brought us out at the time was in order not to let us sink still deeper into the moral morass that was Egypt, a depth that we could not have rehabilitated ourselves from, ever. G'd therefore rescued us and brought us to a holy place. We have to understand the word אלי as the contrast to the deep moral abyss that was Egypt.
  G'd also wanted to answer the argument that seeing He had offered the Torah first to the Ishmaelites, to the Edomites, etc., and these people had declined to accept it (compare <i>Yalkut Reuveni</i> on Numbers 23,4), how did G'd demonstrate any special love for Israel by offering us the Torah? The answer is that G'd had merely sent messengers to these other nations asking them if per chance they wanted to accept His laws. In Israel's case, He had made it so much easier for this nation to accept the Torah by raising us first to be closer to His spiritual level. When G'd had offered the Torah to the other nations He did so in order to be able at some stage in the future to deny them certain privileges as a penalty for having spurned the Torah. Not so in the case of Israel. G'd had done everything possible to pave the way for acceptance of Torah by the Jewish people. There was no comparsion between the way G'd related to both Ishmael and Esau and the way He related to Israel.
  
  Verse 5
  
   ועתה אם שמוע תשמעו, And now, "if you will hearken carefully, etc." The word ועתה must be understood in accordance with what <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 21,6 teaches, in connection with Genesis 3,22 when Adam was being expelled from <i>Gan Eden.</i> The <i>Midrash</i> says there that this word always introduces the element of repentance. Inasmuch as the Israelites were still tainted by the many sins they had committed in the past as well as sins they had committed quite recently, such as when they rebelled against G'd's command in connection with the manna and the Sabbath, G'd warned them that in order to qualify for the gift of the Torah they had to undergo spiritual cleansing, a process of repentance. There is an interesting ruling in <i>Kiddushin</i> 49 that when a man betrothes a woman on the condition that he is righteous and it is found that he had been guilty of a number of sins this fact does not invalidate the bethrothal as it is presumed that he had confessed and repented his sins prior to the betrothal. His repentance entitled him to describe himself as righteous.
  אם שמוע תשמעו, If you will surely hearken. Why did the Torah have to repeat the expression שמוע? Perhaps the Torah referred to the two Torahs, the written as well as the oral Torah and the various rabbinic edicts promulgated throughout the ages. The people had to be told that both were equally valid. We are told this more explicitly in Deut. 17,11: "do not depart from any word they tell you either to the right or to the left. The Torah uses the word שמוע as a reference to the written Torah inasmuch as it will be revealed immediately, ועתה, whereas the word תשמעו i.e. you will hear (future) is reserved for the oral Torah and the rabbinic decrees, much of which will be formulated in the future. The expression ועתה, "and now," as a reference to what the children of Israel would be given now is quite appropriate then.
  By writing בקולי, to My voice, the Torah emphasises that listening to the instructions of Torah scholars is equivalent to listening to G'd's voice Himself (compare <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 14). Acceptance of rules introduced by the Torah scholars is mandatory.
  Perhaps we can explain a difficult passage in <i>Shabbat</i> 88 according to which the words in 19,17: "they stood at the bottom of the Mountain" mean that G'd placed the Mountain in a threatening position, saying to the Israelites: "if you accept My Torah all well and good, if not, this site will be your burial place." This threat makes little sense in view of the fact that the Israelites had already declared their willingness to accept the Torah by saying in 24,7: "whatever G'd has said we shall do and listen (learn)." <i>Tossaphot</i> hold that the Israelites might have become so frightened at the spectacle of the burning Mountain, etc., that their souls departed from them (so that G'd had to revive them). This seems an unlikely explanation; if this perception would be correct, the very fright of the Jewish people would prevent them from reneging. We feel that our approach, that the Torah speaks here of two separate revelations, the written Torah as well as the oral Torah with the rabbinic additions, offers a far better way of explaining the statement that the Jewish people accepted whatever G'd had said. Concerning anything they would hear from G'd directly (things which would be recorded in the written Torah following the revelation), they gave G'd carte blanche, accepted it without even knowing what precisely they undertook to accept i.e. ועתה, now. Concerning what the rabbis would teach them in the future, however, i.e. additional rules, something the Torah refers to here as תשמעו, to be formulated at a later stage, the Israelites did not yet commit themselves though they did not reject this part of the Torah either. When the Talmud describes G'd as threatening the Israelites with death if they did not accept the Torah now, what is meant is only the part of the oral Torah and subsequent rules by the rabbis which were not being revealed at this point. We must not forget that acceptance of anything the rabbis throughout the ages would decree was something far beyond what the Israelites had in mind when they coined the immortal phrase נעשה ונשמע, "we shall do it, let us hear what it is that we should do." No wonder then that the Torah repeats the word שמע to tell the Israelites that they had not yet covered all the bases with their immortal acceptance. According to the Talmud, G'd did not wait to see if the Israelites would also accept rabbinic authority for innovations for all future times, but He applied psychological pressure so as to make them feel they would die on the spot if they refused to accept the part about the oral Torah also. The Jews remained under such compulsion until the period of Mordechai and Esther when they voluntarily accepted everything which they had originally accepted only under pressure. The reason they did so was that they realised for the first time that the actions of a Torah scholar such as Mordechai were responsible for their salvation from the decree of Haman. Had there not been people of the calibre of Mordechai no vestige of the Jewish people would have remained at that time. While it is true that our sages in <i>Shabbat</i> 88 interpret the words נעשה ונשמע in a slightly different manner and suggested that at that time the Israelites became comparable to the angels who always declare their readiness to carry out G'd's instructions even before knowing what these instructions are (compare Psalms 103,20) where David describes the angels as anticipating G'd in carrying out His will, this is merely homiletics. According to our approach the Israelites may have used the word נעשה before the נשמע as applicable only to the Torah they would hear from G'd directly, whereas they were willing to accept the rabbinic decrees as well as the so-called oral Torah after they would be informed of its details. Alternatively, the words שמוע and תשמעו may be divided as applying to two different groups of Jews. The righteous were willing to accept the Torah unheard and unseen, whereas the average Jew wanted to hear first what he was about to commit himself to. There is no reason to assume that all the Israelites were on the same level spiritually.
  It is also entirely possible that in this verse we have a preview of what proved to be the fact after the Torah was revealed (compare <i>Horiyot</i> 4). The Israelites actually heard only two of the Ten Commandments from G'd's mouth directly, i.e. שמוע תשמעו, whereas they heard the remaining commandments through an intermediary, an angel created especially by G'd to transmit His words to the children of Israel. As a result there were two different levels of "hearing." They are alluded to by the two words שמוע תשמעון. The word בקולי instead of לקולי in connection with תשמעון, would be a clear allusion to these differences.
  The wording may also contain a promise by G'd that once the Israelites would make the initial effort to listen to G'd's commandments, שמוע, then the way would be paved for them to not only listen but to await further commandments by G'd, i.e. תשמעון. This is analogous to what we read in Psalms 34,9 טעמו וראו כי טוב השם, "taste and see how good the Lord is."
  The message in these words may also reflect what we have learned in <i>Sotah</i> 21: "when someone is actively engaged in performing a מצוה, this will protect him against impending disaster as well as save him from difficulties he finds himself in. When a person is not actively engaged in performing a מצוה, his merits will protect him against impending disasters but will not save him from troubles he is in already. When someone has not just one מציה to his credit but Torah itself (the whole range of מצוה observance), it will both protect him from impending disaster and save him if he finds himself in trouble already. The words שמוע תשמעו then mean: "if you are aware that listening to G'd's voice is useful on two levels, namely 1) to grant you life (compare Isaiah,55,4: 'listen so that your soul will live'), and 2) ושמרתם את בריתי, 'and observe My covenant,' it will protect you against the evil urge. We have expanded the meaning of G'd's דבור, speech whose function it is to be heard, to be listened to. The principal commandment described here (and in the Ten Commandments) is to absorb the meaning of the Torah by listening to it when it is presented. All the advantages of Torah are directly derived by people listening to its words. In this instance, the people would benefit by listening to the voice of the living G'd, and they would observe His commandments in order that the evil urge would not gain control over them. When the Torah adds the conjunctive letter ו before the word ושמרתם, this is to indicate that as the result of carefully listening to G'd's instructions, He would prevent the evil urge from leading them into sin. Listening to G'd's words would not only have intellectual benefits but immediate practical benefits.
  There is yet another lesson contained in these words. "If you will listen carefully and thus prepare yourselves to hear My voice, I, G'd, will allow you to hear My voice, i.e. I will not address you merely through an agent." G'd also hinted that while the Israelites prepared themselves to listen to a single שמיעה, audition, they would find themselves hearing additional auditions, תשמעון, as a reward for having "tuned in" to the Lord. We find that David alluded to something along these lines in Psalms 68,12 where he said: "G'd gives a single command; the ones who bring the news tell about a host of things." As a result of the quality of one's listening, the souls of the Jewish people would "draw upon" living waters, wisdom and insights. The Torah urges the Israelites to tune in so that what they would hear would be of maximum benefit and would be retained in their memories. This is the additional dimension of the words ושמרתם את בריתי, "you will observe My covenant" as a result of having listened בקולי, to My voice directly, instead of merely to the voice of Moses or another human being. <i>Shir Hashirim Rabbah</i> chapter 1 on the line ישקני מנשיקות פיהו, states that any Torah one has learned from a human being is apt to be forgotten. Not so Torah which one has learned from G'd Himself.
  There is still another dimension to our verse. <i>Shabbat</i> 146 teaches that when the Israelites stood at the bottom of Mount Sinai all the residual pollutants they still retained as a result of Adam's original sin departed from them. What the <i>Midrash</i> meant was that the word of G'd was so powerful that the people felt as if they had donned Royal garments (another term for man's soul). As a result, their innermost self despised all alternative attractions in the world, all the abominations which appeal to us humans under the heading of "culture." . This is what the Torah meant when it concluded ושמרתם את בריתי.
  והייתם לי סגולה, "you will be a treasure for Me, etc." The term <i>Segulah</i> means something possessing supernatural properties as a result of which we view it as a treasure. It does not need to possess intrinsic value. There are herbs, for instance, which are cold by nature and yet are known to be an antidote to cold, something that is illogical within nature as we know it. G'd promises the Jewish people that as a result of their listening to His commandments and observing them they will become such a people for Him, a people whose history defies all accepted norms.
  This promise is like a tree which has many branches. We are told in <i>Shabbat</i> 63 that if a Jew intends to perform a commandment and is prevented from doing so by forces beyond his control he is nonetheless given the reward applicable to a person who has fulfilled this commandment. If, however, the same Jew (or another Jew) intended to violate one of G'ds' commandments and was fortunate enough to have been prevented from doing so by forces beyond his control, he is not punished, i.e. his evil intention is not culpable. This is a <i>halachah</i> which defies logic. Interestingly, the same <i>halachah</i> rules that the very opposite holds true in the case of Gentiles. Whereas a good deed intended but not actually performed is not rewarded, the intention to commit a sin though not carried out is nonetheless punishable. Logic, or "nature" would have dictated that we either judge someone according to his intent or according to his deeds. How can one apply such a double standard? We are taught in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 59 that if a <i>Cuti</i> (non-Jew who has adopted many Jewish laws) studies the Torah and as a result observes the Sabbath (in the manner Jews do), he is guilty of the death penalty. He is not even supposed to observe the other commandments which G'd gave the Jewish people exclusively. How could this be so seeing that performance of these commandments is something G'd approves of as a good deed or He would not have commanded the Jewish people to perform such commandments? The Torah answers such questions by promising "you will be a treasure for Me from amongst all the nations," i.e. the Torah has accorded to you the key to determine which deed is a good deed based on the laws of the Torah. Seeing כי לי כל הארץ, that the whole earth is Mine, I G'd have the right to let you determine what is a good deed and what is not and under what circumstances such a deed is good. When G'd said מכל העמים, this means that should people at large claim that such special treatment of the Jewish people is totally unjust and that as long as the members of the other nations are but willing to conform to the laws of the Torah they should also be the beneficiaries of such observances, G'd says: "the whole earth is Mine," i.e. I can choose who I wish to treat as someone special. Since we know from <i>Sifri</i> on Deut. 33,2 that the other nations rejected the Torah when G'd offered it to them, and as a result G'd could not demonstrate that He treated us as a treasure by allowing us credit for things the Gentiles do not get credit for, how does G'd demonstrate that we are His special treasure? G'd answers this by saying: "the whole earth is Mine.," G'd indicates with these words that there are people in every nation who do recognise His being the Supreme G'd. This fact is spelled out in greater detail by the prophet in Maleachi 1,11 who describes that members of all nations from where the sun rises to where it sets, offer incense and pure gift offerings to the Lord, etc. G'd states that the members of those nations do not receive a reward from Him for doing so, their pious deeds do not make an impact on G'd. It is clear therefore that Israel's being a סגולה amongst all the nations has a great deal of practical meaning.
  Another meaning of the Israelites being a סגולה for G'd more than all the other nations is that they alone serve G'd directly, whereas all the other nations who serve pagan deities such as the sun or the moon, etc., nonetheless serve G'd indirectly, not being aware that all these so-called deities are merely agents of the Lord. This concept is mentioned specifically in Deut. 4,19 where the Torah speaks of G'd "assigning" such agents as the sun and the stars to the other nations for them to serve them [at least as partners of G'd, Ed.].
  When we find that such kings as Pharaoh and Sancheriv rebelled against G'd this was nothing but an error on their part. Imagine, for instance, that a king had hidden himself and paraded in front of people who did not know his identity as a commoner. It would happen from time to time that even people who had known him as a king (while he wore the uniform appropriate for a king) will now speak disparagingly of the king they once knew. Similarly, Pharaoh did not know that the one whom he insulted was in reality the Lord who controlled the deities whom he worshiped. [ the simile of the king hiding is used to illustrate that G'd is invisible and therefore the author of the parable describes Him as "in hiding" Ed.] "All of this proves that the entire universe are His servants, bow down to Him, and He chose the Israelites so that they would serve Him directly and thus became special.
  I have had a closer look at the wording of the <i>Sifri</i> on Deut. 33,2 in which G'd is portrayed as having offered the Torah to a variety of nations prior to offering it to Israel. The wording is as follows: "Before G'd revealed Himself to Israel in order to give them the Torah, He went to the children of Esau and said to them: "are you prepared to accept the Torah?' They asked Him: 'what is written therein?' He said to them: it is written: 'do not murder.' They said to Him: 'the essence of our founding patriarch was that he was a murderer. This is why his father Isaac blessed him and said he would live by the sword.' Thereupon G'd went to Ammon and Moav and offered them the Torah. They too asked Him what was written in it. G'd told them: 'it is written that you must not commit adultery.' They said to G'd: 'the essence of all sexual permissiveness was the basis of the life of our patriarch Lot.'" Thereupon G'd went and offered the Torah to the Ishmaelites. When told that the Torah contained a clause prohibiting theft, the Ishmaelites exclaimed that this violated the basic tenet of their patriarch Ishmael and that therefore they could not accept a Torah containing such a prohibition. This whole paragraph is very strange indeed. How can man even argue with G'd and justify his immoral behaviour by claiming that it was a tradition he had inherited from his forefather? What kind of specious argument is it to say that "because my father was a criminal I am duty-bound to pursue the career of a criminal?" What is even more astounding is that G'd accepted their arguments without saying a word.
  You must realise that when you look at both the positive and the negative commandments in our Torah the underlying reason for all of them is that after G'd had examined His creatures and determined that there were evil elements amongst them He wanted to separate us (the Jewish people) from such elements; He examined the good elements and decided to sanctify us by means of these good elements. In the <i>Tikkuney Hazohar</i> section 21 we find the following comment in connection with Isaac requesting that Esau prepare for him delicious dishes as he loved them, (Genesis 27,6). Isaac referred to the positive commandments as the delicious dishes he loved, whereas he considered the negative commandments as something he hated [designed to ward off what he hated. Ed.] There is a statement in <i>Sifri</i> on Exodus 15,26 "for I the Lord am your Healer," according to which G'd said to Moses to tell the people that the words of Torah He gave to them are therapeutic and are life. The repetition of "therapeutic and life" presumably refer to the positive and negative commandments respectively. The therapeutic nature of negative commandments could be the avoidance of certain diseases by abstaining from forbidden foods, whereas the performance of positive commandments is considered as a life-giving activity. When G'd commanded in Leviticus 11,43 which animals we are not to eat, the Torah stated that the reason that we should not eat such creatures was so as not to make ourselves detestable and not to defile ourselves (Leviticus 18,24). Sexual permissiveness is also described by the Torah in terms of abominations. In other words, G'd's major objective in legislating all this was to protect us and enable us to attain sanctity.
  You must also remember that everything evil is rooted in the spirit of impurity. On the other hand, everything good is rooted in the realm of sanctity and purity. When G'd commanded us not to do certain things it was only because the effect of doing these things would be damaging to our bodies and souls. Robbery is rooted in evil; so is adultery. When man commits acts of adultery or robbery he strengthens the root of this evil. When he deliberately refrains from committing such acts he contributes to destroying the roots of evil. I have already explained in connection with Psalms 92,10 "Your enemies O Lord, Your enemies perish; 
  all evildoers are scattered," that man's deeds betray the state of his soul, such as the kind of state referred to in Deut. 29,17 as "a root that bears gall and wormwood." On the other hand, when the soul is wholesome it reflects sanctity. I have written more about this in connection with Jacob's criticising Reuben on his deathbed (Genesis 49,3). We explained there that if Reuben suffered from a character weakness this had to do with what Jacob thought about when he bedded Leah thinking she was Rachel. The arguments of Esau, Ammon and Moav, as well as Ishmael were of a similar nature. They accused G'd of having burdened them with hereditary character weaknesses which would make it difficult if not impossible for them to fulfil those parts of the Torah which G'd had mentioned to them. They did not brag about their faults. They only said that their lifestyle was proof that they had been burdened with such moral weakness as they exhibited already from birth, that the root of their collective soul was polluted. There was, however, a subtle difference between the arguments of Ammon and Moav on one side and those of Esau and Ishmael on the other. Ammon and Moav attributed their problems to an action by their forefather [or better by their respective matriarchs, Lot's daughters, seeing that Lot was unconscious at the time Ed.]. The Ishmaelites went further; they blamed G'd directly seeing that their matriarch Hagar had been told by the angel (Genesis 16,12) that the son she would give birth to would be unbridled and aggressive. The people of Edom blamed their patriarch Isaac who had encouraged Esau to live the life of a murderer by telling him: "you will live by your sword" (Genesis 27,40).
  We can detect G'd's love for Israel when He was careful to tell each of those nations the very law they would find most difficult to accept as they had a valid objection. Had G'd mentioned other examples of Torah legislation the chances are that these people might have accepted the Torah. Seeing that G'd did not want these people to reap the reward of acceptance of even the first commandment He would mention to them, this is the reason He tested each of those nations by quoting a commandment to them which they would find hard to accept. The conjunctive letter ו in והייתם refers to additional reward in store for the Israelites over and above other advantages conferred upon them by being עם סגולה. The conjunctive letter ו also is a reminder that G'd does not need the Israelites for anything at all, but that the fact He confers a special status on them is entirely gratuitous. Just as kings who have all they need are sometimes desirous of owning a certain jewel, something which they could do well without, so G'd has decided to treat the Jewish people as if they were part of His jewels, though they do not perform a necessary function in G'd's palace seeing כי לי כל הארץ, the whole earth is Mine anyway. Job 35,7 expressed all this succinctly when he said: "if you are righteous, what can you give Him, or what can He accept from you?"
  Another meaning of "you will be a treasure unto Me" is conveyed to us by the statement in <i>Shabbat</i> 146 that the residual pollutants dating back to the time Adam had sinned departed from Israel the moment they stood at the bottom of Mount Sinai.
  Yet another element in this סגולה of the Jewish people is that whereas sparks of sanctity are scattered throughout the earth, they cannot be gathered together without the Jewish people and their preoccupation with Torah. Israel is perceived as being a magnet which attracts these sparks of sanctity from wherever they are to be found. These sparks of sanctity themselves are also called סגולה. The author uses a play on words, suggesting that instead of reading the word והייתם as written in the Torah, we may read it as והו־יתם, suggesting that the letter ה be understood in the nature of a command, that G'd is asking the Israelites to become something special, מכל העמים, more than any of the other nations. Whereas sanctity amongst other nations is so scattered as to be hardly noticeable, the Jewish people are urged to become a concentration of sanctity. The holy Torah is the tool enabling us to fulfil that command. When G'd adds something which we all know, namely "for the whole earth is Mine," this is an explanation of why the Jewish people are scattered all over the globe in their exile. As it is our task to gather in the scattered amounts of sanctity that exist we must gather them up wherever they are to be found. This cannot be done if we were to remain in one location. If Israel had not sinned, the magnetism that their Torah study would have radiated would have been sufficiently strong to have pulled in these various scattered little bits of sanctity; as it is we do not have that much magnetism and have to move closer to the source of these sparks of sanctity in order to attract them and fuse them together into a whole.
  
  Verse 6
  
   ואתם תהיו לי ממלכת כהנים "And you shall be unto Me a nation of priests, etc." Why did the Torah have to write the word ואתם, seeing that it addresses the same people it has addressed in the preceding verse? Perhaps the Torah now addresses Moses and Aaron; whereas up to this point G'd spoke to the entire nation and made them into an עם סגולה, Moses and Aaron might well wonder how they themselves would be special after all of Israel had been elevated spiritually to such a high level. G'd tells them, therefore, i.e. ואתם, that Aaron and his sons would be a kingdom of priests, whereas Moses and his family would be גוי קדוש, a holy nation. The Torah has used similar language in Numbers 8,17-18.
  Another way of explaining this word is that it introduces a new reality; from this moment on Israel would be included in G'd's celestial retinue. In the celestial regions G'd has many servants who are all known as כהנים, priests. He also has a host which is described as קדוש, holy, as we know from Daniel 8,13. G'd is telling the Israelites that as of now He is substituting the Jewish people for these celestial servants known as ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש. We find proof of this when G'd instructs the Jewish people to build a terrestrial Sanctuary for Him in their midst. We find that G'd repeated this concept when He said to the Jewish people in Leviticus 11,44: "you will become holy." The word ואתם was designed to convince the Israelites that G'd did not speak about something which would occur at some time in the future when soul and body would be separated after death, but it would occur right now, i.e. ואתם, "to you" who are still body and soul combined. We have found that the righteous amongst Israel actually achieved this level, that they are called both "angels, and holy." <i>Sanhedrin</i> 93 teaches that man's ability to rise to lofty spiritual levels by means of the Torah is such that he can attain levels even superior to that of the celestial angels.
  There is another aspect to the meaning of being a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. We have explained in connection with the meaning of סגולה that there are sparks of holiness scattered throughout the globe and that it is the task of the Jewish people to attract these sparks and fuse them into a solid body of holiness. The Jewish people themselves have also been described as עם סגולה. The Torah wanted to be sure that we understand that the סגולה represented by the Jewish people, the "collectors of holy sparks" is greater than the סגולה of the sparks, i.e. the items to be collected. The Torah does this by conferring on the Jewish people the additional title "kingdom of priests and holy nation." Priesthood and Holiness are different degrees of sanctity; this is why the Torah refers to both these phenomena separately. The people who "collect" the sparks of sanctity which are scattered all over the earth qualify for the title "kingdom" just as Moses qualified for the title "king" as a result of his leading the people out of Egypt.
  אלה הדברים אשר תדבר, "These are the words you are to say, etc." G'd tells Moses and Aaron that they should not think the words: "you will be for Me a kingdom of priests" were addressed only to them; Moses was to address these words to the whole people inasmuch as they had attained this lofty spiritual level. As for my alternate explanation that the words introduced by the word ואתם had indeed been directed only at Moses and Aaron, the meaning of אלה הדברים would then be that Moses and Aaron should not add any words of their own to what G'd had told them. Should you say that this is so obvious that the Torah did not need to mention it, the question is why did G'd find it necessary to issue such a warning only here and not elsewhere?
  The meaning of אלה הדברים is for Moses to communicate these words to the people of Israel word for word without any commentary. The reason G'd was so concerned about this was because these words contained elements designed to evoke both fear of the Lord and love for G'd. We have already dealt with this dilemma in our commentary on verse three on the words כה תאמר. G'd was worried that Moses might add words of his own designed to make the Israelites love G'd more or to make them fear Him more. This is why He warned Moses not to add any words of his own at this stage. If Moses were to tell the people things which would make the people fear the Lord more, they would wind up accepting the Torah because of fear, whereas G'd had alluded to the element of fear only in the manner a chef adds seasoning to a dish which is excellent even on its own. G'd was only interested in sufficient fear to stop a person from ignoring certain minor aspects of מצוה fulfilment by consoling himself that G'd loved him so much that He would not mind a minor infraction.
  G'd may also have intended to subject the Israelites to a kind of test by limiting Himself to the minimum number of words possible in urging the people to accept the Torah. Should these words prove insufficient for that purpose it would prove that the people were still far from ready to accept the Torah with a pure heart. Anything Moses would add to G'd's words, even if causing the Israelites to accept the Torah, would negate G'd's test of the people.
  
  Verse 7
  
   ויקרא לזקני העם, He called for the elders of the people, etc. In the two verses commencing with verse 7, we observe a remarkable phenomenon. The reason that Moses assembled the elders first was in order to inform them of the need to accept the Torah, and in order to blunt any opposition should these elders have any misgivings. Moses was certain that any doubts the elders might express would be expressed in a manner which was quite unobjectionable to G'd. He was worried that if he were to address the people as a whole without first having secured the assent of the elders some of the people might raise objections in a form which would be offensive to G'd. Once he had secured the assent of the elders, Moses planned to address the whole people showing them that their elders had already agreed. What happened, however, was that all the people simultaneously declared their readiness to accept the Torah before either they or the elders had a chance to hear what was written in it. 600,000 people accepted the Torah unconditionally and simultaneously. This is why the prophet Jeremiah 2,2 paid Israel the great compliment in the name of the Lord: "Thus says the Lord, I remember the kindness you have displayed for Me in your youth, your love for Me as a young bride, etc." The prophet used the word כלולתיך, as a double entendre, referring to the fact that כלל ישראל, the entire Jewish nation, had simultaneously displayed this love for G'd and His Torah. The word alludes to a double כלל, 1) all of them responded favourably without a single exception; 2) they did so simultaneously in the same tone of voice sounding like a choir.
  את כל הדברים, all the words, etc. The Torah emphasises that Moses said exactly what he had been instructed to say, no more, no less. We have mentioned this in verse 6.
  
  Verse 8
  
   וישב משה את דברי העם, Moses reported the words of the people, etc. Although G'd was in no need of this report by Moses seeing He knew what the people had said and how they said it, the Torah, i.e. Moses, reports this as a compliment to the people. I will further elaborate on this in due course. Alternatively, Moses reported the people's answer after being asked by G'd to do so (<i>Mechilta.</i>) According to this view the word וישב, he replied, means that Moses complied with G'd's request to report to Him on the people's answer. If G'd had not specifically asked him he would not have dared tell G'd the answer as it would have looked like an insult, as if G'd did not already know.
  את דברי העם, the words of the people. This does not mean that Moses told G'd what the people had said; rather Moses told G'd how they had said it. Moses used the opportunity to praise the Jewish people by pointing out their many virtues. He referred to the uniqueness of the Jewish people as described by King David in Chronicles I 17,21: "who is comparable to Your people Israel a unique nation on earth?"
  
  Verse 9
  
   הנה אנכי בא אליך "Here I am about to come to you, etc." Seeing that G'd was in the habit of speaking to Moses on a "mouth to mouth" basis, He may have announced to him that in this instance He would depart from that method. In this instance G'd would speak out of the thick cloud; this meant that His speech would not be as totally spiritual in nature as usual. G'd told Moses that the reason for this was not that Moses was not worthy of the usual mode of communication, but that G'd wanted the people to be able to hear that G'd spoke with Moses. Seeing the people were not on the level on which G'd usually communicated with Moses, He had to lower the level of His communication with Moses in order for them to become aware of what was happening. G'd added that the reason He wanted the people to hear that He, G'd, spoke with Moses was in order for the people to strengthen their belief in the level of Moses' prophetic powers. As a result of that experience their faith in Moses would become enduring. G'd hoped that this explanation would put Moses' mind at rest over the reduced level of communication between G'd and himself.
  יאמינו לעולם, "they will believe forever." What is meant by "forever" are the subsequent generations. If people would have faith in future prophets it would be based on the father of all prophets, on Moses. Maimonides has explained this in detail in his <i>Yesodey Hatorah</i> chapter 8. This is what he wrote: "Any prophet who arose after Moses is credible not because of any miracles he may perform but because Moses commanded us in the Torah that if the prophet performs a miracle we are to consider this as confirmation that he is a prophet and we should obey him." Maimonides also wrote that the credibility of Moses as a prophet was not based on the miracles he performed but on the fact that the whole nation heard that G'd spoke to him. As a result the people became witnesses of his being a true prophet. Keeping these statements of Maimonides in mind, we can interpret the words: "they will also believe in you forever" as a reference to prophets who would arise in future generations. Any prophet who would arise in the future would bear further witness to the credibility of Moses as a prophet. G'd hinted here that when a future prophet would be sent by Him to the Jewish people, such prophets would be further proof of the credibility of Moses as a true prophet. None of the miracles such prophets would perform would in themselves establish their credibility. The only thing which would do this is the fact that G'd commanded in His Torah that we should obey such prophets. If not for the people witnessing that G'd spoke to Moses, all the miracles he had performed would not totally eliminate doubt in the minds of the people as to Moses' stature as a true prophet.
  We must pay careful attention to what Maimonides writes about any doubt the people might have entertained about Moses being a true prophet, seeing that the Torah has already told us in Exodus 14,31 "they believed in G'd and in Moses His servant." The Torah had made this statement in connection with the outstanding miracle Moses had orchestrated not only in splitting the Sea of Reeds but in reversing the process so that the Egyptians drowned in it. How can Maimonides claim that but for the fact that the people heard G'd speak to Moses they would have doubted his stature as a prophet? Granted that later prophets who did not perform those kinds of miracles needed to be connected to Moses by reminders that just as G'd Himself spoke to Moses in the hearing of the people in order to establish their respective credibility that they too had heard the word of G'd, but surely the same did not apply to Moses himself? How do we explain Maimonides who wrote that the miracles Moses performed were not in order for the Israelites to believe in him but because they were needed in order to advance the Israelites' cause? After all, eventually Moses would be revealed as a true prophet?
  I believe that initially the Israelites believed that Moses was a true servant of the Lord who enjoyed G'd's ear, that G'd would respond favourably to Moses' prayers, etc. They did not believe that G'd actually spoke to Moses. They believed the theories of the philosophers that it is impossible for G'd to speak with man and for man to remain alive. The same philosophers admitted however, that man can speak to G'd and that He listens to man and responds positively. Inasmuch as this was a widespread belief, we may say that though the Israelites believed that Moses was a true servant of G'd, i.e. one to whose prayers G'd would respond and carry out his wishes, this did not mean that they also believed that G'd spoke to Moses. The suspicion still lurked in the back of the minds of the Israelites that G'd did not speak to Moses. This is why G'd now wanted to erase this suspicion from their minds by making them witnesses when He spoke to him. The people would then realise that it was possible for G'd to speak to man without man having to die. 
  The second matter that the people would believe from then on was וגם בך יאמינו לעולם, that through the experience the people had when they heard G'd speaking with Moses they would believe that other prophets would take the place of Moses in the future. If G'd had spoken to one prophet, i.e. Moses, there was no reason for Jews in the future not to believe that G'd spoke to other prophets. The word בך may also mean that when you, Moses, will command the people to obey the instructions of any prophet in the future who also identifies himself by means of a miracle, they will do so because they have seen you as a role model of a prophet. The deciding factor in obeying future prophets is not the miracle he performs but the instructions you have given the people to accept such a prophet in good faith. Having written this, I discovered the following statement in the <i>Mechilta:</i> "They will also have faith in you as well as in future prophets." This is identical to what I have already outlined.
  Once the people heard all this from G'd they all agreed that G'd does indeed speak to man without man dying as a result. This whole problem has been spelled out in Deut. 5,21: "on this day you have seen that G'd speaks to man and man stays alive." The beliefs held by the Israelites up until that time were dispelled once and for all by their visual experience. At the same time they realised the great stature of Moses whom G'd had elevated to such a lofty spiritual niveau. This is the meaning of 19,19: "Moses spoke and G'd answered him by voice." The <i>Mechilta</i> describes this in greater detail.
  ויגד משה את דברי העם, Moses relayed the words of the people, etc. Perhaps what Moses told G'd was that the Israelites had expressed their desire to hear the words of G'd from His mouth directly just as G'd had told Moses; alternatively, they may have said that there was no need to prove Moses' credibility as a prophet as they already believed in him as such. Moses told G'd all this in order to put the people in a good light. The <i>Mechilta</i> understands the verse to mean that Moses told G'd that the people had expressed a desire to hear G'd directly. Seeing that there are people who attributed to Israel the desire to see G'd, the expression ויגד is aptly chosen as it applies to relatively harsh words as we explained in connection with 19,3. The demand by the people to hear G'd or to see G'd is not really appropriate as it does not befit a slave to make demands on his master; this is why the Torah chose the word ויגד to describe what Moses told G'd in the name of the people. While it is true that G'd Himself had said: "in order that the people will hear when I speak with you," G'd had not said: "in order that the people will hear when I speak with them." Why did Moses need to tell G'd something that He was aware of already, just as He is aware of everything we think or say? Moses wanted to prepare the ground for G'd's reply. If he had not been on record as relaying the people's request, how could he portray G'd's reply as an answer to their request? We find that G'd replied immediately by saying: "sanctify them to-day and to-morrow, etc."
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   והגבלת את העם סביב, "set a boundary for the people all around." It appears that the instructions to set up this fence applied only for what would take place on the third day; it was meant so that the Israelites would get used to the fact that the Mountain was out of bounds and as a measure of respect for what would happen. It does not mean that touching the Mountain or its edge was forbidden already on the two days preceding the revelation. <i>Mechilta</i> 24 confirms that the obligatory nature of this prohibition applied only on the third day.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ויוצא משה את העם, Moses lead out the people, etc. Perhaps this was necessary because the people had become afraid of the Mountain by now. Moses took them to the edge of the Mountain so that they would accept the Torah while standing there.
  
  Verse 18
  
   והר סיני עשן כלו, and Mount Sinai was completely wrapped in smoke, etc. Fire dominated the Mountain itself and burned its stones so that they turned into limestone. The stones of Mount Sinai have remained limestone ever since. When the Torah says: "the whole Mountain trembled," this is a description of the reaction of the stones when fire dominates them just as the stones in a furnace. The sounds that the stones give off are similar to the sound of someone trembling.
  
  Verse 19
  
   משה ידבר והאלוקים יעננו בקול, Moses would speak and G'd answered him by voice. Moses may have uttered words of song and praise before G'd, much as someone who is received in an audience by a king praises the ruler who has granted him the audience. The קול with which G'd answered may have been the sound of the shofar mentioned in the next verse. This sound was an indication that G'd approved of what Moses told him. The word בקול means "in a loud voice," so that all the people could hear G'd speak with Moses and accept him as a true prophet. I believe that the Torah mentions this to tell us that Moses experienced a promotion when G'd answered him thus although G'd had also answered Moses previously. Our sages in the <i>Mechilta</i> understand the answer the Torah speaks of as the Ten Commandments which G'd was about to address to the people. They say that G'd increased the power of Moses' voice so that he could be heard by the whole nation. I believe that this is a homiletical approach to our verse.
  
  Verse 20
  
   וירד ה׳ על הר סיני, G'd descended on Mount Sinai, etc. According to <i>Sukkah</i> 5 G'd never came closer to earth than ten handbreadths above the Mountain. We therefore have to understand why the Torah uses the expression "on top of the Mountain" when He did not actually descend all the way to the Mountain. Perhaps the Torah wanted to inform us that the שכינה did not descend on the sides of the Mountain although this would have been more than 10 handbreadths above the ground. We had to be told because on other occasions the שכינה descended to other locations on earth which are lower than the top of Mount Sinai. The essential point the sages make is that in keeping with the principle that whereas the Heavens belong to G'd He assigned earth as an exclusive domain for man. We can deduce from the report of the Torah about the wanderings of the Israelites through the desert when the שכינה was present wherever the Israelites made camp, i.e. in places much lower than the top of Mount Sinai, that G'd's presence descends to lower regions above the earth.
  We still need to understand why the Torah did not write: "G'd descended on the top of Mount Sinai?" although we find such an expression immediately following the statement that He descended on the Mountain;" Perhaps G'd thought that if He described the descent of the שכינה in these words they could be misunderstood. In order to avoid misunderstandings, G'd is first described as descending on the Mountain, i.e. to within ten handbreadths of the top, whereas later on the exact part of the Mountain G'd's presence descended on is described as "the top of the Mountain."
  Another version of what happened is expressed in the <i>Mechilta</i> according to which G'd lowered the upper heavens on to the top of the Mountain. According to this explanation G'd Himself did not descend at all. The word על would refer only to the fact that G'd's position on top of these upper heavens would be lower than it had been previously when speaking in terms of the distance of the heavens from earth.
  Another meaning of the verse is that as G'd began to lower His presence onto the Mountain, the Mountain began to shake and rise towards G'd much as a servant runs toward his master when the master approaches. The Torah here did not really tell us to what place exactly G'd descended; the verse was more concerned with informing us that though the Mountain is basically inert matter, in this instance it was transformed into a living creature so that it could rise before G'd would descend to what used to be its top. Afterwards the Torah describes the target of G'd's descent as "the top of the Mountain." The major message of the verse is that the Mountain rose towards G'd before G'd had reached the top of the Mountain during His descent.
  
  Verse 21
  
   פן יהרסו אל ה׳ לראות, "lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze;" The Torah means that people should not think that they would catch a glimpse of G'd though they would die in the process; Psalms 63,4 expresses this thought succinctly when David says: "it is better to experience Your faithfulness than life itself." The people would consider their death under such circumstances as the beginning of their true life. The expression פן יהרסו is to be understood as the people's willingness to lose their lives in order to become part of such an experience as gazing at the glory of G'd. ונפל ממנו רב, "and many of them woul fall;" G'd warns that in such a scenario the people would experience a much greater "fall" than they had bargained for. Alternatively, G'd merely warns that if the people would approach to an area out of bounds to them, He would have to reduce the blinding light accompanying the revelation as otherwise they would die from exposure to this light. This then would be the meaning of פן יהרסו אל השם, they would break through towards His light in order to gain a glimpse. This also tells us that the people would not achieve their aim to gaze upon G'd even if they would break through the barrier. It is part of the meaning of the word פן in our verse. In the event that we would have thought that the people's endeavour to gaze upon something they could not see anyway would have neither positive nor negative consequences, the Torah writes ונפל ממנו רב, that it would have very negative consequences for those concerned. The word רב may refer to the leading members of the people. The Torah would then tell us that even the most spiritually advanced of the people would not be allowed to gaze upon the spectacle but they would be punished severely if they tried.
  
  Verse 22
  
   וגם הכהנים הנגשים אל ה׳ יתקדשו, "And also the priests who approach G'd have to sanctify themselves, etc." Although the priests (the firstborn in the main) are closer to G'd than the people at large, being allowed to perform sacrificial service in sacred locations, they too have to undergo a special sanctification process prior to the revelation. The fact that they normally adhered to strict standards of purity was not enough in this instance. They had to consider themselves as no better than the people at large. The meaning of the word יתקדשו is similar to the meaning of the word ודשנו in Numbers 4,13 where the priests are described as removing the ashes from the altar. The priests too had to remove themselves from the Mountain.
  
  Verse 23
  
   ויאמר משה…לא יוכל העם, Moses said…"the people are unable, etc." What exactly was the distance between Moses and G'd so that G'd had to tell Moses again in verse 24 to descend and warn the people? Why was G'd's previous directive in verse 21 not sufficient? Moses himself tells G'd that there is no need for any new directive, the previous directive having been sufficient to ensure the people would not breach G'd's warning to establish a fence around the Mountain and to sanctify the people.
  It would appear that originally G'd ordered the people in a general directive neither to ascend nor to touch the Mountain. The Torah also stated in verse 22 that the priests who are normally allowed closer to sacred sites must not approach the Mountain. Subsequently, in verse 24 G'd told Moses that the priests should sanctify themselves. G'd was afraid that the Israelites would apply a method known as דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא מן הכלל ללמד על הכלל יצא, that if something had previously been part of a general rule and was singled out by the Torah by name, the reason is that the special rule now applied to this "something" will also be applied generally forthwith. Initially, both the priests, the people, and even Aaron were included in the prohibition to ascend the Mountain or to touch it. As soon as the priests were mentioned separately such as in 19,22 as being normally permitted to approach G'd, this implied they could at least touch it also in this case. In view of the rule cited above about כל היוצא מן הכלל, the people would now also be allowed to touch the base of the Mountain. While it is true that since the Torah had not been given yet, the rule we quoted was not yet in effect, the fact remains that since the rule is based on logic, some intelligent Jew might have figured it out already before the Torah was actually handed down to the people. Even assuming that no one could have figured out this rule, G'd desires justice and righteousness and He would not apply the death penalty to a person who touched the lower part of the Mountain when his counterpart the priest would not be punished for doing the same thing by reason of his being a priest. In order to prevent such a potential miscarriage of justice, G'd told Moses to descend from the Mountain and warn the people (the non-priests) not to touch any part of the Mountain. The effect of this warning was to invalidate the rule about כל היוצא מן הכלל which we explained earlier. Moses had not understood this immediately because G'd had not yet revealed to him the rule about כל היוצא מן הכלל as well as the other principles which guide us when interpreting the written Torah. Moses thought that the partial relaxation of the prohibition applied only to Aaron and the priests whereas the people were forbidden to touch even the base of the Mountain. He could not understand why such a repeated warning was necessary, seeing G'd had already warned the people not to ascend the Mountain or to touch it. G'd therefore told him that only he and Aaron were allowed to ascend any part of the Mountain. Moses was to warn the people that the very places he and Aaron were allowed to ascend would be out of bounds to the people at large. We see that G'd had to spell out a prohibition where logic would have dictated that there was no prohibition or that such a prohibition had been relaxed. 
  According to what we have explained, the word הנגשים in verse 22 refers to areas in which the priests were permitted access once the Tabernacle would become operational. In short, G'd told Moses that there would be three different areas on the Mountain. The people could not ascend any part, Aaron could accompany Moses part of the way; the upper regions of the Mountain were accessible to Moses only. The new element in G'd's second warning is that He permitted Aaron to ascend part of the Mountain, something that had been excluded by the wording of the previous warning.
  Another reason G'd issued a second warning to the people was that the first warning did not include a time frame, i.e. when it would begin to be effective. Although the Torah had spoken about "three days," those days had not been specifically linked to the restrictions of ascending the Mountain beginning on the third day. This is why G'd told Moses as soon as He had descended on to the Mountain that he should descend and tell the people that the restrictions concerning ascent of the Mountain were effective forthwith. We need to study Moses' reply. Perhaps he had thought that the prohibition of ascending the Mountain became effective already at the moment G'd had issued it seeing G'd had not said specifically: "do not touch the Mountain on the second day," or something similar. He had been wrong on that count, and this explains why G'd now had to send him down to tell the people that the prohibition of which they had been told was now in effect. When G'd had issued the warning the first time He had said that anyone violating it would be stoned to death, i.e. would be punished by a human tribunal. G'd now repeated the warning to make it plain that if someone would violate the prohibition in such a way that no judicial action could be taken against him such a person would nonetheless be punished by heaven. The reason the Torah phrased the potential violation in the plural was that even if all the people would violate the prohibition this would not save them from the penalty G'd would impose.
  
  Verse 24
  
   רד ועלית אתה ואהרון, "descend and then ascend, you and Aaron." Why did G'd say both לך and רד? The word לך meant that Moses was to move, the word רד that he was to descend; perhaps he had to descend as he had previously not stood on a place assigned to him on the Mountain but had stood on the peak. When Moses refused to move G'd may have told him to descend (from that peak) but to ascend again with Aaron. He should know that just as there was a limit to how far Aaron could ascend there would also be a limit to how far he, Moses, could ascend. This is implied when the Torah describes Aaron as ascending עמך"with you."
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וידבר אלוקים את כל הדברים האלה, G'd spoke all these words, etc. The reason we find the attribute of Justice, i.e. אלוקים mentioned at this point is that G'd gave the Torah to the Jewish people in His capacity as the attribute of Justice as well as in His capacity as the attribute of Mercy. The words וירד אלוקים reflect the attribute of Justice, whereas the words אנכי השם reflect the attribute of Mercy. By saying אנכי ה׳ אלוקיך, G'd also revealed the mystical dimension of both attributes being part of the same essence, something we repeat twice daily when we recite the first line of קריאת שמע prayer.
  We are told in <i>Menachot</i> 41 that an angel criticised Rabbi Ketinah for not having <i>Tzitzit</i> on his nighgown. The latter retorted angrily: "since when does Heaven punish a person for sins of omission?" The angel told him that at a time when a person is being judged for other errors even sins of omission are also accounted against him. We learn from here that ordinarily a person is not punished for neglecting to observe a positive commandment. G'd indicated here that when He exacts retribution this will also include the positive commandments in the Ten Commandments, i.e. the commandment to believe in Him, to observe the Sabbath by sanctifying it, as well as the commandment to honour father and mother. The words וידבר אלוקים are a reminder that the attribute of Justice deals with both positive and negative commandments.
  When the Torah writes: את כל הדברים, this is a reminder that one cannot accept Torah piecemeal. Anyone who accepts all of the Torah's commandments bar one is considered as having rejected the whole Torah (<i>Bechorot</i> 30).
  I have explained in my introduction to פרשת בראשית that when G'd speaks in His capacity as אלוקים, He utters words which are so exalted that a human mouth cannot utter these words or comprehend them. I postulated that the entire Ten Commandments were a single utterance. There were many such utterances by G'd in His capacity as אלוקים during the directives He gave while creating the universe. We may therefore view the revelation at Mount Sinai and the Ten Commandments as a re-enactment of the creation of the universe.
  The word לאמור will become intelligible when we examine the format of the Ten Commandments. You will find that sometimes G'd addresses the Jewish people directly, whereas other times, such as in the latter half of verse seven, He speaks of them in the third person, i.e. "the Lord will not hold him guiltless, etc." We find that in the middle of the Sabbath legislation G'd switches from direct speech to "for the Lord created the Heavens and the earth and all that is found therein during six days and rested on the seventh day, etc." Why did G'd switch to indirect speech in those instances?
  We have been told in <i>Makkot</i> 24 that Israel was able to comprehend the first two commandments, i.e. their capacity to understand G'd's utterances was enhanced during the time it took to hear this part. Nonetheless, according to the <i>Midrash Shir Hashirim Rabbah</i> section five, the Israelites' souls departed from them when G'd spoke and came to that part and they could not understand anymore. According to the <i>Midrash</i> the remainder of the Ten Commandments remained engraved in fire on top of Mount Sinai until G'd had revived the Israelites with the dew of life. These words then addressed themselves to each one of the Israelites. It is clear then why the first two commandments remained engraved in direct speech, G'd Himself having addressed the Israelites directly. From that point onwards G'd's voice must be perceived as speaking through an angel. It was an angel who said: "it is a Sabbath for the Lord your G'd," or "for during six days He created Heaven and earth, etc.," or "this is why the Lord blessed the Sabbath, etc." G'd's voice was not able to say "it is a Sabbath for Me, etc., or I have made Heaven and earth."
  While it is true that the sages in <i>Makkot</i> 23 say that Moses addressed the remaining eight commandments to the people, it is possible that while Moses was able to understand the entire utterance of G'd, he added his voice to that of the angel so that the Israelites heard these eight commandments from the angel and Moses simultaneously. It is quite possible that when we were told in 19,19 that Moses would speak and G'd would respond this was a reference to Moses telling the Israelites the last eight commandments. You will find a comment in <i>Shir Hashirim Rabbah</i> on ישקני מנשיקות פיהו (Song of Songs 1,2), according to which every single utterance was standing on top of each Israelite asking him to be accepted by him. The Israelite would respond positively in each instance. Following this the utterance would embrace and kiss the Israelite and decorate him by placing a crown on his head. If that were so, the word לאמור at the beginning of the Ten Commandments would be amply justified. The words את כל הדברים would allude to the reinforced power of G'd's voice who uttered the entire paragraph as a single utterance. G'd's giving His voice this added power enabled the words themselves to carry on communicating themselves to the Israelites after they had been revived.
  There is another element to the meaning of the word לאמור here, similar to the meaning of Deut. 26,18: וה׳ האמירך, i.e. that there was a mutual bond being created between the Israelites and G'd by their acceptance of the Ten Commandments.
  We have learned in <i>Tanchuma Toldot</i> that G'd does not associate His name with a person who is still alive because it would be unseemly if such a person were later to become a heretic We know this from Job 15,15 where G'd is described as not even placing His faith in the angels. This was the only reason G'd did not describe Himself as the G'd of Abraham while the latter was still alive. If G'd had not added the word לאמור in our verse it would have appeared as if He associated His name with all of the Jewish people the moment He said: "I am the Lord your G'd, etc." The reason G'd made the Israelites hear His amplified voice was in order to discipline them and to remove the residual pollutants they still suffered from as a result of Adam's sin. Once they were free of this זוהמא, this pollutant, the Israelites became fit to hear G'd's voice and G'd could justify associating His name with the people of Israel.
  According to <i>Shabbat</i> 88 where we are told that the Israelites' souls departed from them when they heard the first two commandments, G'd justified associating His name with them as they were no longer alive in the ordinary sense of the word.
  Another meaning of the word לאמור is that it refers to secondary messages not spelled out in the text of the actual Ten Commandments. Some of these were in the nature of general rules, others in the form of allusions. We may also perceive the two commandments G'd addressed to the Israelites while they enjoyed a heightened ability to hear and comprehend as the basic roots of all commandments, i.e. the positive and the negative commandments. The commandment commencing with the word אנכי is the basic example of all positive commandments, whereas the commandment commencing with the words לא יהיה לך is the root of all negative commandments. This was the reason G'd was so anxious that all the Israelites should both hear and comprehend these two commandments directly from His mouth. Having heard these commandments from the mouth of G'd would be insurance against the Torah ever being uprooted totally from the Jewish people.
  
  Verse 2
  
   אנכי ה׳ אלוקיך, "I am the Lord your G'd, etc." The reason G'd repeats "who took you out of Egypt, the house of bondage," was to heighten the contrast between then and now. The Israelites had been enslaved in a country which was notorious for not releasing slaves nor letting them escape (compare Isaiah 14,17). The Israelites had two major strikes against them at the time. They were mired deeply in impurity, and they were under the rule of a king notorious for not letting anyone escape. 
  G'd also referred to His dual role as both the Eternal, i.e the meaning of the tetragram and the supreme authority, i.e. אלוקיך. Anyone who rebelled against G'd's decrees would face retribution. G'd manifested Himself in this dual capacity to remove all doubt about philosophies which inspired idol worship by suggesting that He had partners. G'd's taking the Israelites out of Egypt should have dispelled any such doubts about any opposing deities possessing any power at all. מבית עבדים, from the house of bondage. G'd makes the point that since it was He Who liberated us from one master, He is entitled to demand that we show Him obeisance. 
  The reference to the house of bondage also alludes to the souls whom Israel came to rescue during its enforced stay in Egypt. I have explained this at length on Genesis 46,3 in connection with the expression: "I will make you (Jacob) a great nation there." Kabbalists go further and believe that Deut. 4,7: "for who is a great nation whose G'd is close to them, etc.?" is also a reference to the fact that all Jewish souls past, present, and future participated in the revelation at Mount Sinai. Accordingly, G'd repeated the statement concerning the Exodus because it referred not only to the bodies but also to the souls. The many stray souls which had been imprisoned in Egypt as part of the loot captured by the forces of the קליפה after Adam's sin had also been freed at that time.
  <i>Yerushalmi Sukkah</i> 5,4 commenting on Psalms 22,4: "You are the Holy One, enthroned, the Praise of Israel," states that G'd prefers the praise of Israel to that of anyone else. Whereas others praise the Lord by referring to Him as "the Lord of the universe," or as "the G'd of the angels," He prefers to be called the Lord G'd of Israel. When G'd says here: "I am the Lord your G'd," this means that He is not happy with being defined in any other way than as the G'd of Israel. By saying this, G'd advertised throughout the celestial regions that Israel was superior. By saying: אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים, G'd advertised that Israel was His favourite on earth, and that He had taken them out of a place which had been considered a prison with maximum security. The statement is to be considered as a compliment to G'd. The best proof of this is to be found when Yitro described the Exodus in Exodus 18,1. He had already realised that the experience of the Exodus had stamped Israel as the choicest of the nations for all times. When G'd continues with the words מבית עבדים, the meaning is that He did not take them out of Egypt while the definition "slaves" still applied to them; rather He made the Israelites into free men at the same time. Had G'd allowed the Israelies to escape from Egypt, for instance, they would still have been considered as slaves, their status would not have undergone a change in legal terms. Their status was changed 1) because G'd had pressured Pharaoh in dismissing them, and 2) after Pharaoh pursued them and he drowned with his army, there were no longer any masters who could have disputed the Israelites' claim to being free men.
  Still another reason for the repetition of מארץ מצרים, מבית עבדים is that G'd addressed both bodies and souls separately. He said: "I am the Lord your G'd," in order to make it plain that He was speaking to the souls of the Jewish people. A soul would be able to respond to G'd describing Himself in spiritual terms; it is quite possible that the departure of the souls from the bodies we have mentioned previously took place at the moment when G'd addressed the souls as "I am the Lord your G'd." The souls then recognised their Maker. It is the essence of the souls that once they are no longer within a body they unite with their celestial origin. In Heaven there is no פרוד, separation. When G'd described Himself as "your G'd" (singular), He indicated that the Jewish souls are a single unit even in the terrestrial world which is essentially a world of divisions. This may be what David had in mind in Chronicles I 17,21 where he is quoted as describing the uniqueness of the Jewish people in these words: ומי כעמך ישראל גוי אחד בארץ, "who is like Your people Israel a unified nation even on earth?" Thanks to having been sanctified, the Israelites, like the angels, are all part of one great whole. When addressing the body of the Jewish people, G'd identified Himself in more mundane language, i.e. "Who has taken your bodies out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."
  The words: "I am the Lord your G'd" also mean that G'd was already our G'd before we came into this world because the Jewish people are considered to be part of the sacred light, i.e. part of G'd Himself as mentioned in Deut. 32,29: "His people are part of G'd Himself." The word "your G'd" always refers to this sanctity which is part of His Light. Kabbalists are quite familiar with this concept. The word אשר means "the reason why." G'd explains the rationale why He took the Israelites out of Egypt, why He made the whole universe tremble at that moment. It had certainly been incumbent upon Him to save remnants of sanctity and to bring them closer to Him.
  The expression "I am your G'd" also means that G'd remains our G'd both when He employs His attribute of Mercy in dealing with us and when He employs His attribute of Justice in disciplining us.
  We have a tradition that one blesses G'd joyfully when something tragic occurs in one's life (<i>Berachot</i> 60). The reason is that when G'd subjects us to discipline He does so in order to insure that our future will be happier, will be guiltless. G'd alluded to this by saying here that even when He is perceived as "only" אלוקיך, the G'd who exacts retribution from you, He is still השם, i.e. the G'd who deals with you from a feeling of loving kindness seeing He has your ultimate welfare at heart.
  The division between the words מארץ מצרים and מבית עבדים may also be deliberate, i.e. the first expression refers to the Exodus which has already taken place, while the last expression refers to the liberation in the future when the Messiah will arrive.
  The words "who has taken you out of Egypt" also provide the answer to the question why G'd did not simply replace the Egyptians in Egypt with the Jews and established us as the rulers in that land. Why was it necessary to leave the land, to travel through the desert, etc.? Surely the Israelites would have derived greater satisfaction from such a solution to their problems than to have to march to Canaan and there to dispossess a people which had never done them any harm. Moreover, it would have demonstrated G'd's power if He dispossessed the Egyptians of their land! G'd explained that inasmuch as the very land of Egypt was a בית עבדים, a house of bondage, this would not have been appropriate. We read in Deut. 32,8: "when the Supreme G'd handed out the inheritance to the various nations, He established boundaries for the peoples in relation to Israel's numbers." The <i>Zohar</i> volume 1 page 108 comments on this that G'd handed out certain places on earth to the guardian angels of the various nations, and that the only land He did not assign to such guardian angels was the land of Canaan. G'd had reserved the land of Canaan for Himself. The Torah says מבית עבדים, describing the place as one assigned to one of G'd's servants (the guardian angel of Egypt). G'd did not want for the Jewish people to live in a homeland which "belonged" to the guardian angel of the Egyptians. He wanted the Israelites to reside in a country which was directly under His personal guidance.
  
  Verse 3
  
   לא יהיה לך אלוקים אחרים על פני, "Do not have any other gods before Me." Having first commanded us to demonstrate faith in G'd, something which is basically a matter of the heart, G'd adds that it is also important to divest oneself of idolatrous thoughts, even if one does not verbalise them. G'd added the word לך to include the command that one must not even think such thoughts to oneself. We find that such thoughts are culpable (<i>Kidushin</i> 39) based on Ezekiel 14,4-5: "who will bring up his idols to his heart. Thus I will hold the House of Israel to account for their thoughts, etc." We have a tradition that one cannot impose capital punishment on a person unless the warning of such a penalty is spelled out in the Torah. Our verse is the source for this penalty (compare <i>Zevachim</i> 106).
  The word לך also implies that whereas idolatry practiced by Gentiles is reprehensible, it is not nearly as reprehensible as idolatry by a Jew. When a Gentile serves idols this does not make such an idol into a deity. The object of the Gentile's worship remains unaffected. If a Jew were to turn to idols, however, this would have far greater effect because of the Jew's standing with G'd. It would confer deity status on such an idol, at least in the eyes of the Gentiles. 
  The word יהיה implies that an Israelite having idolatrous thoughts would invent such a deity.
  According to Jeremiah 2,19 "that your evil will discipline you," it is the idol you have created which will become the instrument of your punishment.
  As soon as a Jew makes an additional deity for himself he automatically cannot relate to G'd as the only G'd anymore. This is so even if he has no intention of serving the deity he has made. The Torah speaks of לא יהיה in the singular while concluding the sentence in the plural, i.e. אלהים אחרים, other deities (pl). The meaning is: "there will no longer be a single deity as soon as you have additional deities." Another meaning of this combination of singular and plural is simply that once a person adopts an additional deity this is bound to lead to a variety of other deities he is apt to worship. <i>Sanhedrin</i> 102 illustrates that the Israelites used to worship a large variety of deities proving the point we have just made.
  על פני, before Me. We can understand this expression in connection with what Maimonides writes in chapter nine of his <i>Hilchot Yessodey Hatorah</i> that a prophet established credibility as a true prophet if, when he asks the people to disregard one of G'd's commandments on a temporary basis only, that commandment is not one involving idolatry. Anyone tampering with any law involving idolatry automatically disqualifies himself as a prophet. The word על פני means "at any time." Inasmuch as G'd is eternal there would be absolutely no time frame during which the prohibition of idolatry could be suspended.
  
  Another meaning is that G'd is angry at those who idolise anyone else. Some people would have argued that inasmuch as serving one of G'd's agents such as the sun should not anger G'd seeing the worshiper is well aware that the sun is only His agent, the Torah wants to correct that impression. G'd spells this out even more clearly at the end of verse seven where He refers to His jealous nature.
  The words are also a warning for the people not to give in to the natural desire to see their G'd. Since G'd is invisible, they are not to substitute some image to symbolise the invisible G'd.
  Another meaning is the warning that Israel would forfeit their image amongst the nations as being G'd's people bearing the name of the Lord (compare Deut. 28,10 "all the nations on earth will see that the name of the Lord is proclaimed over you").
  
  Verse 4
  
  לא תעשה לך פסל, "Do not make a graven image for yourself, etc." Seeing that G'd had already outlawed even entertaining idolatrous thoughts on pain of death, why would He have to prohibit the making of an idol? If the Torah referred to making an idol for someone else, why did it add the word לך "for yourself?" Besides, if only the construction of an idol as a piece of art is meant, the Torah did not need to add the words: "do not bow down to them" in verse 5! Why does the Torah employ the expression פטל instead of אלוהים אחרים? Why did the Torah have to repeat the words ה׳ אלוקיך in verse 5? G'd had already described Himself as a "jealous G'd," etc.! Why did G'd have to give a reason for the prohibition by saying: "because I am a jealous G'd," etc.? Does He have to justify His objection to the Israelites serving idols?
  Apparently, the Torah speaks about a prohibition of idol worship over and above that which was mentioned in verse 3. It may well refer to the person who believes in the One and only G'd but, who, due to G'd's invisibility, desires to remind himself of His existence and all-pervasiveness by means of a symbol such as a picture or a sculpture. When such a person offers up a prayer he feels more comfortable if he can concentrate on a visual image of sorts; hence he constructs for himself such an image in order to pray more intensely to our One and only G'd. Or, such a worshiper may feel embarassed to bother G'd Himself with all his little problems, but he feels at ease speaking of these problems to someone whom he considers merely a subordinate of G'd. Most of the idol worshipers have fallen victim to this error. Originally, they knew very well that they did not bow down in front of a deity but only in front of one of G'd's servants whom they had decided to adopt as a symbol. The reason that the Torah refers to such a sculpture as פסל and not as אלוה is precisely because that is all the sculpture meant to the person who fashioned it. The word is closely connected to פסולת, refuse, something to be discarded; as such it reminds a person that it has no intrinsic value or power. Another reason the Torah may call it פסל is that it is liable to become worthless as soon as G'd decides to rob it of its value because someone had idolised it. We find something along these lines in <i>Eycha Rabbati</i> chapter 2 where the people of the generation which perished during the deluge [in my edition this seems to apply to the generation of the time of Jeremiah, Ed.] are described as making use of G'd's celestial forces to overcome their enemies. G'd outmanoeuvered them by changing the names of these various forces so that people could not make improper use of their knowledge of the powers invested in these celestial forces. At any rate, G'd said: "Do not make a פסל for yourself (of anything representing celestial forces) even if you are fully aware that it has no intrinsic value." G'd then continued to describe what purpose such a פסל was meant to serve, i.e. to bow down to it. 
  The reason one is not to bow down to it is the jealous nature of G'd, i.e. He objects to this even if it is not only not meant to offend Him, but to enhance the worshiper's relationship with his G'd. In order to better understand this element of "jealousy" it is worthwhile to look at Numbers 5,14 where the Torah discusses the "jealousy" of a husband who has reason to suspect his wife of marital infidelity. The Torah writes: "and a spirit of jealousy over- comes him (the husband)." There are times when a father has reason to be jealous of his son, or a master of his servant, or a husband of his wife. You know that Israel's status vis-a-vis G'd is like that of a bride to a husband. This theme has been developed at length by Solomon in his Song of Songs. If Israel were to make some other deities for themselves even while they do not deny G'd or rebel against His commandments seeing that He is the Supreme G'd, the "husband" would still be entitled to become jealous. Imagine the wife of a king who falls in love with one of his servants and who would display this affection by paying extra attention to the requirements of this servant. Would the king not become jealous when he observed this and would ultimately stab his wife to death? Our relationship with G'd has to be viewed in a similar light. If one examines the many areas in which the relationship between Israel and G'd is special, one will not have any difficulty in accepting that G'd is "jealous" of preserving this special relationship. This is why He stresses : "I am the Lord YOUR G'd," i.e. our relationship is special. Moses underlines this once more in Deut. 4,19 when he refers to the intermediaries G'd has assigned to looking after the interests of the nations of the world as opposed to Israel who do not need such intermediaries.
  G'd therefore warns Israel "do not make a פסל for yourself," i.e. do not destroy yourself by disqualifying your special relationship with G'd. The sin of idolatry brings in its wake a loss of the צלם אלוקים, the image of G'd in which man has been created. We know this from Psalms 39,7: אך בצלם יתהלך־איש, "man can walk upright only as long as he possesses the mark of having been created in the image of the Lord;" The Psalmist means that celestial beings will not take any notice of man once he forfeits his צלם אלוקים. We find a similar thought expressed in Kings II 3,14, when the prophet Elisha tells king Achav (the idolator) that "if I had not beheld (respected) the face of King Yehoshaphat king of Yehudah, I would not have even looked at you" the two kings were allied against Moav, Ed.]
  
  Verse 5
  
   פקד עון אבות, "Who remembers the sins of the fathers, etc." Having stated that G'd is "jealous," and knowing that in our world anyone who is jealous reacts promptly against the person he is jealous of, G'd might have been expected to react similarly. We know from many thousands of years of history, that people who have given G'd ample reason to be "jealous" appear to enjoy an undisturbed life. Where then was G'd's "jealousy?" Are we, G'd forbid, to assume that G'd was either unaware of these sinners or unable to punish them? The Torah therefore states that if we observe the very opposite of jealousy in G'd's apparent relationship to these sinners, the reason is that though it is His nature to be "jealous," He is also פקד, remembers things, i.e. He does not exact retribution immediately. His patience may extend for up to the fourth generation after the sins committed by the original sinner. G'd vows that His patience does not extend beyond the fourth generation. The reason why G'd practices this patience is that if He were to punish everybody immediately mankind would cease to exist. This is the only reason that G'd appears to turn a blind eye to the sins committed by people. He waits until the sinners' children grow up hoping that these children will pursue a lifestyle more to His liking. When the children of sinners do this it has a positive effect on their parents' standing in the hereafter (<i>Sanhedrin</i> 104). Should the children of the sinner continue the evil ways of their fathers, G'd considers this when He punishes the second generation; or, He may wait for an improvement of the third generation before He includes the sins of the fathers when He punishes that generation for its own sins. He will not defer punishment past the third generation as by that time the family of the original sinner has become so deeply rooted in the domain of the קליפה that there is no hope for rehabilitation by their own efforts. When G'd's "jealousy" finally is displayed against such a family it is much more destructive than had it been displayed already against the original sinner. On no account must we assume that G'd makes a rule of deferring punishment until the fourth generation. As far as G'd's timetable is concerned even punishment meted out in the fourth generation is considered "immediate." Three generations are considered three hundred years, whereas a day in G'd's terms is one thousand years in our terms. This is implied in the Torah saying: על, ועל instead of merely saying that G'd's patience would extend עד דור רביעי, until the fourth generation as the Torah says concerning the reward which will be paid לאלפים "up to two thousand generations."
  The concept of G'd not displaying His jealousy against the sinners is something very confusing, especially so when such sinners keep piling new sins upon old ones and enjoy success (in their terms). Once one comprehends the fact that G'd may limit such success to four generations the fact that G'd sometimes appears to punish a particular family who do not appear to have been especially sinful becomes acceptable. This is what Assaph had in mind in Psalms 73,17 when he said "I will understand this in light of their eventual fate." He referred to people who were at the tail end of four generations of sinners and now experienced G'd's "jealousy." Whereas G'd never includes sins committed five generations ago in the punishment of a particular generation, the reverse is true of reward. Reward for good deeds may be extended for up to two thousand generations.
  
  Verse 6
  
   ועשה חסד לאלפים, "and Who performs deeds of loving kindness even to thousands." The main point is that even when G'd pays a reward He does not pay the entire reward in one generation but chooses the installments of such a reward in such a way that it maximises enjoyment of it over many generations. In a certain sense the reward is a form of protection against harmful experiences in store for subsequent generations. <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 44,3 explains that if G'd had paid all the reward that Abraham was entitled to while he was alive, how (by what merit) would his descendents have been able to secure their livelihood? [how could G'd have found sufficient merit to forgive their descendants the sin of the golden calf? Ed.]
  ולשומרי מצותיו, and to those who observe His commandments. According to <i>Sotah</i> 31 these words are not connected with the words "to thousands of generations." People who serve the Lord because they are afraid of punishment cannot expect subsequent generations to draw on their unexpired portion of reward for longer than one thousand generations, whereas the unexpired portion of the reward of people who served the Lord because of love for Him may remain valid for up to two thousand generations. The Talmud derives this from Deut. 7,9 where the Torah speaks about a reward extending for one thousand generations.
  
  Verse 7
  
   לא תשא את שם ה׳ אלוקיך לשוא. "Do not utter the name of the Lord your G'd in vain." There is a tendency for people to believe that if they include the name of G'd in an unnecessary oath no harm is done as the very mention of G'd's name is proof that they revere the Lord's name and this adds to His glory. Besides, they argue that as long as the one to whom such an oath is sworn is unaware that the oath is false, how could G'd's name have been desecrated? All the second party knows is that the G'd mentioned in the oath is the G'd of the person swearing it. So what harm is done? G'd replies to such thoughts by saying: לא תשא "do not (even) elevate the name of the Lord your G'd, etc. Even if you have the intention of conferring honour upon My name, do not do it; G'd will not let anyone get away with such use of His name." The reason is that His name was used falsely or needlessly.
  Another reason why using G'd's name to make a lie believable is out of the question is because by doing so the person swearing the oath loses his צלם אלוקים, the image of G'd he has been created with and is known by. Such a person will become known instead as שוא, vain, false, worthless. G'd's name is "truth." Anyone associating that name with a lie, makes the name of G'd "fly away," seeing the person doing so has chosen something vain. An apt translation of this verse would be: "do not remove from yourself the name of the Lord your G'd on account of the pursuit of something that is vain, worthless."
  There is also an allusion here that a Jew should not bandy about the name of G'd giving the impression to all and sundry that he is a true servant of the Lord whereas in reality in his heart he does not serve the Lord. This is why the Torah chose the expression לשוא, i.e. creating a false impression. It is a warning not to pretend to be G'd-fearing. G'd will not allow such people to go unpunished.
  
  Verse 8
  
   זכור את יום השבת לקדשו, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." The meaning is that one should remember the Sabbath from the first day of the week. The Torah mentioned the seventh day before it mentioned the six days previous to the Sabbath in order to drive home the point that the Sabbath must be uppermost in our thoughts already prior to the six days preceding it. Were this not so the Torah would have written: "perform your work during six days and remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy."
  The expression לקדשו also implies making preparation such as the sages explained in <i>Beytzah</i> 16 that one should prepare for the Sabbath from the first day of the week onwards.
  An additional reason why the Torah tells us to remember the Sabbath day is mentioned in <i>Midrash Tehilim</i> 92. Adam was created on the sixth day and sinned on that day. Along came the Sabbath and acted as advocate for Adam in front of G'd. He pleaded with G'd saying: "no human being has ever been killed; why should it fall to my lot to be the first day on which a human being is killed?" As a result of the Sabbath's plea Adam was saved from death at that time. When Adam realised this he composed this Psalm, singing the praises of the Sabbath. The Torah asks us to remember the Sabbath as the day which saved Adam's life because this fact also insured our own existence and that of all of mankind. It behooves us therefore to accord special honour to the Sabbath. The Sabbath proved to be our very life-saver. When someone experiences a miraculous escape on a certain day he will forever treat that day as special year after year on the anniversay of that event. In this instance the miracle did not only occur on the Sabbath day, but the Sabbath itself was the life-saver. It is appropriate therefore that we remember this every week. The Torah wishes us to remember that the Sabbath day is to be in a totally different category from all the other six days of the week. 
  The Torah says: זכור את יום השבת, that we must remember the day by name. We sanctify the Sabbath by remembering it by name. You may appropriately translate this verse as follows: "Remember the day; what are you to remember? Sabbath." The reason that we are to sanctify it is because G'd's name is also Sabbath. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai states in his <i>Zohar</i> volume 2 page 88 that the name of G'd is Sabbath. Afterwards the Torah amplifies which of the seven days of the week is called Sabbath by writing: "during six days you shall perform all your work and on the seventh day is Sabbath;" this teaches that the Sabbath is the seventh day of the week. [You will note that the word "Sabbath" did not occur in the Torah's description of the creation. Ed.]
  
  Verse 9
  
   ששת ימים תעבוד, "During six days you shall labour, etc." Seeing that the Torah also speaks about "and you shall do all your work," what exactly did G'd mean when He said: "you shall labour during six days?" We may have to understand this in terms of Leviticus 25,20-21. The Torah quotes the Jewish farmer who has been asked to observe the <i>Shmittah year</i> as asking in the seventh year: "what shall we eat?" The Torah there answers that G'd will command the earth to supply sufficient harvests during the sixth year to last for three years. This is exactly what G'd alludes to here. When the Torah commanded us to keep the Sabbath holy this means that no profane matters are to be performed on the Sabbath. If so, seeing that most people perform enough work on one day to feed themselves on that day, what are they to eat on the Sabbath? G'd answers: "you shall labour for six days and do all your work." The clear implication is that the amount of work you perform on the six days will produce your needs also for the Sabbath. G'd assures those who keep His commandments that they will not suffer any hardship as a result.
  Another aspect of the phrase ששת ימים is that once the Sabbath arrives you are to feel that the work week is over; you are not to think about work you have not been able to complete last week and have to continue next week, etc. The domain called ששת ימים and the domain called שבת are mutually exclusive. The author refers the reader to a story related in <i>Shabbat</i> 150 of someone who imposed a penalty on himself for having contemplated repairing a fence which had collapsed on the Sabbath. As a result of his decision not to repair the fence and thereby to expose himself to serious financial loss, a miracle happened and in the place where the break had occurred a caper bush grew which provided him and his family with an adequate income forthwith so that he did not need to restore the breach in the fence.
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויום השביעי שבת, "and the seventh day is Sabbath, etc." The verse means that "by observing the seventh day as Sabbath you confirm that the Lord is your G'd." This is why <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 25 describes the Sabbath as equal to the entire Torah in importance. Perhaps there is another allusion in the very word שבת which suggests that it is equal to the entire Torah. We know that the commandments which the Israelites heard from the mouth of Moses totalled 611. The other two commandments i.e. the first two of the Ten Commandments they heard directly from the mouth of G'd. The first of these was a positive commandment, the second a negative one. We know that the positive commandments are perceived as originating with the attribute of Mercy seeing it is these for which we receive a reward. The negative commandments are perceived as originating with the attribute of Justice, seeing violation results in punishment. When you look at the numerical value of the tetragram י־ה־ו־ה plus the name א־ד־נ־י you obtain a total of 91. When you add 611, i.e. the commandments Israel received through an intermediary you get the numerical value of the word שבת, =702.
  We also have a statement in <i>Shabbat</i> 118 that if someone observes the Sabbath meticulously his sins will be forgiven even if they included idolatry of the type Enosh was guilty of. When the Torah writes: "and the seventh day will be Sabbath for the Lord your G'd," the word "your G'd" must be understood as "the G'd who is your exclusive G'd," i.e. you have thereby indicated that you have accepted Him as your only G'd. This is derived from reading the words: ויום השביעי שבת לשם אלוקיך, "and on the seventh day you demonstrate by keeping the Sabbath that you are committed only to the Lord your G'd."
  The words שבת לשם are to teach us that if one observes the Sabbath as a day on which one recharges one's physical batteries, this is not what the Sabbath is all about. Unless one demonstrates that the Sabbath is the day of the Lord, one has not observed it in the true meaning of the word.
  The conjunctive letter ו which connects the words תעבוד ויום השביעי suggests that far from not having any work to perform on the Sabbath, you are to perform work of a different nature. On that day the work you perform is for G'd instead of for yourself. Only מלאכתך, your work, is not to be done on that day.
  
  Verse 11
  
   וינח ביום השביעי, He rested on the seventh day, etc. The Torah cleverly forbids among the 39 categories of forbidden work also such activities which do not involve something causing fatigue. Moving an object from a private domain to a public domain or vice versa does not represent any "work" in the regular sense of the word. There are other such activities (writing two letters of the alphabet for instance) all of which are nonetheless prohibited on pain of death. A person may say to himself that since such acitivities do not involve physical effort why should there be a death penalty for performing such activities on the Sabbath? The Torah answers that the work prohibition is not related to the amount of effort involved. If G'd rested on the seventh day it was certainly not because He had become tired of creating the universe and needed a rest. Isaiah 40,28 puts it succinctly: "He never grows faint or weary." The word מנוחה in the sense of rest as we use it, i.e. rest in order to recover from exhaustion, is quite inappropriate when applied to G'd. Any activity to which the term מלאכה is applicable is prohibited regardless of the physical or mental effort involved.
  The words כי ששת ימים עשה also mean that G'd created the world in order for it to endure for six days. It follows that He has to "renew" creation i.e. to issue a directive for the universe's continued existence every single day. The means He uses is the soul of the day called Sabbath which He created by "resting." The fact that G'd desisted from creative activity after the sixth day resulted in the Sabbath coming into existence. Our sages in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 10,9 indicate that prior to the Sabbath the world was in a constant state of turmoil. When the Sabbath came the world calmed down. Compare also what I have written on Genesis 2,2.
  
  Verse 12
  
   למען יאריכון ימיך, "so that your days will be long, etc." The expression יאריכון implies that this will be a natural consequence; it is not a reward by G'd. Had it been intended as a reward, The Torah would have had to write something like: "I will lengthen your life, etc." The Torah may have taught us that the miraculous feature which attends performance of honouring father and mother is that persons doing so will enjoy long life. There are several commandments which are associated with miraculous phenomena; in all such cases this is not part of the reward for performing them.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   דבר אתה עמנו, "Speak you with us, etc." The people meant that if acceptance of G'd's commandments was dependent on our listening to Him speak to us directly, this was no longer necessary. They said: "it is good enough for us to listen to His commandments as they come out of your mouth; we will consider this binding upon us. We do not wish to endanger our lives by being exposed to G'd's voice any longer." They said to Moses: "if you speak to us ונשמעה, we will be able to hear it (without dying). If G'd were to continue to speak to us we could not hear because we would die."
  
  Verse 17
  
   אל תיראו, "do not fear, etc." Moses reassured the people that even if the Lord were to continue speaking to them directly they would not die, as G'd had already accomplished His purpose in testing the Jewish people by inspiring awe of Him in them. He had already removed the residue of pollutants that they had still contained within themselves, pollutants dating back to Adam. There was also a second reason G'd had spoken to Israel directly. Once their pollutants had been removed, G'd's presence was able to occupy a permanent presence amongst them and the image of the Lord which original man had been created in had now been fully restored to all of the Israelites. The combination of these two elements was a great barrier to the Israelites sinning again in the future. Anyone who possesses shame, i.e. another word for "fear of the Lord," will not easily be tempted to commit a sin.
  Another meaning contained in the words לבעבור נסות אתכם, is that in the event you would complain in the future why not every Jew has been selected to have prophetic stature, the reason is that you have now indicated you would find the burden to be G'd's prophet, i.e. receive His communications directly, as too awesome. G'd has just tried to elevate all of you to the status of prophet but you have failed this test.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   לא חעשון אתי אלוהי כסף, "Do not make with Me silver deities, etc." Why did the Torah have to add the word אתי, "with Me?" Our sages in the <i>Mechilta</i> understood this word as referring to the cherubs on the Holy Ark, seeing the voice of the Lord was supposed to speak to Moses from between these cherubs. The meaning of ואלוהי זהב is that you should not elevate the importance of such silver deities to the level of something made of gold. The repetition of "do not make" entitles us to understand the verse thus: "Do not make silver deities; if you did so at least do not consider them as something valuable such as gold." Even if the item you have constructed does not have a face, or likeness of anything in heaven or on earth that one could bow down to, do not make it for yourselves. The Torah stresses לכם, i.e. it is not only forbidden to make something like that אתי "with Me," but even if it has meaning only for yourself.
  The Torah refers to two different kinds of worship of another deity. One kind of worship is that by a person who really believes that such a deity is real and he yearns to worship it. Concerning such a person the Torah says: "do not make with Me אלוהי כסף, a deity you yearn to worship. Inasmuch as the soul of the Israelite is rooted in the celestial spheres and as such is part of G'd, if a person worships another deity also in his heart, he is so to speak attaching some of that deity to G'd Himself. The author bases all this on both Deut. 32,9 and on the mystical aspect of a statement in <i>Eycha Rabbah</i> 1,31 according to which the original serpent is holed up in a tower and the question is how to dislodge it without destroying the tower in the process. The answer suggested is that one calls on the services of a snake charmer so as to lure the snake out of its lair. When a person serves idols with all his heart he allows Satan to lodge within the very root of his being (like in the Tower in the story in the <i>Midrash</i>). This root of a person, i.e. his soul, is a sacred place, however. Solomon refers to such a tragic situation when he speaks of the slave turned master in Proverbs 30,22. When the Torah speaks of לא תעשון אתי אלוהי כסף, it refers to deities one serves because of a genuine conviction, longing.
  The second category of idol worshiper is the person who is well aware in his heart that such deities are worthless and ineffective but they perform such service in order to reap some immediate and indirect benefit therefrom for themselves. For instance, such a person may ask a third person to pay him a sum of money in order to go through the motions of consulting such deity on the third person's behalf. The person who performs such sham service says to himself that inasmuch as G'd wants to be served by the heart, and he himself believes in the One and only G'd with all his heart, he has not really done anything wrong seeing in his heart he despises any kind of idolatry. Concerning such form of pro forma idolatry the Torah writes ואלוהי זהב לא תעשו לכם, do not perform idolatrous rites even if your intention is merely to earn some gold pieces.
  The Torah reveals that the sin of such a person is that he demeans himself in order to make money by having recourse to idolatry. This is why the Torah writes לכם when speaking of such a person, as opposed to the אתי which the Torah used to characterise a person who believes in the deity he worships. In the case of the person who pretends to believe in the idol, the effect on his personality is not as traumatic as the one described in the <i>Midrash</i> we have quoted where the serpent is portrayed as having found refuge in his very root.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ואלה המשפטים, "And these are the ordinances, etc." The word ואלה needs analysis. We find a disagreement in the <i>Mechilta</i> between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva on this subject. The former holds that the reason for the linkage between the Ten Commandments and the ordinances is to tell us that just as the former are of Sinaitic i.e. Divine origin, so are the latter. Rabbi Akiva said the reason for the conjunctive letter ו is that we could have thought that Moses was to teach the ordinances to the Israelites and if they did not understand them all, he, Moses, did not have to repeat them; therefore the Torah speaks of תשים לפניהם "place them in front of them," as one lays a meal before people which is ready to be eaten. According to Rabbi Yishmael who holds that the ordinances are of Sinaitic origin it is obvious that the Torah speaks about the details of these various laws being of Divine origin seeing we already know that the outlines are of Divine origin. Rabbi Yishmael has said himself in <i>Zevachim</i> 115 that all the general rules of the commandments of the Torah were handed down from Sinai, whereas Moses was told the details when G'd used to speak to him in the Tabernacle. If so, the commandments referred to here were the general outline only and there would be no reason for adding the letter ו in front of אלה. According to Rabbi Akiva who claimed that both general outlines and details were revealed to Moses at Mount Sinai, the expression ואלה המשפטים is also unnecessary. We need to look a little closer at what Rashi has to say on our verse. In our verse he explains the expression in line with Rabbi Yishmael, whereas at the beginning of Leviticus 25,1 where the Torah speaks about what G'd said to Moses at Mount Sinai, Rashi explains the verse in terms of Rabbi Akiva's statement in the <i>Mechilta</i> we quoted earlier. Rabbi Akiva said that just as both the outline and the details of the <i>Shmittah</i> regulations originated at Sinai, so all the laws in the Torah originated at Sinai. 
  Why does Rashi give two separate interpretations instead of mentioning that Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree in their understanding of our verse? Rashi could have more easily stated that the letter ו is to tell Moses how to teach the laws to the Jewish people, i.e. to set it before them like a table which is all laid out for the guests. He could have said that this rule applies both to the commandments regulating our relations with G'd as well as to those regulating our relations with each other.
  I have seen that Rabbi Eliyah Mizrachi explains the statement of Rabbi Yishmael to mean that even the ordinances were also communicated to the Israelites amidst thunder and lightning, and that G'd spoke more than just the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai. Even if Rabbi Yishmael had said so expressly, he would have had to substantiate this, all the more so since Rabbi Mizrachi only credits him with having meant this. According to the <i>Mechilta</i> all Rabbi Yishmael is quoted as saying is "just as the earlier statements were revealed at Sinai so the (later) ordinances were also revealed at Sinai." He did not say that "just as the earlier commandments were issued amidst thunder and lightning so were the ordinances revealed amidst thunder and lightning." There is no hint in this statement of the ordinances having been revealed amidst thunder and lightning. Furthermore, we have already answered the question we raised about Rabbi Yishmael's statement referring to the details of these ordinances not being revealed here because he has stated that when the Torah introduces the <i>Shmittah</i> legislation in Leviticus. It is posssible that Rabbi Yishmael thought that the example of the שמטה legislation was not enough to use it as a role model for all the commandments seeing that there are three other occasions in the Torah when a commandment is specifically mentioned as related to Mount Sinai. The principal reason, however, is the one we already mentioned. It might be best to leave the question against Rashi as a matter unresolved pending further study than to follow the path of Rabbi Mizrachi who put words into Rabbi Yishmael's mouth that he has not been able to support with evidence.
  If Rabbi Mizrachi's intention was to say that whereas the Ten Commandments were handed down amidst both thunder and lightning, whereas the ordinances were handed down only amidst thunder, not exactly like the Ten Commandments, this would also not be acceptable as it would create a third category of commandments and the manner in which they were communicated to the Jewish people. The first category would be the way the Ten Commandments were communicated; the second category would be the way G'd communicated all the commandments to Moses during the forty days Moses spent on the Mountain; the third category would be the ordinances. Who would be prepared to even listen to such an explanation?! There is nothing anywhere in the Torah which could serve as a comparison for such an approach!
  Another reason why the Torah wrote ואלה may well have to do with <i>Sanhedrin</i> 86, which stipulates that the judges of the Sanhedrin had to officiate near the Tabernacle or Temple. The expression ואלה then hints that just as there are other locations which are sacred, namely the altar and subsequently the Tabernacle, so the site where the judges pronounced G'd's law also had to be a site which was close by and had been sanctified.
  אשר תשים לפניהם. "which you shall place before them." Whereas our sages have provided us with numerous homiletical explanations for this expression (<i>Sanhedrin</i> 7), we also need to know the plain meaning of these words. [I presume the author feels that one does not place words before a person. Ed.] Perhaps this is connected to the fact that some of the Torah's commandments are duties that a person's body has to perform, i.e. חובת גברא. In order to perform these commandments one needs to know what is involved. Unless a person performed such duties with his body he would not be considered part of the Holy Covenant between G'd and His people. For example, if a person did not know that it is forbidden to eat an animal which died from injuries he would consume both it and the blood and the fat parts which are forbidden. Similarly, when performing the positive commandment of the Passover he has to eat the lamb, the bitter herbs, the unleavened bread, keep the days holy, etc. In order to fulfil these commandments he has to be familiar with them. There are other categories of commandments of a more abstract nature, such as sanctifying the new moon, litigations, laws pertaining to which animal sacrifices are applicable and under what conditions, etc. The truth is that every Israelite ought to be familiar with all aspects of the Torah. However, as long as there are Torah scholars who are familiar with all the commandments and who can be consulted when the need arises all is under control. When G'd said תשים לפניהם, this means that everyone ought to be familiar with the laws listed here. How would a person making a purchase know if the purchase was legally valid unless he had first familiarised himself with the laws pertaining to acquisitions? The person who had been sold would not know of his rights to freedom after a certain number of years unless he had studied the relevant portion of the Torah. The reason the Torah continues in verse two with direct speech, i.e. "when you purchase a slave" instead of "when someone purchases a slave, etc." may underline the importance the Torah places on the purchaser being familiar with this legislation.
  The words תשים לפניהם also contain a plea for the purchaser to accept the legislation wholeheartedly. While it is natural for someone who purchases a slave to consider such an acquisition permanent, the law which directs him not only to release such a slave after six years but to provide him with a stake so that he can re-establish himself economically may arouse some misgivings in the owner. The Torah wishes everyone to evaluate this legislation also from the standpoint of the slave. Since the reason the slave had to sell himself is that he was financially unlucky and/or had been found stealing, this is something which could happen to anyone, seeing money has a habit of "rolling" from one person or family to another. The owner is meant to reflect on the matter that if he himself were ever to find himself in the situation that his slave found himself in, the Torah's legislation holds out hope for such a person to achieve financial rehabilitation.
  
  Verse 2
  
   כי תקנה עבד עברי, "When you purchase a Jewish slave, etc." Perhaps the meaning is: "when you are about to buy a slave, buy a Jewish slave (rather than a Gentile)." You should not buy a Gentile because you know you can keep him indefinitely.
  The reason the Torah refers to the slave as עבדי instead of ישראלי, may be that the Torah is sensitive about combining the words עבד and ישראל. The Torah also wants us to know that the term עבד when used as applicable to a Jew denotes a temporary status only, seeing that all Jews are permanently G'd's servants. This is one of the reasons such a Jewish servant must leave his master in the seventh year. The Torah also hints that unless a Jew had violated the Torah's commandments he would not find himself in the position of being a slave. <i>Kiddushin</i> 14 in particular states that the Torah speaks of a thief who was unable to make restitution and who has been "sold" by the court in order that the proceeds of the sale be used to compensate his victim. Even in a situation discussed by the Torah in Deut. 15,12 when the subject has sold himself, he did not find himself in such a desperate situation had he not previously violated Torah law. Rabbi Ami tells us in <i>Shabbat</i> 55 that afflictions have always been preceded by sins committed by the individual afflicted.
  Another nuance in the words עבד עברי instead of עברי עבד, "a Jew as a slave," is a reminder to the purchaser that the individual in question was an עבד already before the present master had purchased him. The idea is that he was already guilty vis-a-vis Heaven. The court would not sell him until he had been convicted. As a result we need not have any misgivings about the term עבד עברי being used by the Torah in this instance as opposed to Deut. 15,12 where the Torah characterises the "slave" as אחיך העברי, "your brother the Jew."
  The term עבד had to be used by the Torah to justify why he has to serve his master for six years and cannot leave his employer like ordinary employees.
  שש שנים יעבוד, he shall serve for six years, etc. The Torah means that even if the slave escaped during these six years he has to complete the term remaining from the original six years. The reason the Torah does not write: "he has to serve you," (i.e. the purchaser) is to allow for the slave to complete the six years if the original master has died and he has now become the property of the son.
  ובשביעית יצא לחפשי חנם, and in the seventh year he leaves to become free without payment. The Torah means that there are occasions when said slave has to serve also in the seventh year such as when he has been sold in the middle of a calendar year. The six years are counted as commencing the day he is sold. The Torah also indicates by this verse that if the "seventh year," i.e. the שמטה occurs during the six years the slave has to serve, his term of service remains unaffected by that fact. I have found this in the commentary of Maimonides on <i>Kiddushin</i> chapter 1, <i>Mishnah</i> 2.
  
  Verse 3
  
   אם בגפו יבא, If he enters the service as a single man, etc. Our sages in <i>Kidushin</i> 20 conclude from this wording that if the Jewish slave enters his period of slavery while unattached, his master is not allowed to asssign a Gentile slave-woman to cohabit with him. The legislation permitting this applies only if said slave is already married. I believe the reason they came to this conclusion is that the sages were bothered by an anomaly in the text. The Torah appears to repeat itself when it says that if the slave entered service married he shall leave in that state. Seeing the Torah had already said that if he entered service unmarried he will leave unmarried, this implies that if he had been married previously he could leave with his wife. Why did the Torah have to spell this out? You will find that the sages scrutinised the verse and said that the words "and his wife will leave" are quite inappropriate. His wife, after all, had never become a slave! Why does she need the Torah's permission to leave? The sages therefore interpreted these words to mean that while the slave was in the service of his master the master had to provide also for the needs of the slave's wife. Once the slave leaves, this obligation is at an end. If the Torah had meant that the slave-woman the master had assigned to the slave could leave with him, this would contradict the clear statement in verse four that any wife and children born by such a woman during these years will most certainly not be released with their husband/father. What then did the Torah mean when it said that the slave's wife may leave together with him? The sages therefore arrived at the conclusion that only a married slave may be assigned a slave-woman to cohabit with. Clearly the statement was intended to provide an additional <i>halachah.</i> The word בגפו means "if he has no Jewish wife." We know this because when the Torah speaks of a man married to a Jewish wife the man is called בעל אשה. The words בגפו יצא mean he is to leave unmarried, as single as he entered the service of his master. One may also understand this as a comparison to when he entered, i.e. "just as he entered service without wife and children, neither the kind that could depart with him nor the kind that had to remain behind with his master, he leaves as he came." If he had a wife but no children at the time he entered the service of his master, the latter cannot assign a Gentile slave-woman to him either as we would consider him as having entered service בגפו, alone. The same applies even more so if the slave had been the father of children at the time he entered the service of the master although he had not had a wife at that time.
  I have seen that Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi feels that the reason for the legislation just mentioned is that otherwise the Torah should have written merely כן יצא instead of בגפו יצא. I do not agree with this. On the contrary, had the Torah written what Rabbi Mizrachi suggested as an alternative this would have reinforced the impression that the master could not give him a slave-woman and that he had to remain as single as when he entered the service. The truth is that the reason the Torah did not write כן יצא is because of other implications such an expression implies.
  You may ask whence the sages derived the ruling in <i>Kiddushin</i> 20 that the master can assign to the slave a gentile slave-woman only if he entered his service while not only being married but also having children? It is, of course, true that the rulings are part of the oral Torah and not dependent on being spelled out in the written Torah. Nonetheless we may search for clues in the written Torah. Where are children mentioned in the Torah? The answer is that when a person is married without children he is to leave בגפו, in the same state as he entered the service seeing that if the master assigned a Gentile slave-woman to him and he had children by her the slave could no longer qualify under the heading as leaving בגפו, i.e. in the same state as he had entered his master's service. He entered the service without children whereas now he has children. Similarly, if at the time he entered the service he had children but no wife the master cannot assign a slave-woman to him as he would not then leave his service in the state he had entered it. He entered it being single and he would leave it being married, a state that cannot be described as "just as he was unmarried when he entered the service, so he has to be in the same state when he leaves." If the slave had a wife when he entered the service of his master but he did not have any children whereas by the time he leaves his master's service he has children by his Jewish wife, he may take these with him although one may describe his status as having changed seeing that when he entered service he was allowed to live with his wife. The Torah made everything dependent on his having a wife at the time he entered service as a slave, even if the children were born only later. From this it would follow that if the slave had entered his master's service while married to a Jewish woman and his wife had died, the master may then assign a slave- woman to him as the Torah was concerned only with the slave's status at the time he entered the master's service, i.e. בגפו יבא. If I did not have the words of the Talmud before me I would have derived that ruling from the words: "if he is the husband of a wife;" this wording suggests to me that in order for the master to have the right to assign a slave-woman to the husband he must have been married at that time.
  אם בעל אשה הוא, If the slave is a married man, etc. We have to accept the <i>Mechilta Acharite de Rabbi Shimon</i> who says that the wording implies that the master has to supply the needs of the wife only if she is an appropriate wife for the slave. Should the slave be married to a woman forbidden to him under Jewish law even if the marriage was legal under Jewish law, his master has no obligation towards her. This raises the question why the master is allowed to assign a woman who is forbidden to this slave as stated specifically both in the Talmud and in chapter 3 section 4 of Maimonides' <i>Hilchot Avadim.</i> Maimonides distinguishes between the right to live with such a woman and the master's obligation to provide for such a woman when she is not his slave. The words אם בעל אשה הוא therefore have to be interpreted as applicable only to the law mentioned in this verse, i.e. provision of a Gentile slave-woman as partner for such a slave.
  The <i>Mechilta</i> raises another aspect here in these words: "I might have thought the master will be obligated to provide for the needs of a woman merely betrothed to the slave, or to a woman who is the widow of his brother who died without children and who awaits the levirate union; the Torah speaks of אשתו to teach us that the betrothed, etc., is not included in the category of wife for whom the master has to care. On the other hand, if the slave was betrothed to a woman he is no longer characterised as בגפו, single, and the master is entitled to assign a slave-woman to him while he is in his service. According to the discussion in <i>Kiddushin</i> 20 the same applies if the slave had children from a wife who had died and in the meantime he had betrothed himself to another woman. He is then considered as fitting the definition of having both a wife and children so that the master can assign a slave-woman to him as marital partner.
  ויצאה אשתו עמו, his wife leaves together with him. The letter ו in front of the word יצאה is appropriate seeing the master had also been responsible for the wife's maintenance.
  
  Verse 4
  
   אם אדוניו יתן לו אשה, If his master gave him a wife, etc. Why did the Torah switch to indirect speech when it had commenced the paragraph with direct speech i.e. "when you buy a Jewish slave, etc.?" The balance of the whole paragraph is in the third person. At the very least the Torah should have concluded the paragraph in the manner it began, by addressing the people concerned directly. Perhaps the reason is that we have a tradition that marriages are made in Heaven, i.e. that G'd personally involves Himself to match the right man to the woman appropriate for him (compare <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 68). At first glance one is tempted to interpret the words אם אדוניו as a reference to his true Master, i.e. G'd. The Torah would then tell us that if G'd to whom we are all servants assigns a wife to this man then both she and her children belong to her Master, i.e. G'd. This interpretation is untenable, however; this is why the Torah adds that the wife and her children belong to her master (terrestrial master) whereas the husband (the slave) leaves without them. We also need to know why the Torah repeats the words אמור יאמר העבד in verse five.
  The true meaning of these verses is that G'd commands something which at first glance sounds irrational, i.e. that if the slave entered the employ of his master while single, he must remain so during the years of his service. His master cannot assign a female slave to him under circumstances other than those listed in <i>Kiddushin</i> 20. The average reader will question the meaning of this legislation asking what difference does it make if the slave had been married or not, seeeing the Torah permits his living together with a Gentile slave anyway? The Torah answers this question by writing: "if his master will give him a wife" (clearly a Gentile woman as one can see from the context) both she and her children will remain with the master, whereas the slave himself will leave as single as he entered the service of this master. This section of the verse speaks about a master who would (illegally) provide a single slave with a Gentile slave-woman as his partner. When such a situation arises it is natural that the slave will not want to leave the employ of his master ever, (after the six years have expired) for one of two reasons: 1) He loves his wife and children; 2) he will once again find himself unattached when leaving the employ of his master. In other words, leaving his master's employ will result in the slave suffering two blows of fate. In view of such considerations, nearly every slave will want to remain in the service of his master forever. The Torah wanted to head off such a situation. This is why the Torah forbade the master to assign a slave-woman to a slave who had entered his service as a single man. If the slave already had a Jewish wife, a free woman, he will find it much easier to abandon the woman assigned to him by his master while he was in such forced service. The conditional אם in verse four is merely a prelude to the word ואם in verse five in which the Torah describes the natural consequence of what would happen after the situation introduced by the first אם had become a reality.
  The reason for the repeated אמר יאמר is that if the slave adds another dimension of service to his service over and above the fact that G'd has made him His servant and he expresses his wish to also remain a slave to his terrestrial master, etc. then the Torah commands that such a person needs to have his ear pierced, etc. There is another dimension to this whole paragraph, a moral/ethical one. The Torah commands man to constantly have before his mental eye the implications of this wole legislation (even if he never contemplates buying a slave, etc.). The words כי תקנה עבד עברי introduce a reminder that a human being is composed of two major components, his soul i.e. his spiritual self, and his body. The spiritual part is his major component, the body having been provided only so that the spiritual part can fulfil the commandments that he is obligated to fulfil as a servant of his Master (G'd). G'd calls the body עבד, whereas He calls man's soul אדם. <i>Baba Metzia</i> 114, quoting Ezekiel 34,31, explains that only the Jewish people are called אדם, as only they have this kind of soul. This is why the Torah commands us that כי תקנה עבד עברי, meaning if you acquire עברי עובר, someone whose stay on earth is temporary seeing every human being is bound to die (Psalms 144,4), he shall be with you שש שנים. The Talmud <i>Moed Katan</i> 28 basing itself on Job 5,26, considers that man is entitled to expect to live 60 years. It says in Job: תבא בכלח אלי קבר, "you will come to the grave in a ripe old age." The numerical value of the word "in a ripe old age," בכלח =60. While it is true that the Torah here speaks about six years, not sixty, this may be understood as correponding to what is known as מספר קטן, i.e. ignoring the digit zero. The six years are in reality sixty years then. The same applies to when the Torah speaks about said עברי עובר going free in the seventh year. The seventh decade is considered the period during which man exits this life. The word חפשי is an allusion to death, man becoming truly free only in death as we know from Psalms 88,6, במתים חפשי, "freedom is found amongst the dead." The word חנם suggests that this freedom is actually attained via the the angel of death, through Samael. The <i>Zohar</i> second volume page 128 phrases it thus: "during life on earth the forces of Samael feed man with worthless things." [חנם, "for free," in the sense of "without value" Ed.] Leaving this earth then is an escape from false values. The only thing that Samael has no control over are the commandments a Jew performs at great expense to himself. This is not something חנם, without value. The message is that anything which comes for free is intrinsically something impure, rooted in the סטרא אחרא. The opposite is true of דבר שבקדושה; it possesses real value.
  When the Torah continues with אם בגפו יבא, we must examine this expression more closely. Why did the Torah choose this expression instead of the word לבדו normally used to describe someone as being alone, such as when the Torah describes Jacob as remaining alone (Genesis 32,25)?
  We have to remember that if a person was successful in acquiring merits for himself through having performed G'd's commandments and having performed deeds of loving kindness while on earth, such a person has acquired the strength to rise from his grave when the day of resurrection arrives. Psalms 72,16 describes such a period as "men sprouting up in towns like country grass." <i>Ketuvot</i> 111 understands Solomon (the author of this Psalm) as speaking of the time of resurrection. When the Torah speaks of the slave leaving בגפו, the meaning of the word גף is similar to Proverbs 9,3 where the word describes "on the wings of high places." Man's good deeds lift him up to the spiritually high places. <i>Shabbat</i> 49 compares Israel to the dove, i.e. it is like a winged bird thanks to its good deeds. When the Torah writes יבא, the meaning is the same as Onkelos's translation of Genesis 28,11, that "the sun had set." The words בגפו יצא on the other hand, refer to the wing in question being able to rise once again from earth at the time of the resurrection. The reverse will be true of people who have not made the effort to accumulate the required merits during their time on earth. <i>Ketuvot</i> 111 spells this out in connection with Proverbs 3,18 "that Torah is the tree of life for those who uphold and grasp her." The non-observant will not take part in the resurrection of the bodies.
  The Torah goes on to write אם בעל אשה הוא ויצאה אשתו עמו. The Torah alludes to a profound mystical element here. There are people who acquire their soul by dint of their good deeds so that such a person (personality) is transformed into the "owner" of its holy soul. In order to understand this concept one has to refer to the <i>Zohar</i> volume three page 91 on Leviticus 22,27 where the Torah discusses that when an ox or sheep is born it is to remain with its mother for seven days before it could be offered on the altar as a sacrifice. According to the <i>Zohar</i> animals acquire their intelligence at the moment of birth. [This is why the Torah refers to the ox as "ox" already at birth not as calf, for instance. The animal does not develop its personality, though it may develop its body. Ed.] Animals are different from human beings in this respect. Human beings acquire their souls only in ratio to the good deeds they have performed. The greater the number of good deeds performed by man the higher quality is his soul (or after having been alive at least for one Sabbath). The soul which such a מצוה -observant Jew acquires is called אשה in our context. Kabbalists such as the author of <i>Tikkunyey Hazohar</i> chapter 50 describe the soul as אשה. The Torah tells us here that if a person has acquired his "wife" i.e. soul, by reason of the performance of good deeds, his wife will remain with him also after death. <i>Shabbat</i> 152 tells an interesting story in this regard. There were certain grave-diggers who dug up the earth belonging to Rabbi Nachman. In the process they happened to disturb the grave of Rabbi Achai bar Yoshia. The latter protested that the diggers were disturbing his rest. The grave-diggers told Rabbi Nachman that they had been rebuked by a man. Rabbi Nachman went to investigate and asked the person in question who he was. He identified himself as Achai bar Yoshia. Thereupon Rabbi Nachman asked Rabbi Achai: "did not Rabbi Mori say that the truly righteous will turn to dust" [as opposed to decaying and becoming worm ridden Ed.], (so how come your body is intact)? Achai retorted: "Who is this Mori whom I have never heard of (that I should be concerned with his pronouncements)?" Thereupon Rabbi Nachman quoted a verse from Kohelet (inaccurately quoted and applied) according to which a body will return to the earth in the condition it had come from it. Rabbi Achai responded that whereas Rabbi Nachman appeared to be familiar with the verse composed by Solomon in Kohelet, he was apparently unfamiliar with a verse by the same Solomon in Proverbs 14,30 according to which "envy is like rottenness of the bones." The meaning of that verse is that people who harboured envy or jealousy in their hearts will experience that their bones decay and rot; those who did not harbour such feelings during their lives on earth will be spared this experience. Thereupon Rabbi Nachman touched Rabbi Achai and found that his body was indeed real. He suggested that Rabbi Achai get out of his grave and go home. Thereupon Rabbi Achai told Rabbi Nachman that he had just revealed that he had not even studied the Book of Prophets properly. We read in Ezekiel 37,13: "you will know that I am the Lord when I open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves, O My people." Rabbi Nachman countered that it is written in Genesis 3,19: "dust you are and to dust you will return!" Upon hearing this Rabbi Achai explained that the verse in Genesis was meant to apply only one hour before the arrival of the final resurrection. At that time all the dead would return to dust. The gist of the story is that the righteous are called alive even when they are in their graves (<i>Berachot</i> 18).
  Another lesson to be derived from the words אם בעל אשה הוא is that the only person who qualifies for the title בעל אשה is the one who makes sure that while on earth all his activities are performed for the spiritual advancement of his soul. Solomon alluded to this in Proverbs 13,25 where he described the eating of a צדיק as "the righteous man eats in order to satisfy his soul;" a person who strives to elevate his spiritual nature in such a way may truly be called a בעל אשה. After all, it is the duty of a husband to look after all the needs of his wife. If the soul is man's wife, it behooves the husband to look after its needs. When he has done so in the best manner he is capable of he can rest assured that the "wife" does not even abandon him in death.
  The Torah goes on in verse four: אם אדוניו יתן לו אשה, this means that if the בעל אשה mentioned previously did not acquire his pure soul by means of performing good deeds but was fortunate to have been born with such a soul as a gift from G'd Himself, and such a wife had born children for him then both the wife and the children belong to his Master, i.e. to G'd. The Torah revealed here that some people are indeed fortunate to be born with a a righteous soul; this may be due to the fact that the father of such an individual lived a righteous life and "bequeathed" such an inheritance to his offspring. When the Torah speaks of the "children" of such people this is a reference to <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 30 which describes the principal offspring of the righteous as their meritorious deeds. Since we have a tradition that each good deed performed creates a good angel known as an advocate (<i>Avot</i> 4,13), such a good deed is a descendant of the צדיק. The Torah describes these "children" as being born "for him," i.e. the husband. The reason that the Torah distinguishes between בנים או בנות, sons or daughters is that the good deeds which required a great deal of effort are described as בנים, whereas good deeds which did not require a battle with the evil urge before one performed them are described as בנות, daughters.
  The Torah says that the good deeds performed by such a person who had been endowed with all the advantages by G'd already at the time of birth, does not retain the "wife and her children." Rather, האשה וילדיה תהיה לאדוניה, the "wife and her children will belong to her Master (G'd) as distinct from the good deeds of the person who was not bequeathed a pure soul by his father, the צדיק. This son of the righteous father did not refine his body by means of his good deeds so that his soul will not depart from him after his death. As a result, his soul returns to G'd when his body dies. והוא יצא נגפו, whereas he leaves (dies) alone. Although such a person had been separated from "his wife and children" while in the grave, when the time comes for him to be resurrected, i.e. to leave his grave, he will find that those merits he had acquired during his lifetime on earth will once again stand him in good stead, i.e. he will recapture the status he enjoyed while he lived on earth. He will not forfeit resurrection because he had not been born without a pure soul.
   ואם אמור יאמר העד, But if the slave keeps on saying, etc. The Torah here describes the eagerness of the Jew (slave) to serve his Master (G'd) even after his physical powers have diminished (after he has turned 60 as we mentioned earlier). This is why the Torah describes him as saying: "I love my Master, my wife and my children." The latter are his soul and the good deeds the "slave" has performed in this world. He does not wish to leave this world as it enables him to accumulate further merits. Seeing that death makes him חפשי, free, i.e. unable to accumulate more merits, he shuns death. The Torah promises this type of individual that he will indeed be called עבד השם, a true servant of the Lord. G'd will eventually fulfil his desire but not at this stage. ועבדו לעולם, he will be allowed to serve G'd in the Hereafter. When G'd will make a selection amongst the angels who will minister to Him, such individuals will be high on His list of priorities. We find that Moses was an example of such a person since he did not want to die prior to living in the Holy Land and performing there commandments which one cannot perform outside ארץ ישראל (compare Deut. 34,5 and <i>Sotah</i> 14). When the Torah speaks about this slave having his ear pierced with an awl, you will find that the word מרצע, awl, has a numerical value of 400. This is symbolic of the 400 worlds of aspirations mentioned in the <i>Zohar</i> volume 1 page 123. The words ועבדו לעולם may be perceived as the Torah considering such a slave as if he had served G'd for all the years the universe exists, as if he had been alive during all this time. The word לעולם has additional mystical connotations familiar to students of the Kabbalah.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   וכי ימכר איש את בתה, When a man sells his daughter, etc. In this instance as opposed to verse 2, the Torah emphasises the seller instead of the buyer. The reason is that one does not purchase a Jewish maidservant from anyone other than her father. The girl does not sell herself, as does an impoverished male. The law of selling a thief in payment of what he has stolen from his victim also does not apply to female thieves (compare <i>Mechilta).</i> The additional letter ו in the word וכי, means that the father of the girl does not only have the right to marry her off, but also to sell her as a maidservant.
  איש את בתו, a man his daughter, etc. We learned in <i>Sotah</i> 23 that the word איש, is used to exclude the right of a woman to sell her daughter. The word את is to tell us that whereas a man may sell himself, a woman may not (<i>Mechilta</i>). You have to read the verse thusly: "And a man may sell his daughter." If the Torah had not commenced the verse with the conjunctive letter ו, but had merely written: "A man may sell his daughter," I would have known only that he may sell his daughter but not that she could not sell herself.
  לאמה, as a maidservant, etc. We have to interpret this expression by following the Talmud in <i>Kidushin</i> 4 that even if the daughter has displayed the marks of barrenness the father may still sell her. The emphasis of the Torah on לאמה, [something that is self-evident, for as what else would the father sell her? Ed.] teaches that although this girl is not marriage-material this does not diminish the father's right to sell her into service. We could also approach this expression from the point of view expressed in the <i>Tossephta Bikkurim</i> chapter 4, according to which the word is needed to exclude the father's right to sell her if there are doubts about her sex. If there are indications that she is a hermaphrodite or a <i>Tumtum</i> (having hidden genitals preventing determination of what sex she is), the father or the court could not exercise the right to sell her/him into service. The word לאמה is not superfluous then.
  לא תצא כצאת העבדים, she will not leave the service according to the conditions applying to male slaves. Our sages in <i>Kidushin</i> 16 understand this as a comparison with a Gentile slave who obtains his freedom if the master (or his agent) caused any of 24 specified injuries. The justification for this interpretation is the Torah's use of the word עבדים without specifying the addition עבריים, "Jewish ones." When the Torah applies the term עבד to a Jew it is always accompanied by the adjective עברי. A Jew is not just a "slave." I believe that the plain meaning of the verse is that whereas male Jewish slaves do not leave the employ of the master before their six years of service have expired, even if the master to whom they have been sold has died before the completion of the six years, this rule does not apply to a female Jewish maidservant. As soon as her master dies she is free to leave.
  The words: "she does not leave like the male slaves," refer to the seventh year. If the master marries the maidservant her status is changed automatically, i.e. she will never leave her master unless he dies or divorces her. This is why the Torah discusses what happens if her master fails to marry her (verse 8). The sequence of the wording there is difficult; we could not have understood the first half of the verse, "if she does not please her master," unless we had been informed that it refers to her master displaying his displeasure by not marrying her.. Why did the Torah not write: "if the master does not marry her for she was displeasing in his eyes?" According to our approach the wording in the verse is fully justified, however, seeing the words לא תצא refer to a possible marriage, i.e. a permanent relationship. Concerning such a relationship the Torah adds that if for some reason the master finds this relationship no longer acceptable because she displeases him, אם רעה בעיני אדוניה, then the restrictions to granting freedom that apply to a male slave do not apply to a maidservant. The wording also precludes the possible errors we referred to earlier of the male slave not leaving because of the <i>Shmittah</i> year or even the Jubilee year unless his six years service have been completed. The moment the Torah wrote: "if she displeases her master, etc.," it becomes clear that the nature of the displeasure concerns only the master's willingness to marry this maidservant. In Deut. 15,12 the Torah commences by comparing the law of the male Jewish servant to that of the maidservant. This comparison extends only to certain entitlements the Torah legislated for the male Jewish slave. Nowhere in that whole paragraph is there a word which would contradict the interpretation of our sages regarding the distinctions between the laws applying to a maidservant.
  We are free to interpret the wording of the various verses as long as our interpretation does not conflict with the <i>halachah,</i> seeing these rulings are all of Sinaitic origin. It is clear from the wording in our verse that the ruling about a slave being freed because of certain injuries his master caused him, such as the loss of a tooth or an eye, applies only to Gentile slaves. The reason seems to be that a Jewish slave has the option to get financial compensation from his master for such injuries. The combined value of the various compensation payments may amount to more than the price he puts on obtaining his freedom early, depending on whether such an injury was suffered near the beginning of his term of service or near the end of the six years. A Gentile slave is not entitled to such compensation seeing his very body is owned by his master. The only way his master can compensate him for the injury caused is by foregoing his services henceforth.
  
  Verse 8
  
   אשר לא (ו) יעדה והפדה, who has espoused her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. The reason the word <i>lo</i> is written with the letter א while it is read as if it were spelled with the letter ו, is explained in <i>Kidushin</i> 19 to mean that her espousal must meet with her approval. The master cannot marry her against her wishes. The Talmud derives it from the word יעדה. The Torah therefore begins the verse with "if she is displeasing in the eyes of her master" as describing a hindrance to the marriage which originates with the master. Concerning a hindrance due to the girl, the Torah writes אשר לא יעדה, to indicate that she was the party who did not agree. As a result, i.e. if either party declines to marry the other, והפדה, the legislation of facilitating her release by deducting time not served becomes applicable. If the parties agree to marry, there is no cause for the girl's prior release.
  לעם נכרי, to another party, etc. The Torah has to legislate this in order to inform us that though the father has a right to sell his daughter, he does not have the right to sell her לעם נכרי. The words לא ימשול למכרה "he has no auhority to sell her," indicate that if the father sold her without a view to eventual marriage by her master or his son, such a sale is invalid because he has betrayed the girl's trust. The moment the father or the master has betrayed his trust he has forfeited every right to buy or sell this girl.
  Another aspect discussed in <i>Kidushin</i> 19 is the right of the father to sell his daughter to a master who is forbidden to marry her by Jewish law, such as a widow to a High Priest or a divorcee to an ordinary priest. By precluding the father's right to sell his daughter to עם נכרי, a member of an alien people, the Torah implies that a sale to the above-mentioned categories is legally valid seeing the buyer is a Jew.
  
  Verse 9
  
   ואם לבנו ייעדנה, And if he espouse her to his son, etc. This means that the master never espoused her to himself, but intended her as a wife for his son when he bought her. The Torah informs us that this is perfectly in order, i.e. the money the father had paid to the girl's father for her is acceptable as the money for the betrothal to his son.
  The words כמשפט הבנות יעשה לה, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters, apply to both the father (master) and to his son. The verse following will spell out exactly what these obligations are that the master/son assumes when purchasing such a maidservant.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ואם שלש אלה לא יעשה לה, If he fails to do these three things for her, etc. The three are 1) marrying her, שארה; 2) providing her with a clothing allowance, etc., כסותה; 3) maintaining marital relations with her at designated intervals, עונתה; the Torah stresses the word אלה, these, so as to exclude previous conditions such as the need to betrothe her. ויצאה חנם אין כסף, she may leave for nothing without money. Both master and son have lost their authority over this girl; they cannot force her to serve the balance of the six years her father contracted for, or until she displays signs of puberty. Rather the master has to give the girl a document releasing her if he does not decide to consummate the betrothal. The words "without money," mean that there is no need for money to change hands whereas there is a need for a divorce document releasing her as the Torah considered the girl as betrothed to her master ever since her father had sold her. Our sages in the <i>Mechilta</i> add that the words אין כסף also mean that whereas the maidservant does not have to compensate her master financially if he failed to meet the conditions mentioned, she can also gain her freedom by merely attaining the age/or signs of puberty. All of these rulings are of Sinaitic origin, independent of any allusions in the text.
  Seeing that the rulings are not dependent on allusions in the text, we are free to see in the text allusions to moral/ethical values, i.e. רמזים. We are basing ourselves on <i>Sotah</i> 42 that when the word איש appears by itself, i.e. without a name, the subject is G'd Himself, such as in Exodus 15,3. Our sages in <i>Shir Hashirim Rabbah</i> chapter 3 have said further that G'd insisted on expressing His fondness of the community of Israel by referring to it as His daughter. We also find that Scripture defines exile of the Jewish people as G'd having sold the Jewish people (compare Kings I 12,9). Inasmuch as the Torah legislated that if one acquires a male Jew as a slave he has to serve six years and no more, the Torah i.e. the Jewish people, is portrayed here as complaining to G'd why if the male Jewish slave should have to serve only six years, a Jewish girl, אמה, may have to serve longer; the Torah says that such a maid-servant will not automatically leave her master's employ after six years as does her male counterpart. In other words: "why has the Jewish people (the daughter) been sold into this long and bitter exile? Why are they not entitled to be treated in accordance with the male Jewish servant described in our chapter?"
  The Torah (Israel) repeats the argument by saying: "assuming that the girl is רעה, still guilty of the sins that caused her to be exiled in the first place (compare Isaiah 50,1: 'you have been sold on account of your iniquities') in the eyes of her master to whom she has been betrothed," after all she was also G'd's betrothed," as has been spelled out in Song of Songs 4,8? To this question the Torah (G'd) replies that the word לו in אשר לו יעדה, has also been spelled with the letter א, i.e. meaning that there are times when Israel does not qualify as G'd's betrothed. Israel is portrayed as countering that as long as it is in exile under the dominance of alien masters והפדה, she is deserving of release, seeing that her shortcomings are not even recognisable while she languishes under alien masters, בעיני אדוניה. Israel argues that her inadeqacies could come to light only if she would be redeemed and still fail to demonstrate her true repentance. As long as her erstwhile master has not redeemed her she could not do proper repentance. G'd replies that Israel was sold because it did not remain true to her master (G'd) while it lived in peace and unmolested, at a time when no alien ruler dominated her.
  Israel tries again by saying that if G'd did not want her as His bride, at least He ought to treat her as His son, seeing that there are numerous occasions in the Bible when the Jewish people are described as G'd's sons when compared to the other nations. Those nations are fully aware that the Jewish people enjoy a special relationship with G'd, even their very name reflecting this. If Israel still enjoyed a special relationship with G'd, at least it should not be treated worse than any other nation, something that unfortunately is evident to everyone following the history of the fate of the Jews. It should be enough punishment that the Jewish people are no longer superior to the other nations. G'd replies to this argument by saying Israel will be treated according to משפט הבנות, the laws applying to daughters. They are called daughters even if they do not qualify as being called G'd's daughter. To this Israel replies אם אחרת יקח לו, "if He takes another in her place," the daughter in question must still not be denied her statutory rights, i.e. שארה, כסותה, עונתה. The <i>Zohar</i> volume 2 page 152 writes that when the destruction of the Temple occurred all the sources which normally supplied Israel with G'd's bounty were turned in a different direction so that this bounty was directed at the other nations. Whereas previously the sacred sites were recipients of this bounty, now the situation was reversed and all this Divine bounty was poured out in unholy places. Israel is depicted as requesting that G'd at least not direct all His bounty to other nations. Even if G'd were to grant most of His bounty to the other nations because He still considers Israel's sins as unexpiated, at least He should not deny her her statutory rights such as שארה, etc. In this instance the meaning of שארה would be her sustenance as per the opinion of Rabbi Aushiyah in the <i>Mechilta.</i> כסותה would refer to her clothing requirements, and עונתה in this instance would refer to G'd answering Israel's prayers when it is in difficulties. [from the word עונה answer, Ed.]
  Israel asks how could it possibly continue to exist without these necessities? Israel adds, ואם שלש אלה לא יעשה לה, "If G'd were unwilling to grant her even those three necessities," at least He should let her go free, ויצאה חנם, without having to make a payment for such freedom, i.e. it should be released from the undertaking to perform G'd's commandments. The words אין כסף mean that Israel claims that her payment in terms of afflictions is adequate already.
  Since we are already indulging moral allusions contained in this passage, here is another possible approach. When the Torah speaks of "a man selling his daughter," the subject is G'd; He is selling His holy nation, Israel, to be a maidservant; seeing that various exiles the Jewish people have found themselves in, such as the exile in Egypt and the exile in Babylon, have not produced the desired rehabilitation of the people, the reason may have been due to Israel having been enslaved to a single nation in each instance. As long as we were a single unit, even while in exile, we never became reduced to the status of אמה, a lowly maidservant. In this present exile when we are scattered amongst all the nations wherever Jews are to be found they are looked down upn, are in disgrace, so much so that even if the redemption would occur tomorrow we have already acquired the title אמה, maidservant. This is why G'd has given us the assurance that the redemption of this nation will not be similar to what it has been in the past, i.e. the word העבדים is a reference to Exodus 20,2 where the Torah spoke about Egypt being בית העבדים, a house of bondage. The difference between the redemption then and the redemption to come is that at that time G'd only had to orchestrate the redemption of a people from one single country as distinct from what will happen in the future. The miracles which will be performed at that future redemption will eclipse the ones performed when the Israelites left Egypt. When the final redemption will occur the rulers of all the nations will prostrate themselves before Israel as predicted in Isaiah 49,23.
  The Torah goes on to say אם רעה בעיני אדוניה, which we have to understand in light of a statement in the <i>Zohar</i> that if the redemption would occur as a result of Israel's good deeds as compared to the redemption which will occur because G'd's timetable has run out. If the redemption ocurs because of the former situation, an angel of G'd whose feet are planted on earth and whose head is in Heaven will become visible. If, however, the redemption will occur only because G'd cannot defer it any longer, the redeemer will arrive as a poor man riding on the lowly ass as described in Zachariah 9,9. G'd assures Israel that even if it is still unworthy when the time comes for redemption, רעה בעיני אדויה, in the eyes of her Master, ולא יעדה, and not deserving of redemption (לא spelled with an א), He will release her, והפדה. He will not continue to let her languish amidst עם נכרי, an alien people, although the nature of that redemption would not match the type of redemption which would occur if the people were worthy of it. At any rate, the "sale" of Israel is not something permanent and irreversible. Job 28,3 expresses this redemption as "He has set an end to darkness."
  The Torah continues and describes a redemption as the result of Israel's having returned to G'd as a penitent sinner; אם לבנו ייעדנה, if they are deserving to be called בנים, "sons," a state attained when they observe G'd's commandments (compare <i>Baba Batra</i> 22), then כמשפט הבנות יעשה לה, G'd will deal with them according to the laws of the daughters. Their holy souls, also known as בנות ירושלים, will be the recipients of all the promises we find spelled out concerning that period throughout the Books of the Prophets. Those Jews still alive at that time will experience the brilliant light with which G'd will then illuminate the universe. They will all be able to point to G'd by saying זה אלי ואנוהו, "This is my G'd, let me glorify Him."
  The words אם אחרת יקח לו in verse 10 describe G'd's promise that regardless of whether Israel is evil so that G'd has sold it in favour of someone else receiving His bounty, or whether it is good so that it qualifies for the status of "son," it will not forfeit the three basics, שאר כסות ועונה. Should it not receive these either, i.e. that the afflictions during exile will be too great, then ויצאה חנם אין כסף. G'd will consider these afflictions as payment for the redemption and Israel will experience the coming of the Messiah even before the final date G'd has set aside in His timetable for that event.
  
  Verse 12
  
   מכה איש ומת, He who strikes a man and he dies as result, etc. This means that death need not occur immediately, such as when one slaughters or chokes someone to death. The striker is culpable even if death is delayed but occurs directly as a result of his blow. The only exception to this rule is if the stricken person had recovered sufficiently to be able to stand on his feet and leave his home unassisted (verse 19). The new element in this legislation is that if the striker had struck the victim unintentionally he is not obliged to flee to a city of refuge unless death occurred as an immediate result of the blow (compare <i>Gittin</i> 70). The Talmud states there specifically that if the victim had vital parts such as most of the windpipe and the gullet severed the killer is not consigned to the city of refuge as we consider the possibility that his victim did not die immediately, or contributed to his accelerated death by making a wrong move. <i>Tossaphot</i> comment that this rule applies only in the case of an involuntary killing. They derive this from Numbers 35,23: ויפל עליו וימות, "he cast it upon him whereupon he died." This means that death did not follow immediately. Although a person who has done this intentionally will be considered guilty of murder even if the victim did not die immediately, we distinguish between the laws of confinement to a city of refuge and the laws dealing with murder. This corresponds precisely to what we wrote that our verse deals with someone who attacked someone else intentionally. If the Torah wanted to include unintentional killing it would have had to write הורג איש instead of מכה איש. As it is, even if the attacker set out to kill now but death occurred only several days later, the death penalty applies. Concerning unintentional killing, the Torah speaks of והאלוקים אנה לידו, "and G'd caused it to happen by his hand;" this means that death occurred by means of the hand of the killer himself, not a delayed effect. You will find this confirmed by Maimonides' ruling in chapter five of his <i>Hilchot Rotzeach.</i> Rabbi Shlomo Aderet, who frequently disagrees with Maimonides, disagrees in this instance also. I find his reasoning quite unacceptable. This is not the place to evaluate the finer points of their dispute, however.
  מות יומת, he shall surely be put to death. The reason the Torah repeats this word as well as in such instances as someone either cursing or killing his father or mother, and someone guilty of kidnapping, needs to be analysed. Remember that it is the prerogative of G'd, the judge of the whole universe, to kill perpetrators of evil. However, instead of doing so personally, G'd has assigned judges of flesh and blood to judge part of the crimes for which people deserve to be killed. These judges are to hand down death sentences for crimes/sins listed in the Torah as carrying the death penalty. In some instances G'd has revealed why certain crimes carry the death penalty, i.e. one to be administered here on earth, while in other instances He has reserved the right to execute the guilty party Himself in His own good time. In all instances where the Torah speaks about the penalty being כרת, such as a husband who has marital relations with his wife while the latter is menstruating, G'd himself is the executioner. <i>Ketuvot</i> 30 informs us that the fact that nowadays we do not have a court authorised to impose and carry out the death penalty, does not mean that the party guilty of a sin for which the Torah legislates the death penalty will go unpunished. In the case of an ox which has gored a human being (the owner having been negligent), the Torah states that the owner should be executed in addition to his ox although such a law is not enforced by a human tribunal (<i>Mechilta</i>) but only by Heaven. Our sages in <i>Baba Metzia</i> 31 elaborated further on this subject.
  
  Verse 13
  
   ואשר לא צדה והאלוקים אנה לידו, If a man did not lie in wait but G'd caused it to happen to him, etc. Why did the Torah say the same thing in different words, i.e. "he did not plan it," and: "G'd caused it to happen?" Besides, why would G'd deliberately cause a person to become an involuntary murderer? <i>Makkot</i> 10 as well as the <i>Mechilta</i> dealing with the laws of the city of refuge and who has to go there, explain that the Torah speaks about wicked people who will become the instrument of performing evil deeds (compare Samuel I 24,14). They illustrate their meaning by the following example. Two people, one an intentional murderer, the other an unintentional killer, meet. There had not been any witnesses to either killing. The unintentional killer was in the process of descending from a ladder; he fell and hit the murderer who sat under the ladder with fatal consequences. The person descending the ladder has to go to a city of refuge. (If the same accident occurred while the unintentional killer was ascending the ladder, he would not have to go to the city of refuge). The intentional sinner was killed by the unintentional sinner. Thus far the <i>Mechilta.</i> This does not seem very satisfactory. True, the intentional murderer winds up getting his just deserts, the unintentional killer, however, has by now committed two killings and has to atone for only one killing while he is in the city of refuge. If we were to argue that he is altogether innocent concerning the instance when G'd made him fall off the ladder, then we must assume that the falling off the ladder was not an act of G'd and as a result the death of the person under the ladder was not the punishment due him as he was not guilty. Had he really been guilty then the fall off the ladder would have to be considered under the heading of "a deliberate act of G'd." This seems a very forced explanation as the Torah describes the example of an unintentional killing as unrelated to Divine interference (Numbers 35,15). The Torah did not distinguish between different categories of such unintentional killings as did the <i>Mechilta.</i>
  The correct explanation is that the person who was originally killed by the unintentional killer had been a deliberate murderer also. G'd could have caused some weight to fall upon such a murderer without involving the unintentional killer at all. He used the unintentional killer as His tool in order to "kill two birds with one stone." The unintentional killer who has now become G'd's tool i.e. ואנה לידו, is guilty of exile in the city of refuge only for the first time he killed unintentionally. Even if he had killed ten people as a result of his fall from the ladder, he would only be liable for exile for the original killing. The penalty of exile is related to the cause, not to the number of killings committed by the person. G'd will not arrange for this unintentional killer to become involved in a second killing in order to be exiled again. As a result of this consideration you will observe that not all unintentional killers are measured by the same yardstick. [This is nothing new since all the killers in the city of refuge go free at the same time, at the time the High Priest dies, regardless of when the people exiled there committed the killing. Ed.] We now understand the Talmud who attributed the fall off the ladder to a previous undetected and unintentional killing by the person suffering the fall. The sages simply selected an example in which both parties were equally guilt-ridden. The true scholar will understand the mystical aspect behind all this.
  It is also possible that the Torah felt that the person who was guilty of involuntary manslaughter and should have volunteered for exile in the city of refuge but had neglected to do so is now being punished for this by becoming the cause of another death. As a result he ought to spend two periods of exile in such a city of refuge. In order to enable him to expiate his guilt the Torah legislated that his stay in the city of refuge is limited; once the High Priest dies, his first exile has been completed. G'd reserves the right to determine when the High Priest should die and thereby to determine how many years such a person guilty of two unintentional killings must spend in exile altogether. While this explanation covers the words: "if G'd made it happen, etc," it still does not explain the conjunctive letter ו before the word אלוקים.
  I believe the Torah was being very specific in legislating the rules pertaining to exile in the city of refuge as related by Maimonides chapter 6 of <i>Hilchot Rotzeach.</i> He states that the only person who has to go to the city of refuge is one who has committed involuntary manslaughter which resulted from lack of precautions plus public knowledge that the killer did not harbour malevolent thoughts against the victim. If, however, a fatal accident could not have been foreseen and the killer had no reason to hate the victim, it is an accident and the killer does not have to go to the city of refuge. These two aspects are covered by 1) והאלוקים אנה לידו, "it was an act of G'd," or 2) אשר לא צדה, "he did not ambush the victim," (but also took no precautions to preclude an accident). If the killer had either entertained hateful thoughts against the victim or had taken precautions against any accidents there is no case for exile. In the latter case the killer is totally exonerated, in the former case there is an assumption of evil intent and taking refuge in a city of refuge is not the answer.
  
  Verse 14
  
   וכי יזיד איש.. להרגו בערמה, If someone plans devious murder, etc. <i>Mechilta</i> concentrates on the word למות at the end of the verse and understands it as excluding "bringing him to trial, inflicting corporal punishment, or exile." This is the reason that Yoav (David's general) who had taken refuge in the Temple holding on to the altar was dragged away and executed. While it is true that Yoav was executed, this was because he was rebellious and not because he had murdered Avner or Amassa (compare <i>Sanhedrin</i> 49). He had fled before he could be brought to trial. The Talmud in <i>Makkot</i> 12 claims that Yoav's error in thinking that the altar could save his life was that at that time the altar was still a temporary structure, Solomon's Temple not having been built yet.
  I have noted that Maimonides writes in chapter 5,12-14 of his <i>Hilchot Rotzeach</i> that the altar serves as a refuge for unintentional killers as far as protection against an avenger who is a member of the victim's family is concerned. It does not act as an alternative to such a killer having to go into exile. Clearly, Maimonides had not seen the Baraitha which we quoted above according to which the word למות excludes exile, etc. The Baraitha's whole point is that if someone tries to save himself in the Holy Temple by holding on to the altar he can be dragged out only in order to be executed and not in order to be confined in a city of refuge. While it is true that one could offer a forced explanation that the words in the Baraitha ולא לגלות mean that that if someone is guilty of confinement in the city of refuge the family's avenger has no right to kill such a person, this is extremely forced seeing it contains no new element. We know this already. Besides, the words in the Baraitha which appear immediately before this comment about לא לגלות contradict such an explanation. The Baraitha had said: "not to have corporal punishment administered to him nor to be brought to trial." I have an even greater difficulty with the words of the author of <i>Mishneh Lamelech</i> who wonders why Maimonides makes a distinction between intentional and unintentional killers seeking refuge at the altar, whereas he makes no such difference at all. The latter statement is incomprehensible even if we did not have a Baraitha at all. We have no authority to rule that the altar fails to act as refuge except in a situation specifically excluded by the Torah.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   וכי יריבון אנשים, And if men quarrel (fight physically), etc. Why did the Torah have to add the words: "and he does not die?" Surely any reader would have concluded that the situation described is one where the victim did not die!
  The intent of the Torah is to inform us that payments of compensation such as loss of income, medical expenses, etc., are all applicable only if the victim does not die as a result of this fight. This is the reason the Torah only mentions compensation for loss of income after it had described the victim as having recovered sufficiently so that he could get about without help.
  I am not sure that if the victim had been expected to die but recovered instead whether this is to be considered an act of G'd (miracle) or not. We have learned in <i>Chulin</i> 42 that an animal which suffers from certain categories of injuries dies within 12 months. In the event it did not die within this period we consider this as something supernatural, and we do not allow such occurrences to change the status of the animal. Similarly in our case. Do we say that the victim's recovery was miraculous and he therefore does not qualify for the various compensations listed in the Torah just as he would not have qualified for such payments if he had died? Or do we consider the fact that he has recovered as the only criterion in determining the compensation due him? According to Maimonides <i>Hilchot Rotzeach</i> chapter 4,3 anyone who did not die is entitled to compensation even if his recovery was a miracle, medically speaking. 
  Subsequently I found the following statement in the <i>Mechilta.</i> "If he does not die but becomes bed-ridden; if, however, the aggressor inflicted the kind of injury which normally results in death, the attacker is free of the obligation to pay compensation." It appears that the author of the <i>Mechilta</i> makes the payment of compensation dependent exclusively on what the attacker had done and how he had done it.
  It appears that the author of this <i>Mechilta</i> holds that the attacker is to be freed from the need to pay for loss of income only if the victim died because the injury he received was lethal. If the victim had succumbed to a non-lethal blow, a situation in which the attacker would not be guilty of the death penalty, he would have to pay the various payments an injured person would have been entitled to. If the attacker did not pay the victim before he died, he would have to make these payments to the estate of the victim.
  
  Verse 19
  
   רק שבתו יתן ורפא ירפא, he shall only pay for loss of income and cause him to be cured completely. This means that even if the victim has regained the ability to get around unassisted but he cannot yet pursue his occupation, the attacker has to continue payments for loss of income. The same applies to continued medical supervision of the victim if the latter deems same as necessary.
  We may understand the word רק as referring to something mentioned by Maimonides in <i>Hilchot Chovel Umazzik.</i> We estimate the cost of medical care as well as the loss of income as soon as the fight is over and the attacker makes these payments immediately. If the estimate proves wrong and the victim takes longer to recover, the attacker is not assessed additional damages. This ruling applies only if the attacker is willing to pay the whole amount of damages immediately. If the attacker preferred to compensate the victim on a day to day basis this limitation on the amount of total damages assessed by the judges does not apply. Maimonides appears to have derived this rule from the word רק in our verse.
  ורפא ירפא. and he will provide full medical services. This too can best be explained by what Maimonides wrote in the above-mentioned chapter of <i>Hilchot Chovel Umazzik.</i> "If the victim said to the attacker: 'pay me cash and I will look for my own doctor, etc.,' one does not take any notice of this." The ruling is derived from the wording in our verse which strongly suggests that the onus of providing medical care is on the attacker personally. This is in contrast to the payment for loss of income where the Torah spoke of the attacker "giving" the payment directly to the victim. There are many other interesting rules which have been derived from the repetition of the words ורפא ירפא.
  
  Verse 20
  
   בשבט, with a rod, etc. Maimonides writes in chapter 2,14 of <i>Hilchot Rotzeach:</i> "I believe that the word "rod" is to be taken literally. If the master hit the slave with a knife, a sword, a stone or a fist, or something similar, and the court judged that the slave would die from the result of such an attack even after a full year, the master is subject to execution." I do not understand why the master should be executed if he used an instrument which is normally not lethal if the victim did not survive for 24 hours. In such a situation the assailant is not guilty of the death penalty even if he struck a person who is not his slave, i.e. not his personal property. I believe that the reason the Torah writes בשבט with a rod, is that if the master's actions prove that all he wanted to do was to discipline his slave, something normally done with a rod, G'd allowed him a 24 hour period before he would be considered guilty of murder seeing that the slave is his personal property and one does not destroy one's personal property on purpose. If the instrument used to inflict fatal injuries on the slave was one that is not normally employed when one wants to discipline someone but a weapon used when one is about to kill a person, such as stabbing the slave in his belly with a sword, the Torah does not grant the master a reprieve of 24 hours during which survival of his slave may save him from a murder charge. He will be guilty of murder even if death occurs a year after the stabbing, for instance.
  
  Verse 21
  
   לא יקם כי בספו הוא, he will not be avenged for it was his own money. If he killed the slave unintentionally (in the accepted sense of the word), the master will have to be confined in a city of refuge on account of this. In this ruling there is no difference between putting to death of one's slave or some other human being. Exile is applicable only if one killed directly, in accordance with the definitions we outlined in verse 12. The Torah only needed to write in which respect the law of a master killing a slave is different from someone who kills a person who is not his slave.
  
  Verse 22
  
   וכי ינצו אנשים, And if men strive together, etc. In this case each one is presumed to have murderous intent. It happpened that instead of killing his adversary the potential killer struck the woman (either fatally or otherwise).
  ונגפו אשה הרה, and they hurt a pregnant woman; the reason that the Torah uses the plural, i.e. "they hurt," is to inform us that if they both fell upon the woman thus causing her to lose the fetus they divide the compensation the woman has to be paid between them (compare Maimonides <i>Hilchot Chovel Umazzik</i>).
  אשה הרה, a pregnant woman, etc., the scenario is one where the woman had been present and both parties were aware of this. If the woman's presence was unknown to the parties involved in the fight, they are not guilty of any compensation. This is based on the Talmud Yerushalmi and stated explicitly in Maimonides chapter 1 of <i>Hilchot Chovel Umazzik.</i> Here is his wording: "If one of the parties was asleep and the other party lies down beside him, the sleeping party is free of any guilt [if his motions cause the death of the second person, Ed.] seeing that whatever harm he caused was totally accidental."
  כאשר ישית עליו בעל האשה, in accordance with what the woman's husband will impose upon him. The reason for this ruling is that the husband has the prerogative to receive compensation for the monetary value of his wife's children (such as when he sells his daughter). As a result, he is considered the litigant against the guilty party and not the mother of the unborn child.
  
  Verse 23
  
   ונתתה נפש תחת נפש, "you shall give life for life." The meaning of these words is disputed. The Mechilta quotes opinions according to which the Torah speaks of an actual death penalty even though the killer had intended to kill another party, whereas other sages hold that the Torah speaks of monetary compensation for such a life (unborn child). According to the latter opinion the words ונתתה, "you shall give," are most appropriate seeing that monetary compensation is something that is given from one hand to another. According to the opinion that the Torah speaks of an actual death penalty, we must understand the word ונתתה as contrast to the situation described in verse 22 when no fatality occurred; instead of monetary compensation for the injury described in verse 22, something involving several types of payments such as for pain, shame, etc; in this instance there is only one exchange, i.e. the life of the guilty party for the harm done. We have learned previously that whenever a party is guilty of the death penalty no additional fines are imposed. The exception is a situation we have described in verse 18 when death did not occur promptly.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   וכי יכה איש את עין עבדו, If a man smite the eye of his slave, etc. In <i>Kidushin</i> 24 Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel and the other rabbis disagree on the meaning of this verse. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the legislation contained in this verse applies only when the master has destroyed the eye of his slave deliberately; the other rabbis hold that even if he had not done so deliberately but had merely aimed his blow at the eye, the slave goes free. According to the rabbis, why did the Torah not begin the verse by writing: "whenever a master destroys the eye of his slave," instead of writing "when he strikes the eye of his slave and he destroys it?" Perhaps the Torah did not use this expression as I would have interpreted it as applying to the eye regardless of the intent which has to accompany such a destruction of the eye.
  The Torah may also have intended to convey that though the eye was not destroyed immediately and totally at the time the master struck the slave but only some time later, the legislation that the slave goes free still applies. This situation is different from the one described earlier when death as a result of an unintentional killing had to occur immediately in order for the killer to be guilty of murder. The opinion of the rabbis is supported by the Torah using the word ושחתה, "he has destroyed it," i.e. even if he had not intended to.
  
  Verse 27
  
   ואם שן עבדו….יפיל, And if he smite a tooth of his slave…. so that it falls out, etc. <i>Kidushin</i> 24 explains why the laws concerning destroying a slave's eye or tooth are not lumped together by the Torah in one verse but have been divided into two separate laws. Rabbi Sheshet says if the eye of a slave was already blind but the master gouged it out, the slave has to be freed. Accordingly, we have two separate laws concerning how to free a slave. One applies when the eyesight of the slave has been impaired as a result of the master hitting him, the other if even a blind eye has been scratched out by his master. Had the Torah lumped these two kinds of injuries together in a single verse, we would have concluded that the same yardstick is applied in either kind of injury. Just as the tooth becomes useless only when it is knocked out, so we would have thought that an eye becomes useless only when it is gouged out. We would not have assumed that destroying merely the sense of sight in an eye was sufficient reason to let the slave go free seeing the slave did not lose a limb.
  
  Verse 28
  
   וכי יגח שור את איש, If an ox gore a man, etc. The apparently superfluous word את is explained in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 79. If Shimon intended to kill Reuven but killed Levi instead he is guilty of murder since he intended to murder someone. The words את איש mean any man, even one other than the target. This applies only if the original target had been a human being; if one intended to kill an animal and killed a human being instead, the killer is not culpable for murder (compare <i>Sanhedrin</i> 78).
  ומת, and he dies, this includes delayed death. As long as the death is attributable to the goring, the ox, i.e. his master, is liable. It is worthwhile to compare Rashi in <i>Baba Kama</i> 41 where the Talmud discusses the law of an ox goring and endangering the lives of three people none of whom died from the goring.
  ולא יאכל את בשרו, and its meat may not be consumed. If the owner ate the meat he will receive 39 lashes. He is, however, not punished for enjoying the remains of the animal in other ways, such as the skin, etc., although any use of the remains of the animal is forbidden. This is the reason the Torah has not lumped all these various examples of injuries and fatal injuries together under a single heading.
  
  Verse 29
  
   והועד בבעליו, and its owner(s) had been warned, etc. The reason the Torah speaks of "its owners" (pl) is that in the event the ox in question is owned jointly by several people, all are guilty of the death penalty; the situation is not comparable to one where two people combined to administer a lethal blow to another. In the latter case both are not culpable before a human tribunal (compare <i>Baba Kama</i> 26). The reason is that there they are only free from a human tribunal, whereas both are guilty in the eyes of Heaven. In our case there is no death penalty by a human court even if the animal belongs to a single owner. When the Torah speaks about the owner יומת, it refers to death at the hands of Heaven. All owners have to pay the required amount of compensation, however.
  
  Verse 30
  
   פדיון נפשו. His soul's ransom. There is a dispute in <i>Baba Kama</i> 40 as to what determines the amount of compensation. Some hold that we evaluate the worth of the victim that has died, others that the basis of the compensation is the value of the offending animal. According to the opinion that we determine the amount of compensation based on the value of the ox which gored, it would appear that where the ox in question was owned by more than one individual each one has to pay the full amount of compensation seeing there is no death sentence by a human tribunal which would override the laws of financial compensation. According to the opinion that the basis of the compensation is the value of the victim, the offenders would only have to share the monetary value of the victim between them. In view of this, the question Rabbi Nachman asked Rabbi Acha bar Yaakov whether both owners have to pay compensation seems out of place, seeing this is a much older Tannaitic argument. Clearly, we cannot assume that the question mentioned in the Talmud is based on the assumption that the value of the offending ox is the basis of the compensation [which everyone agrees serves as atonement not as restitution, Ed.]. In the following scenario an ox worth 200 shekel has gored a human being whose market value as a slave would have been 50 shekel. If the ox was owned by more than one party, and the basis of compensation is the value (maximum) of the offending ox, each owner pays 50 shekels. No allowance is made for the fact that there are two owners who could have shared the damage of 50 shekels that had been inflicted. The problem Rabbi Nachman submitted to Rabbi Acha bar Yaakov was based on the assumption of the <i>Chachamim</i> that the value of the victim serves as the basis of the compensation. It appears that Maimonides also understood the problem in this way for he ruled in chapter 11 of his <i>Hilchot Nizkey Mamon</i> that monetary compensation is based on estimating the value of the slain person (or animal); if two people owned the offending animal, each partner has to pay compensation equivalent to the total value of the victim. The reason Maimonides takes the stricter view is because we have a doubt as to whose opinion is correct, and when matters of compensation for a life taken is involved we always accept the stricter view when in doubt.
  Should the avenger of the victim have succeeded in killing the owner of the offending animal before the latter had a chance to make the compensatory payment, I believe the avenger is guilty of murder. The Torah law covering the avenger is applicable only if the killer had killed by his own hand, not when his property was the instrument causing the death.
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   וכי יפתח איש בור, If a man shall open a pit, etc. This means that even if an ox or donkey fell upon the person digging the pit, not only being killed itself but also killing the owner (digger) of the pit, the owner of the pit (or in this case his estate), must pay compensation to the owner of the animal which tripped and was killed although it caused the death of the owner of the pit (compare <i>Erchin</i> 7).
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   שור איש את שור רעהו, one man's ox that of another, etc. The reason the Torah writes the word את is because the scenario we deal with assumes A) that there were no witnesses, B) that both oxen are of equal value while alive; if, however, the attacking ox was clearly more valuable than its counterpart, the owner of the victimised ox is entitled to only half the value of the damage he has sustained; this is the ruling given in <i>Baba Kama</i> 34. The Talmud writes as follows: "If the value of the offending ox is less than that of the victim, we do not allow the owner of the victim to receive more than half the value of the offending animal. If we were to allow that, then the Torah should not have made the compensation depend on the sale of the surviving ox and its proceeds, but the Torah should have written: 'he shall pay him half the damage he has sustained.' The wording of the Torah proves that the owner of the dead ox does not receive more than half the value of the surviving ox even if this amounts to less than half the amount of damage he has sustained." The Talmud did not bother to mention that the owner of the victimised ox will certainly not receive more than half the value he has sustained. If we were to assume that the Torah assigns half of the value of the surviving animal to the owner of the victimised animal, it could happen that if the surviving animal is worth more than twice the value of the animal killed, the owner of the dead ox would receive more than the total value of the dead animal (while it was alive) as compensation. Such a situation is obviously not intended by the Torah.
  
  Verse 36
  
   ולא ישמרנו, and he did not supervise it adequately, etc. The correct interpretation of this verse follows what we learned in <i>Baba Kama</i> 46. Rabbi Eliezer is on record that the only adequate supervision of an aggressive ox such as the one mentioned in our verse is the knife, i.e. it has to be slaughtered. Rabbah elaborated: "why does the Torah speak of 'if he will not guard it,' because there is no longer any point in guarding it." If the ox had to be slaughtered what is the point of speaking of supervision?" Abbaye answered Rabbah that if one were to accept Rabbah's argument what is the meaning of "he did not cover it" in verse 33? [clearly if the pit had been covered nobody would have fallen into it. Ed.] So far the Talmud. I believe that Rabbah's point is well taken. There is obviously a difference between the situation involving the pit and that of the ox which had gored repeatedly. In the case of the pit, the Torah uses the future tense, it speaks of an event which has not happened as yet; Also the description of the victims is worded in the future. In the case of the ox which had gored repeatedly the Torah commences by telling us of the past history of that ox. The Torah suddenly switches to the future tense by saying ולא ישמרנו. Actually, the Torah should have written ולא שמרו, "and he did not guard it." Rabbah did not bother to answer Abbaye in the Talmud. According to the view of Rabbi Yehudah that even relatively minor supervision of such an ox is adequate in order to exonerate the owner if the ox gored again, the Torah must be understood thus: ולא ישמרנו, "if he did not guard it at all." It is worthwile to study the Talmud at the end of the chapter on folio 46.
  ישלם שור, he shall pay an ox. Although the Talmud in <i>Baba Kama</i> 4 states that an ox which is a מועד, whose owner has been put on notice that his ox is agressive, will have to make restitution by paying the victim from the best quality of the fields the owner posesses, this rule is limited to situations when the owner of the aggressive ox owned property of a quality superior to that of the owner of the victim. If not,-using our verse as a guide,- he may be allowed to use the ox itself as payment. The statement in the Talmud may only mean that the owner of the aggressive ox must not use earth which is inferior to that owned by the victim's owner as a means of payment.
  
  Verse 37
  
   וטבחו, or he has slaughtered it, etc. This refers to either the ox or a sheep. Should the stolen animal be a lamb or a kid and the thief had to raise it in his home so that it turned into a different category animal, i.e. a fully grown one, he is not liable for this five or four-fold payment, seeing he had become its owner by the twin method of <i>shinnuy reshut u-mekomo</i> a change of both domain and place (home). This is the thrust of the comments by the Talmud in <i>Baba Kama</i> 65.
  השור. the ox. In the Mishnah <i>Baba Kama</i> 62 it is stated that only the two categories of animals mentioned here ever qualify for the four or five-fold compensation payable to the owner. The reason cited there is that if other animals were included in that legislation the Torah should have written the words "and he either slaughtered it or sold it," immediately after the word שור instead of waiting until both שור and שה had been mentioned. As it is we deduce that either one of these two categories is meant exclusively. The present wording excludes both other categories of animals as well as the same category of animal if it had matured in the hands of the thief.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   אם המצא תמצא ביד הגנב, If it was indeed found in the hands of the thief, etc. The reason that the Torah repeats the word המצא "to be found" is, A) if there are witnesses who testify that the thief has stolen this particular animal; B) that the owner or others have found the animal in its original state in the possession of the thief. If neither of these two conditions exists the thief is presumed to have either sold or slaughtered the animal in question and he has to make four or five-fold restitution on the basis of this assumption. The words: "he shall pay double" apply only when the animal is located unharmed. You should appreciate also that the law of four or five-fold restitution applies not only in the examples cited by the Torah; the same applies if the animal was lost or the thief gave it away as a gift. As long as the animal left the domain of the thief he becomes liable for this four or five-fold payment. <i>Baba Kama</i> 79 states so explicitly. The same applies even if the thief donated the animal to the Temple. I believe we can use this nuance as proof that if someone stole from a pagan or idolator he is not liable either for the double payment or to be sold for such theft if he is unable to make restitution as provided for in verse two. I am basing this on the use of the word רעהו in connection with this legislation (compare verse 35). This word always refers to someone who is a fellow-Jew. Clearly, the legislation in 21,35 applies only to offences committed against fellow Jews as mentioned in the <i>Mechilta.</i> We also know that the situation of a Jew being sold into servitude when unable to make repayment for theft applies only when the theft had been perpetrated against a Jew. Theft from Temple property also does not carry this kind of a penalty. The above is the opinion of Maimonides expressed in chapter three of his <i>Hilchot Geneyvah.</i> Since Maimonides does not cite a reason for these rulings I have decided to suggest the reasons for his decisions.
  
  Verse 4
  
   כי יבער איש שדה, If a man cause a field to be consumed (the grain growing on it), etc. This verse has to be understood in conjunction with <i>Baba Kama</i> 56. Rav said that if someone places his own animal on a field of his neighbour, such field being full of growing grain, he is liable if his animal consumes some of it. The Talmud there adds that although this is obvious, we apply this rule even when the owner merely placed his ox in a position where it faced the growing field of his neighbour in every direction open to it; the owner of the ox is guilty although he had not actually led the animal by hand. The Torah writes: כי יבער איש, to tell us that even if the animal does not belong to the person who perpetrates this act, he is liable for the damage. The Torah goes on to say ושלח את בעירה, to tell us that even if he did not do what he did by hand but merely let loose his animal in the general direction of the neighbour's field failing to take precautions against his animal causing damage in his neighbour's field, he is liable for the damage caused by his beast.
  
  Verse 5
  
   כי תצא אש, If fire escapes (from someone's private domain), etc. The Torah means that even if one lights a fire in one's own private yard such a person is liable for damage caused by such fire outside his domain if the blaze was such that the owner should have foreseen it could extend beyond his own fence. If an individual lit a fire in his private yard which could not be expected to extend beyond his own boundaries he is free from responsibility if it happened unexpectedly. Such an accident would have to be considered an act of G'd (compare <i>Baba Kama</i> 61). When the Torah speaks about ומצאה קוצים, that the fire "finds thorns," it means that even if there were no other inflammables in its path, the fact that the stack of corn is consumed by fire results in the person starting the fire having to make repayment, שלם ישלם. He will have to pay for either the stack of corn or the field in which the corn is still growing, as the case may be. He will even have to pay for the stalks though the latter were a contributing cause to the corn being burned. All of this applies only if the fire "found" the thorns. If a person other than the one who started the fire contributed to its spreading, then that second person is liable for the entire damage which occurs as a result.
  The Torah repeats the words המבעיר את הבערה "he who kindled the fire," to hint that the guilty party has to pay even for the stalks which were the real culprits in spreading the blaze.
  Another aspect addressed by the word ומצאה, "and finds," is a situation where the person kindling the fire was unaware that there were any thorns in the vicinity, or where these thorns at least had not been present at the time the fire was kindled. It is presumed here that some third person came along and placed these thorns in a position where they created a hazard. In all of these situations the person kindling the fire is still liable for damage caused.
  There is, of course, also a moral/ethical approach to this whole paragraph. The Torah describes the wicked practicing their wickedness in order to awaken man from his lethargic and mindless sleep when he observes how evil takes root all around him. The Torah says כי תצא אש, "when fire spreads," a simile traditionally describing people's problems. We find a description of this in <i>Yuma</i> 77 [discussing certain aspects of the prophet Ezekiel's vision in Ezekiel chapter 10, Ed.] where the archangel Gabriel is portrayed as asking the "man clothed in linen," (an angel in charge of fire) to prepare the destruction of Jerusalem by fire. This angel is to be regarded as a symbol of an intensified attribute of Justice at work.
  When the Torah speaks of ומצאה קוצים, this is a reference to the wicked who are considered nothing but painful thorns. The expression ומצאה may be understood in a sense similar to Deut. 31,21 that "trouble befell them." The justification for using the word מצאה is that the wicked have no one who is responsible for them, either benevolently or otherwise. Wickedness means rejection of authority. G'd is the only true authority, and He has abandoned them as a result of their deliberate wickedness. Anything that happens in their lives subsequently is in the nature of a מציאה, a find, something one comes upon accidentally. Anyone who encounters such a person may do to him what he wants without divine interference. The verse also informs us that once fire has been given permission to act destructively, i.e. as the attribute of Justice, it will not only burn the thorns but it will also consume the stack of corn (the good, the useful). The choice of the word גדיש is an allusion to youngsters studying Torah, children who have not yet attained the height of adults, i.e. קמה. They are swept away together with the guilty as part of the troubles sweeping society. According to <i>Shir Hashirim Rabbah</i> on Song of Songs 1,4, when G'd was about to give the Jewish people the Torah He demanded guarantors that the people would continue to observe it. After having turned down the patriarchs as suitable guarantors, the <i>Midrash</i> relates that G'd accepted the people's children as their guarantors. This is the meaning of Psalms 8,3: "from the mouths of infants and sucklings You have established strength, etc." As a result of this arrangement the attribute of Justice is entitled to include such children in retribution when these forces are at work.
  The Torah says: או הקמה, "or the standing corn;" this is a hint that on occasion when the destructive forces are about to engulf all of mankind, or all of the Jewish people, the choicest of the people are killed as an act of atonement for the members of their generation and in order to ensure that society as such can continue. This too is explained by <i>Shir Hashirim Rabbah</i> in connection with Song of Songs, 1,14 אשכל הכפר, the word הכפר being understood by the <i>Midrash</i> in the sense of כפרה, atonement. The Psalmist (Psalms 92,13) compares the upright posture of the righteous to that of a palm tree. Hence the term קמה describes צדיקים very aptly. On occasion the iniquities of the people have become so great that the death of the righteous is not enough to ensure the survival of the people. This is why the Torah mentions: או שדה, "or a field;" the field is an allusion to the totality of the Jewish people, i.e. there are circumstances when even the death of the children plus the death of the righteous are not sufficient atonement to give the rest of the people another lease on life.
  The Torah informs us that a day will come when G'd will make a reckoning with the forces who have initiated all this, and on account of whom G'd had to use the children and the righteous as atonement for the common people. This is the meaning of: שלם ישלם המבעיר את הבערה, "the thorns which have kindled the fire will certainly have to make restitution." <i>Sanhedrin</i> 100 tells us that when the time comes, G'd will make sure that the wicked are tough enough to be able to endure all the suffering G'd has in store for them as part of the restitution they have to make. We have it on the authority of <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 63,10 that when the sons of the righteous reach maturity so that they are no longer punished for the sins their parents may have been guilty of, their parents make a feast at which they bless the Lord for having freed their children from being guarantors of the conduct of their fathers. [This appears to be the reverse of fathers blessing the Lord on the day their sons become of age because they, the fathers, are no longer liable for mistakes made by their children. Anyone interested in pursuing this is referred to the commentary of Rabbi David Luria on this <i>Midrash.</i> Ed.] At any rate, G'd punishes the ones who by their actions have released the forces of retribution in the world. The way a person is able to vanquish all these potential fires of his evil urge which if allowed to rage is apt to consume both the children and the righteous together, is if he is truly concerned about all these consequences that his own conduct will evoke and suppresses his evil inclination as a result of such concern. Our sages have taught us in <i>Kidushin</i> 40 that one should always view oneself as if the world teetered on a scale of guilty and innocent and the next action one performs decides in which direction the scales will tilt so that one holds the fate of mankind in one's hands, figuratively speaking. Should one make the wrong move one not only carries the guilt of an untold number of souls but is also responsible for all the souls which will never be born (placed inside bodies) due to the premature death of their parents. Alternatively, the reason the Torah repeats שלם ישלם is an allusion that G'd does not only bring retribution on the person who has started the actual fire but also on the one who has been the ultimate cause of such a fire, i.e. Satan. We have been taught in <i>Sukkah</i> 52 that the day will come when G'd "slaughters" the evil urge, (angel of death). At that time the angel of death will not even be able to escape to Bazrah, a reference to Betzer [the first city of refuge mentioned in the Torah Deut 4,43 Ed.] seeing that he was an intentional killer and as such does not qualify for taking refuge in such a city (compare <i>Makkot</i> 12). The Talmud <i>Baba Kama</i> 60 has interpreted the passage in Isaiah 63 in a different but also homiletical way.
  
  Verse 6
  
   כי יתן איש אל רעהו כסף, If a man deliver money to his neighbour (to keep), etc. Our sages in <i>Baba Metzia</i> 94 understood this passage as speaking of a שומר חנם, a trustee who does not get compensation for his trouble. As such he is not liable in the event the item on deposit with him was either stolen or lost. The sages there consider such a trustee as guilty of rendering an oath concerning any kind of misconduct a trustee could have committed. I do not know whence the sages derive their conclusion. The Torah obligated said trustee to swear that he had not been negligent in guarding the item properly against theft or disappearnce. Having sworn this oath he is free of any further liability. Rashi, (folio 95) in his commentary on the case of someone who borrows a neighbour's tools or beasts (without paying for the use) and who was guilty of some form of abuse, writes as follows in his introduction to the discussion of a שומר חנם. "The Torah deals with a situation where a wrong was committed, seeing the Torah uses the expression על כל דבר פשע in connection with the oath to be rendered." Whence does Rashi conclude that verse 6 speaks of a שומר חנם? Perhaps Rashi's reasoning is that the fact that verse 6 describes items such as money or utensils which normally do not require any special supervision seeing that they do not move about. It is likely that these are the items which a neighbour would undertake to guard without compensation. In verse 9, however, the Torah chooses as its examples such animals as a donkey, an ox, etc., animals which require much more supervision, something that one cannot expect from one's neighbour unless one pays him for his troubles.
  אל רעהו, to his neighbour, etc. Our sages in <i>Baba Metzia</i> 56 understand this word as excluding a situation where the item was deposited with the Temple Treasurer for safe-keeping. The reason that such a Temple treasury is not liable for any damages is that there is no time when G'd Himself does not supervise everything entrusted to the Temple treasury. Requiring confirmation by an oath would be most inappropriate then.
  כסף או כלים, money or utensils, etc. The Torah did not really have to write more than "when a man gives to his neighbour to keep, etc." Verse eight already lists all the various things which are subject to safe-keeping. Our sages deduce from here all the details of liability if the trustee did not exercise due care. If the verse had spoken about a keeper who does not receive compensation, the Torah needed to mention only money, why did the Torah add the additional "or utensils?" The <i>Mechilta</i> suggests that just as money is something one is in the habit of counting, the utensils mentioned are also of the kind which are normally counted; this statement is used for the principle that any claim not involving something that can be measured, counted, or weighed is not a true claim. Thus far the text of the <i>Mechilta</i>. There is no contradiction with what we have written. I believe that an additional reason for the Torah writing the word כלים is to tell us that even if the keeper was willing to compensate the owner by paying for the missing utensils he has not thereby discharged his liability of swearing an oath that he was not negligent in his guardianship. In chapter six of his <i>Hilchot She-eylah u-Pikadon</i> Maimonides writes that if the utensil in question was in good condition at the time he received it, the keeper has to render an oath (concerning his not having been at fault if it disappeared). While it is true that Maimonides considers this rule merely of rabbinic origin, he regards the Torah's words: "if he did not put his hands במלאכת רעהו," as proof that the only way the utensil was identifiable was that it was the work of his neighbour. Even if one could not identify it by size, weight or quantity, the keeper still has to render an oath if he claims he had lost it or that it had been stolen.
  לשמור, to keep safe, etc. In his <i>Mechilta</i> Rabbi Yishmael describes a scenario according to which the owner deposited the items in the home of the keeper and told him: "keep it safe for me." If, however, he merely said to him: "your eyes are on it," the neighbour bears no responsibility. In <i>Baba Kama</i> 93 the sages interpret the word לשמור, to guard, as excluding liability for losing it, tearing it, or money which had been intended for distribution to the poor. It is evident from the words of <i>Tossaphot</i> on that folio that the Rabbi only meant to exonerate the keeper from negligence if the owner had not used the words: "keep it safe for me." If, however, the keeper had damaged or abused the utensil in question with his own hands he is still liable for compensating the owner unless the owner had specifically authorised the keeper to destroy the item in question. I find it hard to understand how the sages could deduce two separate exclusions from the word לשמור, A) that if the owner had not specifically worded his request by saying "keep it safe for me" that the keeper would not be liable for negligence, and b) that if the owner told the keeper to destroy it that he would not incur a penalty for doing so? I believe that the interpretation in the <i>Mechilta</i> is soundly based on our accepted principles of exegesis, whereas the statement in <i>Baba Kama</i> is merely based on logic. The author of that theory used the wording of the verse as an אסמכתא, a loose link to the written Torah, in order to support a rabbinic decree. You ought to realise that the reason the sages added the clause of excluding the keeper's liability if the ultimate designation of that money had been distribution of it to the poor, is based on the fact that it is money which has no legal claimants. Rabbi Yoseph cites an occurrence in which a purse full of money for the poor in Pumbedita arrived there. Rabbi Yoseph entrusted this money for safe-keeping to a trustee; the money was then stolen from said trustee due to the latter's negligence, and Rabbi Yoseph declared the keeper as liable to replace it. Abbaye queried this, citing a Baraitha in which the words לשמור ולא לחלק לעניים are used as the basis for exonerating the keeper from liability. Thereupon Rabbi Yoseph countered that this applied only if the money had not been allocated for the poor in a specific location (compare Rashi there). In that instance, however, the money had been intended for the poor people of Pumbedita and each one of them had a claim to a certain portion of this money. Seeing the matter is so, there was no need for the Torah to write a special exclusion such as the word לשמור in order to teach us that the keeper is not liable for money which has no legal claimants. As soon as the money had been designated for the poor, the owner, i.e. the person entrusting the purse containing such money to a neighbour for safe-keeping, no longer owned it and therefore could not hold anyone responsible for it. It should not make any difference whether the person entrusting the purse of money had told the keeper to distribute it to the poor or not; the keeper should be free from liability as the money has no legal claimants. The proof for this argument lies in Abbaye's query. What was Abbaye's argument? Perhaps in the case of Rabbi Yoseph the person handing the purse to the trustee had told him specifically: "guard it well?" Why did Abbaye not use the stronger argument that we can prove from the Baraitha that unless the trustee had been told specifically: "guard it well," he had not accepted liability for negligence even if the money had not been intended for distribution to the poor at all? Furthermore, the sages state in that Baraitha that Rabbi Nathan interpreted the word לשמור as including anything which is comparable to either money or utensils.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   על כל דבר פשע, Concerning any matter of trespass, etc. Our sages in <i>Baba Metzia</i> 57 understand the first words על כל as an inclusive rule, whereas they consider the subsequent details, i.e. שור, חמור, etc., as exclusions of categories not fitting the details mentioned; the final words על כל אבדה are again nterpreted as an all inclusive rule covering any movable object which represents money. This excludes landed property which cannot be moved, slaves which are compared to land, as well as documents which are not viewed as constituting money. Maimonides rules similarly in chapter two of his <i>Hilchot Geneyvah.</i> The plain meaning of this ruling appears to be that if the שומר חנם was negligent in guarding either a slave or documents he would not be liable seeing that he would not even be liable for the disappearance of either money or utensils unless he had been negligent.
  I have found the following statement by Maimonides in chapter two of his <i>Hilchot Sechirut:</i> "It appears to me that if the unpaid keeper was negligent in his supervision of slaves entrusted to him for safe-keeping, or in similar situations, he is liable to make restitution. The only reason we find an exemption to such liability in the case of slaves, documents, and lands, is when they have been stolen or lost and the keeper does not have to render an oath as to his not having been negligent. If, however, there is evidence of the keeper having committed a trespass, we follow the rule that everyone who commits a trespass is treated as if he had caused actual damage and has to make restitution. There is no distinction in such a situation between lands, documents, and movable objects considered as equivalent to money. Anyone examining this will find that this ruling is absolutely correct. Thus far Maimonides on the subject. Various commentators disagree with Maimonides on this, however. Their argument is that if the keeper (also a borrower) had indeed committed an actual trespass in the presence of the owner, he would not have been considered as guilty as the Torah states specifically that if the animal he borrowed died while the owner was present (i.e. had approved of the activity to which the borrower put such animal) the borrower does not have to pay (22,23). This includes a situation when the borrower was clearly guilty of trespass. Maimonides himself writes in chapter one of his <i>Hilchot Sechirut</i> that "even if he was guilty of trespass, i.e. negligent guardianship, as long as he had obtained permission for the activity the borrowed animal performed, the borrower is free from paying compensation. Maimonides cites Exodus 22,23 as proof for his ruling. Clearly, we cannot compare the law applicable to someone who is merely guilty of negligence to someone who has caused damage with his own hands. The פושע, negligent person, is neither in the category of a guardian nor is he an actual מזיק, spoiler. He is a person who had absented himself from his task of guarding an object, as a result of which the object entrusted to him disappeared. The spoiler, on the other hand, caused the damage himself. As a result the commentators query how it is possible that such a spoiler should not be responsible for his actions? At the very least the unpaid keeper should have to swear that he was not negligent seeing that if he was negligent he is guilty.
  I believe that the commentators who attacked Maimonides by using the example of a borrower who uses the owner's animals or tools with his permission are quite wrong The situation they cite is an entirely different one from the one discussed by Maimonides. In that case the Torah had stated explicitly that the borrower is free from making restitution. When the Torah excluded an unpaid keeper's liability in the event he has been entrusted with a slave, documents, or land, the Torah nowhere excluded the keeper's liability in so many words even if the keeper was only negligent, never mind if he turned out to be a spoiler (מזיק). The Torah spoke only of a situation when such a keeper "did not put a hand to the matter entrused to him." This means that he is free only if he was not a מזיק. When we do hold an unpaid keeper responsible for lack of care this is only an outgrowth of the law applicable to a מזיק. How could we apply such an exclusion to something the Torah had not mentioned at all as being applicable to any category of a keeper? While it is true that if the negligence of such a keeper was not in the realm of being a spoiler we would have said that the Torah excluded him from all the categories of damage an unpaid keeper is liable for even if this was not mentioned by the Torah specifically. However, once we see that when the sages indict such an unpaid keeper they do so on the basis of the law of the spoiler, how can we suddenly apply such leniency in the matter? This is precisely why Maimonides wrote that the keeper in question must not be exonerated.
  You may ask that seeing we treat the negligent keeper in a category similar to that of a spolier, then a householder who set ablaze the stack of corn of a hired hand or the hired hand's garment should equally be exonerated, for the negligent person is equivalent to a spoiler whom the Torah has exonerated. Perhaps the Torah meant to exonerate only a keeper who became a spoiler not any other spoiler such as the householder referred to in the most recent example. Furthermore, it appears that even Maimonides will admit that a negligent person is not considered as exactly in the same class as the spoiler, and that if he burned a garment entrusted to him for safe-keeping by its owner he is obligated to replace it. You will find that Maimonides writes in chapter 21 of his <i>Hilchot Ishut</i> that if a wife broke utensils (of her husband) while engaged in the authorised use of same, she is exonerated by a decree of the rabbis. Thus far Maimonides. Commentators remark on this that the woman should at least have to swear that she had not been careless! Concerning such an oath Maimonides writes in chapter 4 of <i>Hilchot She-eylah u-Pikadon</i> that if someone deposits an object with his neighbour for unpaid safe-keeping and it is stolen, the keeper has to swear that he has not laid a hand on said object; seeing that he already has to swear one oath, he is required to add that he has not been negligent either and that the theft did not occcur after he had laid a hand on the object entrusted to him. We can see from the wording that Maimonides considers the principle of the oath as a biblical injunction which covers only the fact that the object had indeed been stolen and is no longer in the keeper's possession. Maimonides clearly considers the oath that the keeper was not negligent as something secondary, rabbinic in nature. If not for the original oath, the keeper would not have had to swear an oath regarding negligence at all. We do not find one word in the Torah concerning an oath about negligent guardianship. It follows that when there is no injunction in the Torah that an oath has to be sworn, the rabbis have not imposed an oath concerning negligence either.
  As a result of the considerations we have just outlined, the exclusion in the Torah which we derived from the list of movable items such as oxen, donkeys, etc., applies only to such oaths in which the keeper declares that he has not himself laid a hand on the objects entrusted to him. If the injured party claims that the keeper has been negligent, he must swear a שבועת הסת, an oath designed to pacify the claimant, an oath instituted by the rabbinic authorities in the period of the Talmud. This oath is mentioned by Rabbi Nachman (<i>Baba Metzia</i> 5) as a rabbinic ordinance. According to the Talmud there the reason we would be unable to apply this oath in the case of Rabbi Yoseph who had entrusted to someone money for safe- keeping is that we do not superimpose one rabbinic ordinance on another. We described the details of the matter of Rabbi Yoseph on page 730. It is clear from Abbaye's question in that story that he felt that the Torah had exonerated the keeper even from the obligations for which a negligent keeper is liable, seeing that there was no one who could legally have claimed this money.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   בין שניהם, between them both. The Torah implies that both the person rendering the oath and the one causing the oath to be sworn are punishable should the owner be aware that the keeper plans to swear falsely.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   אם בעליו עמו לא ישלם, if its owner be present he does not have to pay. We have to consider whether the party exonerated by the Torah in this paragraph is free from restitution only by a human tribunal or whether he is exonerated also vis-a-vis Heaven, i.e. in the Hereafter. Suppose the owner of the universe, G'd, Who has entrusted the soul He has planted in a human body for safe-keeping in his body will demand an accounting from the body when He reclaims an unsullied soul at the death of the person to whom He has entrusted the soul. We read in Deut. 4,9: "you shall guard your soul very carefully." When G'd will reclaim His souls He may find that they have either been "stolen," or "broken," or "captured," or "died." All of these four kinds of "damages" are applicable to souls and may be the result of the person equipped with the respective soul committing various transgressions. [In order to understand what the author refers to the reader has to remember that the author has adopted the concept that each commandment in the Torah corresponds to a specific organ, bone, or sinew of the human body. Non-performance of a commandment is equivalent to maiming that part of the body. Ed.] Some people have their souls "stolen" from them when the person is involved in an encounter with impurity; others lose their soul when involved in a deliberate act of transgression; in such an instance the person is considered as having destroyed the limb or organ charged with performance of that particular commandment. Sometimes a person is guilty of a transgression for which the penalty is כרת, premature death and/or permanent severance from his people. Still others may commit violations punishable with death by a human tribunal. Such sins cause the death of the soul (compare Genesis 17,14). In other cases the soul is merely taken "captive" as per <i>Zohar</i> volume two page 95. When G'd -the owner of the deposit- demands its return in the condition He has deposited it, the spirit is supposed to return to G'd as stated by Solomon in Kohelet 12,7. Our sages in <i>Shabbat</i> 152 interpret this to mean as G'd saying: "give it to Me as it was given to you." Can the keepers, i.e. human beings, decline liability for damage to their soul by basing themselves on the wording in our verse: "if its owner was present, the keeper does not have to pay?" The sages in <i>Baba Metzia</i> 97 state that it is possible for the borrower to escape liability for what he has borrowed if he asks the owner of the article he wishes to borrow to first let him drink some of his water. If the owner agrees, he is considered as in the category described in our verse as having worked with the consent of the owner. The same ruling is applicable to "keepers" (seeing their liability is generally on a lower level than that of the borrower). Seeing that G'd has provided man with his food and drink before man begins to be active on earth, He should be considered as in the category of the lender described in the Talmud, and man should be free from liability for his mistakes.
  I am duty bound to tell the human soul not to rely on such convoluted reasoning for either of two reasons. 1) In our verse the Torah tells us explicitly that "keepers" are liable in accordance with all the rules applicable for the various categories of such guardians listed in <i>Baba Metzia</i> 94. The Talmud even says that the owner of the object entrusted to an unpaid keeper may stipulate that the unpaid keeper assumes all the liabilities of a person who borrows with a view to using the object under his care. This is so in spite of the general rule that one may not impose conditions which override those stipulated in the Torah, as in this case only financial dealings are involved. Above-named restriction does not apply in matters concerning money. In practice this means that the owner may hold the borrower (or guardian) responsible even if the latter had undertaken to perform tasks with the borrowed object with the knowledge (read consent) of the owner. We find an example of this in <i>Makkot</i> 3 where the lender of a long term loan stipulated that the law of <i>Shmittah</i> (automatic cancellation of past-due loans) not be invoked against him, and that the loan in question would be due after the <i>Shmittah year.</i> The Talmud explains the reason for this as being that all financial conditions mutually agreed between two parties are binding. In our instance, G'd has made it plain in His Torah that violating His laws will result in retribution. Moreover, He has even made the Israelites render an oath concerning their obligation to live up to the commandments of the Torah.
  The second reason that man cannot avail himself of the legislation which exonerates negligent behaviour of the borrower in the presence of the lender has to do with the principle that only a few of man's trespasses are subject to judicial prosecution on earth. In principle, it is the Supreme Judge who has the prerogative to sit in judgment of human activities and to adjudicate such cases fairly. Who is to say that a person who is guilty of negligent dealings with his neighbour's property will not be judged by the Supreme Judge Himself? We have hundreds of instances of violations which are subject to G'd's judgment only, human judges not having been accredited to deal with such violations of the Torah! The best proof of this concept is the fact that there are many violations concerning which the Torah has specifically stated that the transgressor will not be held liable by a court on earth but will be judged either by G'd directly while still alive, or at least in the Hereafter. I have explained this in detail on Exodus 21,12 on the words מות יומת. You will find for instance, that when "keepers" have been negligent with property owned by the Temple treasury they are not subject to penalties by a human court. Even Maimonides who held keepers liable in cases where lands, documents or slaves are involved, appears to hold that this is so only vis-a-vis human owners. When the property is owned by Heaven or its representatives, no action is taken against the offending party. You may conclude that the reason that no action is taken is because such people are guilty of something more serious than is subject to earthly judges' jurisdiction.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   וגר לא תונה, "You shall not wrong a stranger, etc." Rashi says that if the Jew were to remind the stranger of his idolatrous past, he has to be prepared to be reminded by the stranger of his own unsalutary past. Ibn Ezra says that we must remember that we were once no better than the stranger. Nachmanides disagrees with both these interpretations and says that we must remember that G'd will respond to the oppressed just as He responds to our own outcries when warranted.
  Once we remind ourselves that the souls of the Jewish people are the very root of sanctity seeing that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their offspring were part of G'd's heritage, we can understand that Jews do not react to insults heaped upon them by the Gentiles. We do not even view such people as in the category of אדם. It is this attitude vis-a vis the Gentiles that provides the background for Jews belittling Gentiles, even those Gentiles who have ceased worshiping idols. As a result the Torah saw fit to tell us why we must not remind strangers of their idolatrous past. We are not to tell such people that they are rooted in the domain of the קליפות, i.e. that their intrinsic worth is inferior to ours. When the Torah reminds the Jewish people: "for you were strangers in the land of Egypt," this should be understood according to my comment on Genesis 46,3 and Exodus 20,2. I have demonstrated there that while the Jewish people resided in Egypt their own souls were mired deeply in the same moral morass that the souls of the Egyptians found themselves in.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   אם ענה תענה אותו, If you afflict them in any way, etc." Why did the Torah have to write the word אותו, "him," and did not merely write אם תענהו, using the pronoun ending? We would have known that the subject of the verse is the orphan just mentioned. Perhaps we can best explain this with the help of the <i>Mechilta</i> on the words לא תענון. The author writes that but for the word לא תענון in verse 21, I would have thought that this injunction applies only to widows and orphans. Whence do I know that one must not treat people generally in an exploitative manner? This is why the Torah writes לא תענון. Thus far the <i>Mechilta.</i> Since the words לא תענון apply to people as a whole, the word אותו in verse 22 is needed to tell us that the special penalty in store for people transgressing this commandment spelled out in verse 23 applies only if the violation was committed against either a widow or an orphan.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   אם כסף תלוה, If you lend money, etc. Rabbi Yishmael says in the <i>Mechilta</i> that the word אם in any other verse in the Torah means that something is optional. In this case the word אם means "when" and not "if." We need to understand the whole concept of G'd employing the word אם to describe things which may or may not occur. Why does G'd not phrase legislation in a definitive manner? Perhaps the Torah wants to provide an answer also to those who ask why some people seem to enjoy far more riches than they can possibly need in their lives. Such a questioner may well point to our patriarch Jacob (Genesis 28,20) who asked G'd for the necessities of life, i.e. bread to eat, and clothes to wear." While we can understand that depriving man of his necessities may have morally rewarding results seeing that the person so deprived may be punished for wrongdoing and may turn to prayer in order to expiate his guilt, what is the educational value of giving someone excess wealth? Our verse provides the answer to this question. Generally speaking, G'd in His great kindness provides generously for the needs of all His creatures. He allocates a fixed amount for these needs. When a person has not qualified for receiving his needs at the hands of G'd directly because he is guilty of sinful conduct, G'd does not recall the amount that would have been allocated to such a person, but He redirects it to someone else. As a result, the person who does not receive his livelihood from G'd directly, either suffers deprivation or is forced to receive his livelihood through another channel. Receiving one's livelihood by means of a fellow human being instead of at the hands of G'd is demeaning for the recipient. When G'd re-allocates the channels by which such a sinful person receives his livelihood, He practices two virtues. 1) By punishing the person in question in this world for his sins, the sinner is encouraged to rehabilitate himself. 2) G'd gives the wealthy person an opportunity to use his wealth constructively by performing charitable deeds. 
  This is the true meaning of: "when you lend money to My people, the poor who is with you." The Torah suggests that if we find ourselves in possession of more than we need, we are to lend it to someone whom the Torah, i.e. G'd, describes as עמי, "My people." The meaning of this verse is that if you become aware that you have more money than you need for your personal requirements it is clear that the excess had originally belonged to someone else, i.e. "the poor amongst you." This is a clear hint that you should open your hand to lend to the poor part of what used to be his, or had been intended for him. Perhaps the Torah even hinted to the wealthy person that when he extends a loan to the poor he should not credit himself with being a superior person seeing that the loan only represents a partial return to the poor of what had originally been intended for him by G'd Himself. This may also be the reason why the Torah says: "do not act as if you were his creditor." The word נשה is related to נשיאות, a superior status or posture; the Torah reminds the lender that what he lends to the poor was the property of the poor in the first place. This is why the Torah goes on to speak about the prohibition to charge interest on the loan.
  
  Verse 25
  
   אם חבול תחבול שלמת רעך, "If you take your neighbour's garment as a pledge, etc." The moral/ethical message of this verse may be to awaken a person in whose hand the garment of the king (G'd) has been entrusted. Proverbs 27,10 states: רעך ורעת אביך אל תעזב, "do not forsake your friend or the friend of your father." The person in question is supposed to relate to said garment in the manner described in <i>Shabbat</i> 152. The return of the soul to G'd is compared there to a king who had distributed Royal garments to his servants. The intelligent ones folded these garments and placed them in a chest for safe-keeping. The fools wore them and performed their daily routines while wearing them. When the day came when the king asked that his gaments be returned, the intelligent servants returned them in good condition, ironed, etc. The fools returned the garments soiled, crumpled, etc. The king rejoiced when he observed the care taken by his intelligent servants, while he was angry at the foolish servants. He sent the former back to their homes in peace whereas he made the fools spend a long time in jail while the garments were being cleaned. We have already explained that man's soul is part of G'd's light. The Psalmist describes G'd as garbed in light (Psalms 104,2). G'd ordered that if the item (soul) He had given man as a pledge had become soiled, i.e. that man had committed sins while "wearing" the soul, there would come a time when he has to return this pledge (i.e. his death, described in our verse as "sunset"). Psalms 90,3 speaks about "the soul returning to dust, or broken-hearted." Our sages in <i>Kohelet Rabbah</i> 2, understand the word דכא as the dismay of death; man was given an opportunity to repent until the day he died, i.e. until the day his sun set.
  The reason the Torah repeated the words חבול תחבול, is that every Israelite has three levels of soul known in ascending order as נפש, רוח, נשמה. Our verse refers to all three levels of his soul. When the Torah speaks of אם חבול, it refers to the נשמה. The word תחבול refers to the רוח; whereas the words שלמת רעך refer to the נפש. The Torah repeats this division when it defines the nature of these respective levels of pledges, i.e. the words כי היא כסותה לבדו, "for that is his only covering," refer to the נשמה. The words היא שמלתו לעורו, "it is the garment of his skin," refer to the רוח level of man's soul; finally, the words במה ישכב, "wherein he shall sleep," refer to the נפש level of man's soul. The latter is the remnant of the soul which remains with man even while he is in the grave as we know from Job 14,22: ונפשו עליו תאבל, "and his soul will mourn him."
  The Torah goes on to say: "it will be if he cries out to Me;" here the Torah returned to the requirement to give back the soul to G'd in the condition it had been received and assures man that he does not need to despair. If he cries out to G'd, i.e. if he is truly penitent, ושמעתי, G'd assures him: "I will listen for I am gracious." G'd assures man that he will wipe out his sins.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעות, "Do not follow a multitude to do evil;" Our sages have offered a multitude of explanations on this verse none of which appear to address the plain meaning of the verse. I believe we need to understand this verse in terms of Numbers 35,24 and 25 ושפטו העדה…והצילו העדה. Our sages (<i>Sanhedrin</i> 4) comment there that when the court is to decide in matters which carry the death penalty there have to be a minimum of 23 judges in order that there could be a quorum (10) which indicts and a quorum which (may) exonerate. The extra number is designed to enable a majority to be present at all times. On folio 17 of the same tractate we are told that should all the judges indict unanimously the accused goes free.
  Our verse intends to remove two obstacles which may mislead a scholar when he ponders the meaning of this ruling. 1) When a judge sits in a collegium of judges and he notices that all his colleagues have made up their minds that the accused is guilty, whereas he feels that the accused is innocent, he may say to himself that by voting according to his conscience the accused will be executed seeing there are already two quorums, one which votes "guilty" and one which could vote "innocent;" this judge may say to himself that if he too votes "guilty" the accused would be freed seeing the guilty vote would be unanimous, the result he has been arguing for. He will justify his behaviour by recalling the dictum of the sages that when faced by a majority one must not insist on one's own opinion. The Torah instructs such a judge not to apply this dictum when voting to indict someone. One must only vote one's own conscience even if the result of such a vote does not correspond to one's wishes or convictions. The Torah uses the word לרעות advisedly, telling such a judge he would do something evil by voting with the majority in order to thwart their purpose. Such a judge is to remember that in the final analysis G'd is the judge; if G'd instructed the judges to let the accused go free in the event they agree unanimously that he is guilty, this does not give the dissenting judge the right to play G'd, i.e. to be the final arbiter of the fate of the accused.
  There is still a second obstacle that a judge may face in such situations. Assume that the judge in question is convinced of the guilt of the accused. He is aware that his opinion is shared by all his colleagues. The judge in question realises that if he votes his conscience, i.e. "guilty," this will make the vote unanimous and result in the accused (whom he thinks of as guilty) going free. In order to prevent this from happening our judge resolves to vote "innocent" in order to ensure that the accused will be convicted. By doing so our judge convinces himself that he merely ensures that the majority will prevail, a laudatory objective. However, morally speaking, this too is a way in which a single judge imposes the outcome of a trial on the majority. To prevent this from happening the Torah wrote לא תענה על ריב לנטות אחרי רבים, "neither shall you vote in a dispute so as to ensure the vote will be based on a majority (as opposed to unanimity)." The Torah explained the reason for this legislation as being להטות, i.e. that the individual judge in question attempts to pervert the outcome of the proceedings by not voting his conscience.
  
  Verse 3
  
   ודל לא תהדר בריבו, "And do not favour the poor in his litigation." The extra word בריבו contains a moral/ethical message based on <i>Vayikra Rabbah</i> 34, that the poor is liable to engage in a confrontation with G'd asking Him why He supplies everyone else with their needs whereas he is hungry and naked. Everyone who gives even a copper coin to a poor and thereby stills his hunger prevents the poor from complaining to G'd and accusing Him that G'd is not gracious to the poor. On the other hand, at times when no one on earth is gracious to the poor, his argument is very powerful. The Torah therefore commands us not to contribute to strengthening the voice of the poor who accuse G'd of insensitivity to their fate.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   לא תטה משפט אביונך, "Do not subvert the right of your needy, etc." Perhaps the emphasis is on the ending "your" in the word אביונך. We have learned in <i>Baba Metzia</i> 71 that the poor of your family take precedence in their claim to handouts over the unrelated poor of your city, whereas the local poor take precedence over the poor from other cities. The Torah warns here that we must not pervert this rule when setting out to do charity. "Your own needy" must always be the first on your list of charities.
  
  Verse 7
  
   כי לא אצדיק רשע, "for I will not acquit the wicked." According to <i>Sanhedrin</i> 33 the term נקי refers to someone who testifies that he knows of evidence in favour of a person who has been convicted of a certain misdemeanour. In such a case the trial is re-opened. The expression צדיק in our verse, on the other hand, refers to a person against whom accusations are levelled after he has been acquitted. The Torah states therefore, that once a person has been acquitted of a certain crime he cannot be tried for it a second time. G'd reassures the reader that in the event the acquittal by the court was based on an error, He, G'd, will not allow the person who parades as a צדיק to go scot free. The Torah does not want us to think that seeing a person has been found guilty, "how can the verdict be overturned by fresh evidence?" The Torah answers simply: If the original conviction was fair and corresponded to the facts, I, G'd, will not allow such a person to get away with it even if he is found innocent in his second trial. The testimony on his behalf will not ultimately result in a perversion of justice. If, on the other hand, the original conviction was based on error, why should the person who can offer testimony on behalf of the convicted be ignored? Concerning the person who had been acquitted and against whom fresh evidence has been found, the Torah simply states that the fact that the court declared someone innocent does not necessarily mean that he is innocent in the eyes of G'd too. G'd has His own court and it is quite inconceivable that G'd would seal a decree by a human court which is erroneous. We are taught in <i>Ketuvot</i> 21 that it is forbidden for anyone to sign a document which appears to be fraudulent. You may well ask why we do not apply the same principle, i.e. that a court erred, and re-open the trial of someone who had been freed before new evidence against him had come to light? I believe we can best answer this by recalling that G'd "regrets" something evil on occasion. He does not, however, "regret" a decision which was favourable. As a result of this consideration, if a person has once been acquitted he is not subjected to a trial again for the same alleged offence. When a person has been found guilty in his first trial, the suffering he endured until he was finally exonerated in a second trial may even approximate the suffering experienced while he faced execution for a sin not comitted. He may therefore ultimately be exonerated by a Heavenly tribunal even for sins committed for which he had not been tried at all.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ואתם ידעתם את נפש הגר, "and you are familiar with the way a stranger feels." Compare what I have written on 22,20 "you must not disadvantage the stranger." The present verse is proof of the truth of what I have written there.
  
  Verse 10
  
   ושש שנים תזרע את ארצך, and for six years you will seed your land, etc. This commandment is connected to the previous one warning us how to avoid the taste of being an alien, i.e. an exiled person similar to what is written in Leviticus 26,34: "then the land will make up for its sabbaths, etc."
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   תעשה מעשיך, "you shall do your work, etc." The Torah was careful not to write: "all your work" as in the Ten Commandments (concerning the Sabbath). The reason is that during the Shmittah year the farmer cannot do his regular work even on the six days of the week.
  
  Verse 13
  
   ובבל אשר אמרתי, "and in all things that I have said, etc." The reason the Torah writes ובכל ..תשמרו instead of simply וכל אשר…תשמרו, is connected to the statement of the sages (<i>Makkot</i> 23) that the number of positive commandments is 248, corresponding to man's limbs, whereas the 365 negative commandments correspond to the number of sinews in the human body (compare <i>Zohar</i> volume one page 78). A person should not say: "I am going to observe a sufficient number of commandments in order to safeguard the health of my body. By writing ובכל, the Torah hints strongly that our good health and well being will depend on our observing all of the commandments.
  ושם אלוהים אחרים לא תזבירו, "and you shall not mention the name of other deities, etc." The Torah means that just as the observance of all the commandments will help man to make all of his 248 limbs and 365 sinews function properly, so there is also an overall protection for man which results from his denial of any form of idolatry. Anyone denying idolatry is considered as if he had accepted the entire Torah and would actively assist all those who are engaged in observing Torah and its commandments. As a result, all the various parts of such a person's body will enjoy protection even if he had not performed certain commandments (because the opportunity did not arise), or he had not been able to demonstrate that he would not violate certain of the Torah's injunctions if given a chance to do so. Such "overall" protection of a person due to his denial of idolatry would not accrue to him if he had ignored or violated one or more of the commandments deliberately, however. The limb or sinew which is "connected" to fulfilment of that particular commandment may then experience pain or malfunction.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   כאשר צויתיך, "as I have commanded you." These words refer to details of commandments which have not been spelled out in the written Torah, such as that Matzah must be made of dough which could rise if allowed to stand. If it is made made of flour made out of rice for instance, it could not be used to fulfil the commandment that we must eat unleavened bread on Passover night. There are many other examples of such details of commandments not spelled out in the written Torah.
  
  Verse 16
  
   בכורי מעשיך, "the first fruits of your labours." This excludes crops raised by a Gentile. His work is not considered a Jew's accomplishment. We are taught in <i>Rosh Hashanah</i> 13 that if the crop has grown to one third of its final size while still under the care or ownership of a Gentile, it does not qualify as something from which this gift of בכורים can be presented to the Priest. This ruling is based on Leviticus 23,10: "the first of your harvests."
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ראשית בכורי אדמתך, "The choicest first-fruits of your soil, etc." Perhaps the Torah hints here that one must not destroy one's seed (semen) and that the son born of one's first seminal emission should be dedicated to the service of the Lord (compare <i>Yuma</i> 2 according to which the word ביתו is an oblique reference to one's wife)
  The Torah emphasises "the house of the Lord your G'd," to exclude that such a son be brought to a brothel. Jacob performed this commandment as he said of himself when blessing Reuven: "you are my strength and the first fruit of my virility" (Genesis 49,3).
  The conclusion of our verse in which the Torah directs us not to boil the kid in the milk of its mother contains another important moral/ethical lesson. When a man deliberately destroys his semen he is the cause of infants dying while they still suckle at the breast of their mother. I have explained this matter in connection with Michah 6,7: "Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for my sins?" When man destroys his semen he creates a destructive force. This destructive force gains control later over a son who is born to such a father. The souls of such children are considered as עשוקות, "oppressed or deprived," as explained in the <i>Zohar</i> volume one page 219. The reason for this is that their father failed to dedicate his first emission of semen for the creation of a life devoted to the service of the Lord.
  According to the opinion that the legislation of mixing milk and meat results in a prohibition of any benefit from such a mixture, this would explain why this legislation adjoins that of the bringing of the first-fruits to the Temple seeing that such first-fruits are also totally prohibited to their owner (compare <i>Chulin</i> 114 and Maimonides <i>Hilchot Bikkurim</i> 2, who declares that one must not use בכורים which have become ritually defiled for heating the stove). I have written more about this in my book פרי תואר.
  
  Verse 20
  
   הנה אנכי שולח מלאך לפניך, "Here I am sending an angel ahead of you, etc." The author feels that the angel described here is not an intermediary, one of G'd's ministering angels, but the "great angel," the one who redeemed the patriarchs, a concept familiar to Kabbalists. He says that by definition we do not recognise a force as an intermediary, i.e. an independent power to whom we have to show respect and obeisance. [I believe that the reason for this statement is that reading verses 21 and 22 could lead one to believe that G'd inserted some angel between Himself and us. Ed.] Only at the end of time, will the world recognise that G'd and His name (those speaking in His name, such as angels) are One; compare Zachariah 14,9.
  
  Verse 21
  
   השמר מפניו, "Take heed of him, etc." In this verse G'd defines our relationship with this angel as involving both a positive and a negative commandment. The negative commandment is contained in the words השמר מפניו, just as in all other places where the word השמר introduces a negative commandment. The positive commandment is contained in the words ושמע בקולו, "listen to his voice."
  אל תמר בו, "do not rebel against him;" Here too the Torah contains a moral/ethical lesson in addition to the plain meaning of the words. The Torah hints that exchanging good for evil will result in the king being replaced by a slave and the maidservant inheriting the authority of the mistress (compare Proverbs 30,23). The message is that when Israel is sinful it will be subject to an attribute of G'd which takes "revenge" rather than elevates sins to a lesser level. The angel under discussion is not authorised to do this. When the Torah speaks of כי שמי בקרבו, this means that man has forfeited the presence of G'd in his midst because of his sins, and G'd's former presence within man is now centred in that angel. <i>Sanhedrin</i> 38 teaches that the numerical value of מטטרון, Mattaron (the angel G'd appointed in charge of running the universe), is the same as that of his Master, G'd's attribute שדי,=314. When man sins, G'd no longer considers Himself as "his" G'd, i.e. שדי. This is the mystical dimension of Isaiah 19,5: ונהר יחרב ויבש, "the river will fail and dry up." The intelligent reader will comprehend that the words כי אם שמוע תשמע בקולו, "if you will surely listen to his voice," sounds as if G'd is speaking about a third person, whereas the Torah continues: ועשית את אשר אדבר, "and you will do what I say." G'd was careful not to say אשר ידבר, "which he will say," in order to remind us that His name is in the midst of the Jewish people.
  
  Verse 22
  
   ואיבתי את אויביך, "For I will be an enemy unto your enemies, etc." Perhaps the Torah hints here that by means of busying oneself with Torah and the performance of its commandments G'd will uproot the source of the קליפה, i.e. Satan, as well as the various branches which are constantly active trying to seduce people and thereby to degrade and dishonour the banner of Torah. You are advised to read what I have written in connection with the confrontation between Cain and G'd in Genesis 4,9-15.
  
  Verse 23
  
   והביאך…והכחדתיו, "and he will bring you there…and I will cut them off." The Torah means that the Jewish people will become the insrument by means of which these nations will be cut off. Please read what I have written on Numbers 14,9 in connection with the words: "their protective shadow has departed from them (while G'd is with us)." The reason is that sanctity will suck up the nutritients (of people who are wicked) so that those lacking sanctity will remain like defeated corpses. This is the mystical dimension of <i>Shabbat</i> 34 "he set his eye on him and the victim turned into a pile of bones." This happened as a result of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai "sucking" up the nutrients of the body of the person who had accused him of declaring cemeteries as ritually pure.
  
  Verse 24
  
   לא תשתחוה לאלוהיהם, "Do not bow down to their deities, etc." Why did the Torah have to record this prohibition once more when it has already been recorded several times? Seeing that the Torah just forbade even mentioning the name of these deities why was there any need to state once more that one must not bow down to them? Nachmanides writes that the more serious a sin the more frequently the Torah warns us not to commit it. This is not very satisfactory in light of the fact that Nachmanides has himself equated the sin of idol worship as equivalent to a violation of all the commandments of the Torah both with respect to the punishment due, and for the reward due for rejecting such idol worship. Seeing a person who bowed down to idols has already been guilty of violating 613 commandments, what point is there in adding one more commandment for such a person to violate?
  I believe there are three reasons why the Torah saw fit to write this verse. 1) The Torah warns us not to appear as comparable to the nations of the world in their deeds. Had the Torah not first mentioned that we must not bow down to and worship their deities, it would never have occurred to anyone that kneeling or prostrating oneself on the floor even for a perfectly secular activity would be forbidden. We would have been convinced that the Torah merely forbade a Jew to prostrate himself for idolatrous purposes. Now that the Torah writes: "Do not prostrate yourself and serve their deities" the Torah reveals what had been meant by the words: "do not act as they do." It refers to activities which were intended to be perfectly secular in character if such activities represented a religious rite for the pagans. We are not to wear the kind of garments idol worhipers wear (as a religious symbol) nor are we to sport the kind of haircut which they use in deference to some religious belief of theirs. The Torah here includes a variety of activities listed in <i>Shabbat</i> 67. The second reason why the words we have in verse 24 are necessary is because the Torah informs us that everything the pagans do contains an idolatrous element. G'd knows man's thoughts and the root of everything he does. If a Jew were to perform deeds which are exclusively the domain of the Gentiles he would unconsciously savour the taste of idol worship. The third reason why the Torah has to warn us here again is that G'd does not only want us not to practice any semblance of idol worship but He wants us to uproot its traces wherever and whenever we are able to do so. This is why He had to introduce the commandment to destroy all such deities by first forbidding us to prostrate ourselves in front of them. G'd implies that if a Jew does not prostrate himself in front of an idol but does not destroy it either, he is considered as if he had actually worshiped this idol. G'd is alert to our thinking, and He interprets the reasons for our not destroying such idols as a reluctance to uproot the philosophies symbolised by such deities from our hearts. You will find that the commandment to destroy such deities and their temples became operational only after the Israelites entered the Holy Land and began to conquer it. (compare Deuteronomy chapter 20).
  
  Verse 25
  
   ועבדתם את ה׳ אלוקיכם, "and you will serve the Lord your G'd, etc." Perhaps we should understand this verse as related directly to what the Torah wrote in 23,24. If Jews are careful to destroy all remnants of the idolatry practiced by the pagans in the Holy Land the result will be that they will serve the Lord with all their hearts and that G'd will bless them and protect them.
  The Torah writes ואת מימיך, "and your water;" seeing that water is the source of all weakness, carrier of bacteria and origin of most serious diseases, G'd promises that He will ensure that our water will be turned into a source of healthy growth. We all know the importance of מים חיים, i.e. springwater, and man's efforts to reside near the source of such water. For all these reasons G'd's blessing is of such importance here. You may do well to study what the Talmud (<i>Berachot</i> 59) has to say about the quality of the water in the river Euphratus.
  והסרותי מחלה מקרבך. "And I will remove sickness from your midst." G'd characterised the blessing as composed of three components. 1) Man (the Israelites) will be healthy in order to enjoy G'd's bounty. The Torah speaks about: "I will remove sickness," i.e. G'd will do this as an act of providence. Unless there is physical health and wellbeing all food will become repulsive instead of enjoyable. 2) There will not be a woman who miscarries, i.e. nature will co-operate; 3) people will live out their allotted years. In all these matters G'd demonstrated His blessing; without these conditions G'd's usual gifts, i.e. health, food, etc., His blessings would not be recognisable as true blessings.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   את אימתי אשלח לפניך, "I will send My terror before you, etc." Even though G'd had said in verse 23 that He would cut off the inhabitants of the land of Canaan, G'd tells the Israelites here that this would not happen immediately but that He would first terrorise the Canaanite population during the time required for the Israelites to increase in numbers sufficiently to take over the country without leaving large areas empty of human beings. G'd hinted here that the conquest of the land of Canaan would proceed gradually, something spelled out in greater detail in verse 29.
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   לא תכרות להם..ברית, "Do not enter into a covenant with them and their deities." Why does the Torah have to prohibit such covenants since G'd had already commanded the Jewish people (verse 24) to destroy these people? Besides, what would be the purpose of concluding a covenant with the deities rather than the people?
  Actually, we must understand the verse as teaching us that the entire prohibition of concluding treaties with the Gentile nations is applicable only as long as the Gentile nations still adhere to their deities. Once they have denied their former deities this prohibition becomes void. This is why the Torah linked the prohibition by the words להם ולאלוהיהם, "with them and their deities."
  The wording of the prohibition also indicates that G'd views anyone who enters into a covenant with an idol worshiper as if he had made a covenant with idolatry. There are two reasons for this. 1) In the end the Jew will stumble and become guilty of idol worship as a result of obligations he took upon himself; the Torah spells this out in verse 33: "lest they will cause you to sin." 2) The second consideration is that the clothing worn by pagans reflects and symbolises their deities. When making a covenant with such people it appears as if one makes the covenant with their beliefs, G'd forbid. It is not sufficient that one had intended to conclude the deal only with the person and not with his beliefs. If the Torah had been content with that, the wording would have been: לא תכרות להם ברית ולאלוהיהם instead of the word ולאלוהיהם appearing before the word ברית, covenant. The mention of the word "covenant" at the end of the verse confirms our opinion that the prohibition is valid only when the Gentiles still recognise these deities. It is perfectly permissible to conclude a covenant with an atheist, for instance. This is why the covenant with the Gibeonites was perfectly admissible. If the Israelites subsequently felt cheated and had remorse about that covenant this is explained by the Jerusalem Talmud <i>Shevi-it</i> chapter 6. The Gibeonites originally were in a position of rebels against the Israelites and were guilty of death under the directive: "do not allow anyone to survive" (Deut. 20,16).
  
  Verse 33
  
   פן יחטיאו אתך לי, "lest they make you sin against Me." The Torah reveals here that imperfection by the Jewish people impacts on the Creator. The logic is as follows: Seeing that the Israelites represent a certain amount of sanctity, they diminish that level of sanctity if they worship idols. Diminishing the amount of sanctity weakens the Israelites' ties with their holy roots, i.e. it impacts on the root of sanctity, i.e. G'd Himself.
  כי יהיה לך למוקש, "for it will become a snare for you." The Torah explains why there is a suspicion that the Israelites could ever agree to trade their honour for such useless forms of religion as these Canaanite deities. G'd explains that it is in the nature of idols to mislead those who worship them into being trapped by them. Our sages in <i>Avodah Zarah</i> 55 explain that there are religions (oracles) which reveal the future to their adherents and which inform them about hidden treasures. G'd was afraid that Jews too would fall victim to such enticements as obtaining knowledge of the future by means of worshiping such oracles.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ואל משה אמר, And He had said to Moses (previously), etc. It appears that this paragraph was revealed immediately after the revelation at Mount Sinai but was inserted in the Torah only here. There is no point in citing numerous arguments proving this theory. Ibn Ezra, Nachmanides, and Rashbam are all agreed that the paragraph must have been revealed at the time of the revelation.
  I have seen an undisputed theory in the <i>Mechilta</i> according to which Moses built an altar on the fifth day of Sivan (a day before the revelation) and that this was the altar mentioned in verse 4, and that he concluded a covenant with the people confirming their adherence to the seven Noachide laws as well as to the statutes he had taught the people at Marah (15,25). Some rabbis hold that the covenant Moses made the people swear to at that time covered all the laws revealed in the Torah till the end of the Book of Leviticus. According to these sages all those laws had to be revealed before the revelation at Mount Sinai. Seeing the people had not been asked to enter into a covenant concernig any of G'd's laws prior to this, we must assume that Moses tested them to see if they were willing to enter into such a covenant of their own free will concerning all of the commandments which had already been revealed even though it had not been G'd Himself who had given them these commandments. Perhaps we find a hint of all this in G'd telling Moses in 19,3:"and tell the children of Israel!" <i>Shabbat</i> 86 understands this directive to mean that Moses was to illustrate the legislation to the people by employing parables and other homiletical material to make these laws appear acceptable in their eyes. As a result of clever presentation of all these laws the people would be prepared to swear an oath obligating themselves to observe all of these commandments. The statement in <i>Shabbat</i> 86 that the Israelites did not say: "we will listen and do," but: "we will do and listen," was the outcome of their each having been "crowned" by 600,000 angels. All these comments prove that our paragraph refers to events prior to the giving of the Torah.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ואל אצילי בני ישראל לא שלח ידו, And G'd did not lay a hand on the nobles of the children of Israel; Why did the Torah have to make mention of ואל אצילי בני ישראל? If the Torah had merely written: "He did not lay a hand on them," I would have known already that the subject of the verse are the elders who were mentioned in the previous verse. Perhaps the Torah wanted us to know that the reason why G'd did not lay a hand on these people at that time was that they were "the nobles of the children of Israel." Alternatively, G'd did not want to spoil the prevailing spiritual high and joy of the people by killing so many of their leaders at that time and causing them to be mourned (compare <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 15).
  לא שלח ידו…ויאכלו, He did not lay a hand;…they ate, etc. Why did the Torah mention once more ויחזו and was not content with the words ויראו? Our sages in <i>Vayikra Rabbah</i> 20,10 claim that these people feasted by means of their vision of G'd, ויחזו. Their very visual experience provided the kind of satisfaction for them that ordinary people under normal circumstances experience as the result of consuming food and drink. This still does not provide an adequate explanation for the fact that the verse reports what G'd did not do as a consequence of an activity by these people which had not even been described. The Torah should have mentioned the eating and drinking before mentioning G'd's reaction or apparent lack of reaction, i.e. His patience in deferring punishment. At any rate, the word ויחזו is quite superfluous even after the explanation of the <i>Midrash.</i>
  Perhaps we must understand the Torah's intention by referring to Exodus 33,23 where G'd speaks about removing his "palm" in order for Moses to see His "back" instead of His "face." At that point G'd made it clear that even someone on Moses' spiritual level who had experienced G'd's presence revealing Himself as no other mortal before or after him, had to be prevented from beholding G'd's face. G'd inserted a divider between Himself and His face. In our verse the Torah reveals that G'd did not insert such a divider between Himself and the vision of these אצילי בני ישראל, "nobles of the children of Israel," because they were אצילים. He permitted them to feast their eyes on this vision.
  We have to understand the whole verse as follows: "They saw the G'd of Israel," i.e. they saw a great light symbolising the G'd of Israel, but they only looked at what was beneath His feet. Seeing that G'd had not laid a hand on them for doing so, i.e. He had not taken measures to deny them this vision, they now indulged in ויחזו, an intensified look, something which provided them with the kind of satisfaction ordinary people get through the intake of food and drink.
  You must not wonder why these people were allowed a vision which was even denied to Moses. When G'd placed His palm before the eyes of Moses this was not to prevent him from having the intellectual/spiritual vision enjoyed by the nobles of Israel. The kind of intellectual/spiritual vision the nobles enjoyed as an exception was something Moses enjoyed on a year round basis. G'd merely wanted to prevent Moses's eyes from attaining a far greater vision, a revelation of a far more exalted vision of G'd. Whereas G'd has words which he employs to convey such concepts, I would not even attempt to record such ideas in print for fear some unworthy person will get to read them, someone who does not deserve the spiritual illumination such words provide.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   דבר אל בני ישראל. "Speak to the children of Israel, etc." Why did the Torah have to spell out: "speak to the children of Israel" and did not content itself with the word לאמור at the end of verse one? It was clear that G'd meant for Moses to speak to the children of Israel! Alternatively, the Torah could have omitted the word לאמור at the end of verse one and simply have continued: "speak to the children of Israel, etc."
  I believe that in order to understand this we must refer to <i>Yuma</i> 4, according to which a person is forbidden to relate to another what he has been told by a third party unless he had been specifically permitted or instructed to do so. The Talmud bases this on the phrase: "G'd spoke to Moses לאמור 'to say'." According to this rule the Torah had to employ the line: "speak to the children of Israel," as otherwise Moses would have understood that whereas he was permitted to convey G'd's words to the people he was not duty bound to do so. When you apply this rule you will be able to account for many other instances in the Torah where the word לאמר is followed by דבר, "speak!" Our Rabbis in <i>Yalkut Re-uveni</i> explain the line "speak to the children of Israel" as meaning that Moses was not to appoint members of the mixed multitude to positions of authority over the children of Israel. They understood the word דבר in this instance as derived from דברות ושררה, expressions denoting authority.
  ויקחו לי, and they shall take for Me, etc." Why is this paragraph introduced by the conjunctive letter ו? Perhaps we can explain this by a statement attributed to our sages in <i>Shekalim</i> 1,3 according to which a person had to pawn some of his possessions in order to to contribute the half shekel for the building of the Tabernacle. We read in the <i>Tanchumah</i> on our portion that actually the Torah speaks here about three different kinds of תרומות, contributions. Two of these contributions consisted of a shekel per head whereas the size of the third contribution varied in size according to the individual's generosity and ability to contribute. One of the fixed contributions was used for the silver sockets holding up the beams of the Tabernacle, the second one was each individual's contribution for the purchase of the animals required for the public offerings, whereas the third contribution was a free-willed gift towards the materials needed for the construction of the Tabernacle. Keeping the above in mind the conjunctive letter ו before the word יקחו suggests a contrast between this donation and the one following which was determined by the individual's generosity, and which was not imposed on each Israelite. The words בני ישראל indicate that the levy was imposed only on the male Israelites, not on the women. Only the males were counted as we we know from Exodus 30,13. Accordingly, the words: מאת כל איש, "from each man," indicate that the levy was of equal size for each person from whom it was taken. Even if a person wished to contribute more than the half-shekel the Torah legislated in פרשת כי תשא, he was not allowed to do so. The extra letter ו also alludes to the fact that something else had preceded the compulsory levy, namely the spirit of generosity mentioned in our verse. When we adopt this method of interpreting the verse, the Torah speaks here of the various kinds of contributions made in connection with the building of the Tabernacle. G'd wished for each one of these three contributions to be made due to a spirit of generosity; a person should not make a contribution until he was in the proper frame of mind.
  This verse may also be explained in consonance with <i>Baba Batra</i> 8, according to which monies for charities may be collected by no fewer than two collectors, whereas distribution of such monies requires the presence of three people. This is in order not to allow arbitrary decisions of an a individual as to who should get part of this money and how much. The second person's presence when collecting the funds is in order that the collectors not be suspected of pocketing some of these funds for their own purposes. The Talmud derives this rule from the words: "and they shall take the gift, etc." Interestingly, both Tossaphot and the <i>Ran</i> claim that the presence of two collectors is mandatory when the amounts are fixed, such as a head tax levied for the poor, whereas when the amounts collected are subject to variation, i.e. each donor decides how much to contribute, three people are required to be present during the collection. Actually, according to <i>halachah,</i> even a single expert is empowered to collect a mandatory levy from people as we know from <i>Sanhedrin</i> 5 where the Talmud empowers an expert judge to pronounce judgment. Rabbi Nachman cites himself as an example of a solitary judge handing down decisions in monetary disputes. [Naturally, the litigants had first agreed to submit to the decision of the single expert judge. Ed.] Tossaphot there write that such a single judge can impose his decision on the litigant. If that is so in matters of litigation, it is obviously the case also where only a mere assertion of authority is involved such as in collecting donations, etc. If a situation normally requiring three judges may be handled by a single expert judge, how much more so can a single expert judge deal with matters which even under normal circumstances only require two laymen. This helps us to understand the words: "speak to the children of Israel" in the sense of "exercise authority." G'd empowered Moses to single-handedly exercise authority when it came to collecting funds for the building of the Tabernacle. Moses was empowered to both distribute the funds and the materials to the respective artisans without having to give an accounting and he was also empowered to collect these funds without anyone supervising what he did. This extraordinary power was restricted to Moses. Whenever anyone else engaged in a similar activity, the rule of "they shall take the contribution" applied. When you will examine the Torah's report of what actually happened (Exodus 36,3), you will find that the people took the various materials from Moses (only), seeing he alone had collected same. Moses did so both with the contributions which were of fixed amounts (the shekel "levy") as well as with the free-willed donations which varied in size and value. We now understand the letter ו which preceded the word יקחו as contrasting the extra-ordinary authority G'd had granted Moses at the outset of this portion with the normal procedures..
  מאת כל איש, "from any man, etc." Perhaps the Torah means that if a certain individual was well known to be of a giving and generous nature they would not assess him as to what could be expected of him but they would accept without question whatever such an individual chose to contribute. When such an individual described his contribution as תרומתי, "this is my contribution," they would let it go at that.
  The Torah also may wish to teach that the term "my gift," cannot be used except when the donor has donated it willingly, generously, with all his heart. This is why the Torah wrote: מאת אשר. If the donor had to be coerced into giving such a gift it does not qualify for the description תרומתי, [a gift truly meant for G'd. Ed.] but is merely referred to as תרומה, "a gift." The Torah alludes to this by writing ויקחו לי תרומה, "they will take a gift for Me."
  A careful reading of the text will reveal that we have three expressions indicating three degrees of gifts. The Torah did not need to write מאת כל איש, as it would have sufficed to write מאשר ידבנו, "from anyone willing to donate." Perhaps all these nuances describe the three levels of charitable gifts that are commonly given by Israelites. They are: 1) gifts by the orphans; 2) gifts by women, and 3) gifts by people who are extremely affluent (or extremely poor). We are told in <i>Baba Batra</i> 8 that one does not obligate orphans to give charity even if the money is intended to free Jewish captives. If, however, such contributions by orphans will enhance their standing in the community, it is permitted to collect from them. We are taught in <i>Baba Kama</i> 119 that women are assessed only a nominal amount when charity is collected. The Talmud defines "nominal amount" in accordance with the economic standing of the women in question. Ravina is reported to have accepted golden chains from women in his town as a contribution. His rationale was that the women in Mechuzza (his town) could well afford it, that such a contribution was really something minor as far as they were concerned. As far as the extremely affluent, the third category mentioned is concerned, the Talmud in <i>Baba Batra</i> 8 forbids that such people be assessed a contribution. We read in <i>Taanit</i> 24 that the charity collectors were careful to keep out of sight of destitute people so as not to embarass them into contributing something they could not afford to give away. In our פרשה the Torah alludes to these three categories of people when it uses excess verbiage in describing the donations for the building of the Tabernacle.
  According to the Jerusalem Talmud <i>Shekalim</i> 1,5, the Tabernacle was a form of atonement for the sin of the golden calf. If so, there was a reason for the Torah to indicate that donations by the aforementioned three categories of people were not mandatory as we might have thought that unless these people also made their contributions they would not enjoy the atonement for their participation in the sin of the golden calf. The extra word את refers to the women; the extra word כל includes the orphans; the words איש אשר ידבנו לבו refer to the poor. It was permitted to accept even a substantial donation from each of these categories. We are also told in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 33,8 that Moses queried the Israelites' financial ability to build the Tabernacle. G'd said to him that even the most insignificant (poorest) Israelite was able to build the Tabernacle (donate the funds needed), and that this is why the Torah writes: "from any man who donates with his heart." This is based on the statement in the <i>Tanchuma</i> in connection with the manna where we are told that the descent of the manna was accompanied by a rain of precious stones and pearls. We are also told in <i>Shir Hashirim Rabbah</i> (Song of Songs 1,11) that the least wealthy Israelite took great amounts of loot out of Egypt and even more at the shores of the sea where the Egyptians had drowned. All this proves that the Israelites were wealthy at the time. Accordingly, the Torah wanted to make it plain that the restrictions the sages placed on raising charitable donations from the three categories of people we described earlier apply only to the norm. When people belonging to either of theses categories enjoyed affluence they were certainly expected to contribute in accordance with their means. The ruling that one does not accept (assess) charitable donations from the orphans applies only when the orphans are neither wealthy nor in need of atonement. When they are in need of atonement, such as at the time the donations for the Tabernacle were required, they certainly had to contribute. Not only that, but even if they made a nominally large donation this may have been accounted as an insufficient donation if they were truly wealthy. The donations were rated according each indiviual's financial ability. The same rule applies to the שוע, the wealthy patrician, who, even if he contributed all the materials for the building of the Tabernacle would not make a dent in his wealth. His contribution would not necessarily reflect largesse on his part. The Torah goes on to say תקחו את תרומתי, to tell us that contributions from these three categories of people are acceptable only because they are contributions to the Holy Tabernacle. Contributions for charities are not acceptable from such people.
  A moral dimension of the verse may have to do with the attachment of the soul to G'd. Such a relationship may be reinforced by means of a tangible gift towards the construction of the Tabernacle. The collective soul of Israel is termed תרומה. This is based on Jeremiah 2,3: "Israel is holy unto G'd, ראשית תבואתה, the first of His harvest." The word ראשית is often applied to תרומה. Accordingly, acceptance of a tangible gift by the Jewish people achieves that G'd's Presence will dwell in Israel. The words תקחו את תרומתי refer to the שכינה which is called תרומת השם.
  
  Verse 3
  
   וזאת התרומה, This is what the gift consists of, etc. The conjunctive letter ו which introduces the word זאת may indicate that the duty of contributing to the Tabernacle could not be discharged by the offering of only one or a few of the categories of building materials required. Unless all the materials specified were contributed directly, the Israelites had not fulfilled their duty. The letter ו then stipulates an additional directive, i.e. not only must you donate generously, but you must donate of all the thirteen materials required. The Tabernacle which represented a re-enactment of the work of creation could not be completed without the presence of all the ingredients listed. Alternatively, the meaning could be that all of the thirteen kinds of materials should be equally welcome. Someone who contributed flax (linen) or skins was not to be looked down upon when compared to someone who contributed gold, for instance.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   אבני שהם ואבני מלאים, onyx stones, and stones to be set, etc. Why were these items mentioned only after the other eleven types of materials? They should have been listed even ahead of gold and silver seeing they are of superior value! Perhaps the reason is that the princes who contributed these stones did so only after the people had contributed all their donations. We are told in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 12,16 that G'd was so displeased with the tardiness of the princes in bringing their donations that the Torah does not even spell the word נשיאים fully in the relevant passage but omits the letter י in their title (compare Numbers 7,10). Mentioning their contribution last was a punishment for their tardiness.
  Another reason for mentioning these stones last may be the fact that they were not used as part of the Tabernacle but only as part of the priestly garments. We have learned in <i>Yuma</i> 69 that it was permitted to make use of these priestly garments, i.e. that one was not guilty of מעילה, trespass, when having made profane use of such garments. Maimonides writes in chapter five of the laws dealing with such trespasses that the priestly garments are not subject to such laws. It follows that the sanctity of the priestly garments cannot be compared to the sanctity of the Tabernacle itself. It is quite logical then that these gemstones, though intrinsically more costly than gold and silver, should be mentioned last in the order of contributions listed by the Torah. While it is true that some of the other eleven materials also served to make the priestly garments, their principal function was to serve as materials from which to construct the Tabernacle itself.
  Moreover, there is an opinion cited in <i>Yuma</i> 75 according to which these gemstones originated in the celestial spheres and their attainment did not represent an effort on the part of their owners nor did their being given away represent a loss to those who donated them inasmuch as they had never toiled in order to acquire them.
  
  Verse 8
  
   ועשו לי מקדש, "and they will make a Sanctuary for Me." Why does the Torah refer to the structure as מקדש, Sanctuary, whereas immediately afterwards and many times subsequently it is described variously as "Tabernacle" or "Tent of Meeting?"
  We may assume that the term Sanctuary covers the instruction to erect a Temple both at the time and during later periods of Jewish history. It is a comprehensive positive commandment basically applicable not only in the desert but whenever the Jewish people reside in the Holy Land. Actually this duty is incumbent upon Israel even while the nation is in exile. The only reason this commandment cannot be fulfilled when the people are exiled is that G'd has specifically forbidden that any site other than the Temple Mount in Jerusalem serve as such a Sanctuary once the first Temple had been built by Solomon. Compare the legislation in Deut. 12,9, where G'd speaks of Israel's having attained מנוחה ונחלה, "rest and inheritance," as prerequisites for the erecting of a permanent (as opposed to collapsible) Sanctuary for G'd. This is why the Torah does not introduce this subject matter by referring to a משכן, a temporary structure. Had the Torah mentioned this term first we would have thought that the commandment was of a temporary nature. Once the Torah had introduced the concept of a Sanctuary for G'd it could proceed to give us the details that were applicable in the desert at the time the Torah had been given. You will find that Maimonides writes in the first chapter of the section of his code dealing with the laws applicable to the Temple that it is a positive commandment to build a house for G'd as the Torah has written: "and they shall construct a Sanctuary for Me." He based himself on the fact that the Torah called the Sanctuary משכן already in the very verse following this commandment. Another reason it is called Sanctuary is that as soon as the people would begin construction it was already considered sacred although the structure had not yet been completed and G'd's presence had not yet taken up residence therein.
  That I may dwell among (within) them: It does not say "within it," which means that the place that God will sanctify to dwell there is within the children of Israel that encircle the Tabernacle with four banners.
  
  Verse 9
  
   ככל אשר אני מראה אותך, "According to all I shall show you, etc." In <i>Midrash Hagadol</i> on our verse it is reported that when G'd told Moses to build a Sanctuary for Him, Moses was dumbfounded asking G'd that seeing that neither the heavens nor the heaven of heavens could contain Him, how could a structure on earth possibly house Him? G'd reassured him saying that Moses had misunderstood what G'd had in mind when He issued this directive. When G'd spoke of a Sanctuary He showed Moses a structure of twenty beams in the North, twenty beams in the South joined by eight beams in the West. G'd explained that he would "reduce Himself" in honour of Israel and out of love for them. We must ask ourselves who is the source that can tell us exactly what transpired between G'd and Moses at that time? Although the words of our sages are all based on tradition, the fact remains that scripture does not even hint at such a conversation.
  I believe we must assume that the sages of the <i>Midrash</i> were troubled by the fact that the verse does not make sense in its present form. If the verse is connected to what follows in verse 10, the Torah should not have spoken of תעשו in our verse at all. Moreover, verse 8 should have read תעשו לי מקדש. Besides, the letter ו in וכן תעשו makes no sense. On the other hand, if the words ככל אשר אני מראה אותך refer to the previous directive ועשו לי מקדש, the Torah should not have interrupted the verse by mentioning "so that I shall dwell amongst them." Seeing that G'd had mentioned prior to our verse that He was going to dwell amongst the Jewish people, this seemed to indicate that He had already completed the directive to build a Sanctuary for Him to dwell in. Our verse then would have been entirely unnecessary. It would have been sufficient to describe all the measurements of the Tabernacle without referring to something (a blueprint) which G'd showed Moses. It appears therefore that the report in the Torah indicates that the Torah corrected itself in order to prevent misunderstandings. Our sages in the <i>Midrash</i> concluded from all this that G'd and Moses had a conversation along the lines described in <i>Pessikta Rabbati.</i> They tried to reconstruct what could have transpired prior to the Torah correcting itself, as it were. It is a case of arriving at the nature of the question after one has heard the answer. The answer in our case was: "according to all that I show you." All that transpired was that Moses thought about the implications of what G'd had said. There is no need to authenticate the conversation between G'd and Moses as it was perfectly natural for Moses to have asked G'd what he did. G'd showed Moses a vision of the blueprint of the Tabernacle at that time. This is why the Torah did not use the future tense i.e. ככל אשר אראה. I will explain in due course why G'd did not content Himself with telling Moses but insisted on showing him.
  We will pursue the same method to explain what our sages said in <i>Berachot</i> 55 concerning Exodus 38,22 where the Torah writes that Betzalel did in accordance with what G'd had commanded Moses. The Talmud adds that Betzalel even carried out work which Moses had not told him about seeing he was able to figure out for himself what G'd must have told Moses. The Talmud explains Betzalel's very name as indicative of his having stood in "G'd's shadow," i.e. becoming aware of what G'd told Moses. As an example the Talmud states that whereas Moses had instructed Betzalel to fashion the furnishings of the Tabernacle before constructing the Tabernacle itself, Betzalel reversed the procedure after having queried how one could build furnishings when one did not have where to put them. Upon hearing Betzalel's question Moses reminded Himself that G'd had indeed told him to build the structure first. He complimented Betzalel on his insight. We must ask ourselves how it was possible for Moses to have forgotten the instructions he had received from G'd in the matter? In order to account for Moses' error we must remember that G'd i.e. the Torah's report, had indeed listed most of the furnishings and their measurements such as the Holy Ark, the Lampstand, and the Table before listing details of the Tabernacle itself. Accordingly, Moses had been quite correct in first issuing instructions about the details of the furnishings to Betzalel. Why then did Moses reverse himself?
  The answer is clear when we consider our verse wherein G'd is on record as showing Moses the blueprint of the Tabernacle. Accordingly, when Moses received the details about the measurements of both the Tabernacle and its furnishings, he was told first about the furnishings. Moses misunderstood that these details were not communicated to him as an instruction to construct them first but that they merely complemented the picture G'd had already shown him of the overall structure. In other words, verse ten is merely a continuation of verse nine in which the visual appearance of the Tabernacle was described. The reason that G'd mentioned the Tabernacle first in 26,6, i.e. "the Tabernacle and its furnishings," is to reflect Moses' incredulity when he had first heard that G'd would take up residence in the Tabernacle. By telling Moses of the measurements of the Tabernacle, G'd emphasized the smallness of the structure. This verse also informs us of the fact that when G'd showed Moses the blueprint of the Tabernacle He showed him the furnishings at the same time. Perhaps the Torah also intended to convey the idea that there was no need for these furnishings to be of a large size. 
  Originally, Moses had decided that the sequence of construction should follow the report in the Torah which commenced in 25,10. When Betzalel questioned him he realised that he had erred and that he should have used verse nine as referring to the first part to be constructed. He excused himself by explaining that he had been informed about two possible venues and had chosen the wrong sequence. Seeing that G'd did not tell Moses the order in which the construction should proceed the author of <i>Pessikta Rabbati</i> is quite correct in saying that we must on no account imagine that Moses had forgotten G'd's instructions.
  When Moses is reported in the <i>Midrash</i> as saying to Betzalel: "this is what I have heard from the mouth of G'd," this does not mean that G'd had told him in so many words that the Tabernacle was to be constructed first; it merely means that Moses meant that he had understood so from the sequence in which things had been shown to him.
  To come back to our question why G'd had to show the blueprint to Moses instead of merely telling him of the measurements of the beams, etc. Had G'd merely told Moses of the measurements without showing him a visual image, Moses could have thought that the measurements were the minimum that had to be constructed but that the Israelites were free to build a larger Tabernacle if they so desired. By being shown an image of the Celestial Tabernacle, Moses realised that unless the Tabernacle on earth matched that in the celestial spheres it would not completely fulfil its purpose of transplanting a suitable residence for G'd to earth..
  When we apply a moral dimension to the interpretation of this paragraph it will be seen that G'd spoke about taking up residence amongst the Jewish people not merely as a consequence of their constructing the Tabernacle but that He said: "I will dwell amongst them" even before having shown Moses what the Tabernacle was to look like (verses 8 and 9 respectively). The message is that the concept of sanctity in its various levels of intensity is independent of measurements. It is a concept which transcends such considerations. To illustrate what I mean take a look at <i>Avot</i> 3,7. Rabbi Chalafta describes that G'd's presence is attracted to even a single individual who occupies himself with words of Torah; he derives this from Exodus 20,21 where G'd says: "wherever I allow My name to be mentioned I will come to you and bless you." Rabbi Chalafta had first made similar statements regarding groups of people engaging in Torah study. The reason he mentioned groups of different sizes was to show us that G'd's presence, i.e. sanctity, is found in different degrees of intensity depending on circumstances. This is why the <i>Midrash</i> in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 74 tells us that G'd's presence is not to be found in a congregation numbering fewer than 600.000. The various statements of our sages dealing with the presence of the שכינה teach us that the quality of such Holy Presence varies almost infinitely, i.e. between a minimum of one and a maximum which is infinite. When G'd first told Moses that He would take up residence amongst the Jewish people Moses did not know what degree of Holiness such Presence implied. He therefore proceeded to ask G'd: "how can Your Holiness be confined to earth?" G'd replied by telling Moses that it would be in accordance with all that He would show Moses. By showing Moses the Celestial Tabernacle He made him aware that G'd would transfer His entire Holiness to earth, so to speak. The Israelites would therefore qualify to be the carriers of the מרכבה. This interpretation justifies the words כבל אשר אני מראה following the words .ושכנתי בתוכם
  וכן תעשו, "in this manner you shall make it." Seeing that I have explained that G'd showed Moses the vision of the Tabernacle in order to make it clear that it had to be built according to the exact dimensions Moses had been shown, you may ask why the words וכן תעשו are needed. Have we not been taught in <i>Shevuot</i> 14 that: "it does not matter whether a ritually impure person enters the Temple courtyard or whether he enters the addition to the Temple courtyard (he becomes guilty in either event to offer a sin-offering to obtain atonement for his oversight), seeing that one may not add to the dimensions of the city of Jerusalem or the Temple courtyard except with the approval of the king, the Supreme Court, the prophet, and the <i>Urim Vetumim</i>, [the parchment inside the breastplate of the High Priest which would enable the latter to receive answers to questions he addressed to G'd, Ed]." The Talmud cites our verse as the source for this ruling, stating that the directive contained in our verse applies throughout the generations. The Talmud derives this ruling not merely from the letter ו in front of the word כן, but from the entire expression וכן תעשו. Rashi confirms this in his commentary. [I have abbreviated this discourse of the author somewhat in the interest of brevity. Ed.]
  I have seen that Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra explains that the letter ו in the words וכן תעשו refer to the furnishings of the Tabernacle seeing these had not been mentioned when G'd said: "and they shall make a Sanctuary for Me." Rabbi Ibn Ezra apparently did not bother to justify the words כן תעשו themselves although the measurements of all these furnishings are enumerated in the Torah separately. Our sages were quite correct when they understood the words ועשו לי מקדש as an overall directive which was followed by details later on. This is why the words כן תעשו pose a problem which our sages answered by saying that the measurements apply to all future generations unless they are altered with the consent of the authorities mentioned in the Talmud. I cannot understand why Rabbi ibn Ezra ignored the comment of the Talmud.
  I also fail to understand the comment of Nachmanides who challenges Rashi's explanation that these words are a directive to adhere to these measurements for future generations. According to Nachmanides, Solomon was not obligated to adhere to the measurements laid down in our portion when he built the Temple in Jerusalem. Nachmanides prefers to see in this repetition an exhortation to proceed with the building of the Tabernacle and its furnishings with all possible speed. When Nachmanides refers to the fact that Solomon (compare Chronicles II,4,8) built the Temple and altar according to entirely different dimensions than the ones described in our portion, he appears to have forgotten what the Talmud says. How could he argue against the Talmud? We must therefore assume that Nachmanides thought that the true meaning of the Talmud is that the words וכן תעשו refer to subsequent generations and were not meant to describe the dimensions of the furnishings but referred to the prohibition of introducing changes in the dimensions of the Temple and its site without the approval of the authorities listed in the Mishnah. We cannot accept his words. Who can decide who is right? Furthermore, if we accept Nachmanides' view, what is the meaning of the Talmud's query whether the rule about anointment of the furnishings applied only to the furnishings in Moses' time and not to those in subsequent Temples? In answering the Talmud falls back back on our verse to prove that only the furnishings of the Tabernacle in Moses' time were sanctified by anointment rather than by being put into use. If Nachmanides were correct, why did the Talmud not simply answer that not all of the details enumerated in our portion applied for future generations?
  At any rate we need to counter Nachmanides' argument that Solomon used different dimensions when he constructed the altar for his Temple. I have seen that Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi attempted to answer the problem. He writes that the words וכן תעשו do not refer so much to the actual measurements as to the proportions of those measurements, i.e. the relationship between length, width, and height respectively. As long as these proportions were maintained the actual size did not matter. Accordingly, when Moses built an altar of five by five cubits, Solomon built it with a base of twenty by twenty cubits. Rabbi Mizrachi's argument is buttressed by <i>Tossaphot</i> in <i>Shabbat</i> 98 according to which we have a problem when, according to the Talmud there, the width of the Tabernacle was ten cubits. Whence does the Talmud arrive at that conclusion? Perhaps the width (inside) was eleven cubits? Rabbi Yehudah answers the query by claiming that we derive the information from the measurements of Solomon's Temple. The length of the Temple was sixty cubits, whereas it is described as having been twenty cubits wide. Similarly, Rabbi Yehudah claims that seeing that the length of the Tabernacle was thirty cubits, the width must have been ten cubits. He bases his view on the words וכן תעשו in our verse. Thus far Rabbi Mizrachi. He goes on to ask why Solomon did not construct the height of his altar to correspond to the proportion of Moses' altar, i.e. twelve cubits high? He answers that the words וכן תעשו apply only to the length and width of the dimensions, not to the height.
  I do not believe that Rabbi Mizrachi's view that the words וכן תעשו mean "for all future generations," apply only to the proportions of the Temple and not to its actual measurements, is acceptable. Rabbi Mizrachi has failed to produce support from the Talmud and we cannot accept such an argument unless it is based on tradition. If we are troubled by the apparent contradiction to the Talmud posed by the fact that Solomon's Temple was of a different size, it is better to leave the question unresolved than to come forward with unsupported theories. I am prepared to deal even with the argument Rabbi Mizrachi purports to base on Rabbi Yehudah's opinion that the inside measurement of the width of the Tabernacle was ten cubits. There is no evidence that Rabbi Yehudah did not base his view on the interpretation of the words וכן תעשו. The fact is that Rabbi Mizrachi did not quote or copy Rabbi Yehudah accurately, but used his opinion to support his theory. The correct interpretation of Rabbi Yehudah's view is that whereas in the case of Solomon's Temple it is clear that the width of the Temple was twenty cubits, in the case of the Tabernacle it is doubtful whether the width was ten or eleven cubits. Rabbi Yehudah used the known measurements of Solomon's Temple merely to help resolve the doubt. It is also possible that the sages in <i>Shabbat</i> 98 had some other proof whence they deduced that the Tabernacle's width was ten cubits, something not based on our verse at all. The fact that Rabbi Yehudah himself does not refer to our verse is pretty strong evidence that he did not accept the theory of Rabbi Mizrachi that our verse speaks only of proportions and not of actual dimensions. Moreover, the very fact that Rabbi Mizrachi is forced to say that the height of the altar was הלכה למשה מסיני i.e. that we have no scriptural guidance concerning it as long as the requirement that it was square was observed, further weakens Rabbi Mizrachi's argument.
  It is worth recalling that the Talmud <i>Zevachim</i> 59 quotes a disagreement between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Yossi as to the height of the copper altars constructed by Moses, by Solomon, by the returning exiles from Babylonia, as well as the altar to be erected in the future. Rabbi Yossi holds that all these altars were or will be ten cubits high. He argues that when the Torah describes the altar in our portion as being only three cubits high this refers only to the part of the altar on top of its foundation. Rabbi Yehudah holds that the dimensions given for the altar built by Betzalel meant that it was three cubits high. The opinion of Rabbi Yossi is accepted as <i>halachah</i> by Maimonides in chapter two of his treatise on the laws of the Temple. The discussion in <i>Menachot</i> 97 also appears to accept that view. In view of the above, Rabbi Mizrachi's question is not in place at all. Rabbi Yehudah who disagrees and claims that the altar of the Tabernacle was only three cubits high follows the literal meaning of our text (27,1). Seeing that Rabbi Mizrachi's problem is only with the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah -not accepted in <i>halachah</i>,- he should not have represented it as if it applied universally. As to the answer that the height of the altar was determined by הלכה למשה מסיני, I cannot agree that the Talmud leads to this conclusion. The Mishnah states that additions to the Temple Courtyard were to be made only with the consent of the authorities we listed earlier. Rabbi Shimi questions where we find scriptural proof for this. The Talmud answers by quoting the words וכן תעשו in our verse as proof that they apply throughout the ages. It is clear that Rabbi Shimi had not heard of the interpretation of the words in our verse as applying only to the height of the altar to the altar of the Tabernacle and not to subsequent structures serving as Temples. If so, why did not the questioner in the Talmud raise the problem of Solomon not having complied with the instructions of the Torah when he built his altar, i.e. the very question raised by Rabbi Mizrachi? Apparently, even assuming that there is a הלכה למשה מסיני concerning this, the questioner in the Talmud had not heard of it. Moreover, anyone immersing himself more deeply in the Talmud's treatment of the subject will conclude that Rabbi Mizrachi did not present the case accurately.
  I wish to state that Nachmanides' question based on Solomon's altar having a base of tweny by twenty cubits is no problem at all. Rabbi Mizrachi's question about the height of the altars also does not present a problem. There is a lengthy <i>Baraitha</i> in <i>Zevachim</i> 62 which goes as follows: "The sages taught that the dimensions of the corner, the ramp, and the foundation of the altar as well as the fact that it had to be square were absolute, not subject to change. The dimension of the length, width, or height of the altar, however, was not absolute." The Talmud asks for the source of this information; the answer given is that the Torah speaks of ה־מזבח in 27,1 instead of merely מזבח. The letter ה always indicates that the measurements are essential and not subject to change. Thus far the Talmud in <i>Zevachim.</i> This teaches that if Moses had wanted to he could have constructed the altar of the Tabernacle to be a square of twenty by twenty cubits (as did Solomon) whereas he could also have made it higher than three cubits. In view of this, Rabbi Mizrachi's question has no basis in <i>halachah.</i> Solomon was perfectly within his rights to build an altar twenty by twenty cubits square, seeing G'd had revealed in the Torah that the dimensions of length, width, and height of the altar were not absolute. Apparently, Rabbi Mizrachi ignored the <i>Baraitha</i> and thought that Moses had not been allowed to build the altar to any specifications other than those mentioned in our portion. If not for this oversight, Rabbi Mizrachi did not need to give us the contradictory solutions we have quoted in his name. I believe that the simplest way to remember all these vexing problems is by remembering that the words וכן תעשו apply to all those dimensions of the altar which are absolute, i.e. the corner, the ramp, and the fact that it must be square as well as the fact that the base of the altar must on no account be less than five cubits square, i.e. the size of the altar constructed by Betzalel.
  It remains for us to investigate which other parts of the Tabernacle were of dimensions that could not be changed in future Sanctuaries and which were subject to change. Maimonides writes in chapter one of <i>Hilchot Beyt Ha-bechirah</i> that future Sanctuaries could be constructed only of either stones or bricks. From my study of Maimonides' writings on the Sanctuary I have understood that there are only three furnishings which have to correspond both in materials and dimensions to those constructed in the time of Moses. They are: the Table, the Lampstand, and the golden altar (inside the Sanctuary). This is also stated explicitly in <i>Menachot</i> chapter 12. Concerning all the other measurements or the appearance of the Sanctuary itelf, the Tabernacle in the desert did not serve as a model. Accordingly, we could conclude that the meaning of the words וכן תעשו in our verse applies in the future only to these three furnishings. This is incorrect, however, seeing that in the Talmud they expressly applied these words also to the sanctity of the dimensions of the Temple Courtyard. If so, the words in our verse apply also to the structure of the Sanctuary itself. Moreover, we know that Solomon constructed the cherubs on the ark according to specifications different from those mentioned in the Torah (41,6). Solomon also made many changes in the construction of the other furnishings.
  If we apply just a little intelligence to the problem we will find that there is no problem at all. We must realise that Solomon did not build either his Temple or its furnishings according to arbitrary considerations. He was not motivated by the desire to erect a magnificent edifice which would confer glory on its builder. He followed instructions received from the prophet. The prophet told Solomon that the very measurements he told him about were an ancient tradition (Chronicles I 28,11) where David handed Solomon the exact blueprints of the Sanctuary he himself had not been allowed to build. Every little detail had been ordained by G'd, and Rashi explains that the prophet Samuel had received the detailed instructions about the shape and size of the Temple from G'd. We have a story in <i>Midrash Shemuel</i> chapter 15 according to which Rabbi Yirmiyah in the name of Rabbi Shimon related that G'd had given Moses the details of the eventual Temple while the latter was standing. Moses transmitted the information to Joshua while the latter was standing; Joshua in turn conveyed this information to the elders while they were standing; they in turn conveyed it to David while the latter was standing. David relayed the information to his son Solomon. At that point everything had already been committed to writing as mentioned in Chronicles II 35,4 by king Yoshiyahu. All this proves that all these details had been handed down from generation to generation. Thus far the words of the <i>Midrash.</i> You will have noted that whatever Solomon did was based on higher authority. This is what we call הלכה למשה מסיני. 
  Rashi writes all this explicitly in his commentary on Chronicles I 28,19. I am quoting Rashi verbatim: "Samuel derived all this information from the Torah by means of the Holy Spirit. The area of the Temple Mount was 500 cubits square. He arrived at the conclusion that the length of the Courtyard was 100 cubits, its width 50 cubits by fifty cubits, etc." It is quite normal to expect that all these dimensions should be alluded to in the written Torah and accessible to people equipped with the Holy Spirit. We find in Kings I 6 that whereas Moses' Tabernacle contained only two cherubs, Solomon constructed four cherubs (verses 23 and 35 respectively). Not only did G'd not appear to have commanded this, but the dimensions of these cherubs were totally different from those fashioned by Betzalel. I believe we can find an allusion to these additional cherubs to be used in the Temple by looking closely at the text of our portion. According to what we have just described the people who were equipped with Divine insights would be guided by the restriction imposed by the words וכן תעשו in certain matters whereas in other matters where the Torah's text seemed to provide an opening for them they would apply such allusions when handing down the measurements applicable to the Sanctuary to be built by Solomon.
  When we approach the subject in this fashion we are also able to resolve the string of questions Nachmanides raised against Rashi's commentary. We can also remove Rabbi Mizrachi's pain to see his revered teacher Rashi under attack by Nachmanides concerning the height of the altar in the desert having been of a fixed and unalterable height.
  In view of the fact that our sages stated that the text of the Torah itself provides hints as to the dimensions of the Temple to be built by Solomon, I may be able to contribute two or three details of such allusions myself. Firstly, the fact that the Torah speaks first about ועשו לי מקדש, and continues with the words את תבנית המשכן is strange. The Torah should have continued with ועשו לי משכן instead of speaking of תבנית המשכן, i.e. the blueprint (dimension) of the Tabernacle. From the change in wording it is fairly clear that the Torah speaks of two different structures as we indicated at the beginning of the whole discussion. The Torah hinted at the fact that the Temple Courtyard was to be one hundred cubits by fifty cubits when it stated (unnecessarily) that the courtyard of the Tabernacle was to be one hundred by fifty cubits in 27,18. This information had already been contained in the verses 9-17. According to the rule that information not needed which is recorded in one verse may be applied to augment information missing elsewhere, I suggest that the Torah hinted at the size of the Temple itself when duplicating these dimensions here, and it is to be appended to the words ועשו לי מקדש. From the above it follows that the restrictive clause וכן תעשו does not apply to the dimension of the future Sanctuary itself, seeing we have a hint that the measurements of that Sanctuary are to be one hundred by fifty cubits.
  We also note that according to Kings I 6,23 and 37 respectively, Solomon constructed a total of 4 cherubs as opposed to the two cherubs constructed by Betzalel for the Tabernacle. Moreover, Solomon's cherubs were of totally different measurements. We need to find justification for Solomon to have constructed additional cherubs.
  It appears that there is an allusion to this in 25,18 where the Torah instructs that two cherubs be constructed of beaten gold, giving their size and adding that they are to extend from the respective ends of the lid covering the Holy Ark. Why did the Torah have to repeat the words: "and to make them" in verse 19 after having already said of the (supposedly) same cherubs in verse 18 "you shall make two cherubs, etc.?" Besides, once the Torah had told us that the cherubs were to extend from the respective ends of the lid (verse 18) why did it have to write: "one cherub from the one end and the other cherub from the other end?" The whole phrase seems superfluous! Why did the Torah add: "on its two ends you shall make them?" 
  Apparently the unnecessary words are an allusion to two additional cherubs which are to be constructed when the Temple would be built. The Torah used the expression ועשית "you shall construct" when speaking of the cherubs to be constructed for the Tabernacle, whereas concerning the cherubs to be constructed in the Sanctuary of the future the Torah speaks in the third person, writing: 'ועשה כרוב אחד וגו. "[The author seems to distinguish between <i>ve-asseh,</i> and <i>va-asseh</i>, considering the latter indirect speech. Ed.] Accordingly, the instruction in verse 19 is addressed to some future occasion. The additional cherubs to be constructed in that Temple in the future do not need to extend from one end of the lid to the other. In fact, the description of these cherubs in the Book of Kings has these cherubs with their feet on the floor (Kings I 6,23-32). Seeing that the wing tips extended to the respective walls, we must assume that the feet of the cherubs were on the ground. The meaning of the word מקצה may refer to wherever the wingspan ended. On the other hand, the meaning of the additional word מזה may be: "apart from this one," referring to another set of cherubs. At this point our verse refers back to the cherubs discussed as being constructed for the Tabernacle.נSubsequently the Torah returns to discussing the cherubs of the Tabernacle saying they have to be positioned on the lid of the Holy Ark. In order that we should not err and think that the Torah again speaks of cherubs of the future, the Torah once more instructs תעשו i.e. "you are to make these (now)." The word תעשו here is hard to justify unless it was meant to prevent some error we could have made as to the meaning of this verse. The words את הכרובים in verse 19 are totally superfluous if the Torah up until this point had been speaking of only one set of cherubs. These words can only be justified if they are meant to direct our attention to one set of cherubs as opposed to another set alluded to previously. When the Torah says תעשו את הכרובים, it is clear that the reference is not to the cherubs which had been mentioned immediately prior to this but to the ones which had been the subject of discussion prior to the present ones. The Torah added that the cherubs mounted on the lid of the Holy Ark are to extend על שני קצותיו, "on the two ends thereof," in order that we should not think that though they were mounted on the lid their feet could extend to the floor (as in the case of Solomon's cherubs). No such condition is mentioned when Solomon constructed his cherubs.
  Although it is a fact that when the actual construction of the cherubs is reported in 37,7-9, the Torah repeats exactly what is written in our portion and you might ask why the duplication of certain words in that portion when obviously it could not refer to the cherubs to be constructed for Solomon's Sanctuary, I refer you to Rashi on 25,19. He explains that the reason this had to be repeated was so that we should not think there were to be two cherubs at each end of the lid. Unless Rashi had agreed that the Torah had already been hinting at a second set of cherubs (the ones of Solomon), why would the Torah have had to be afraid that we could be thinking in terms of four cherubs at all? Surely Rashi's very comment supports my thesis that the Torah contains allusions to the additional cherubs Solomon constructed in his Temple. None of what I have written affects the plain meaning of these verses seeing that <i>Shemuel Haroeh</i> has commented in connection with 27,18 that although the explanation of the meaning of the words: "50 by 50 cubits" offered in <i>Eyruvin</i> 23 could not be the plain meaning of the verse and we have drawn halachic conclusions from the exegesis, this still does not mean that the plain meaning of the verse has been abandoned. The same applies here when we adopt my approach. The plain meaning of the verse is not negated by the need to answer the questions we have raised. You will also observe that here in our portion the Torah speaks of <i>va-asseh,</i> an expression which is absent in the report in chapter 27. This would seem to confirm that in our portion the Torah speaks of (or alludes to) two sets of cherubs.
  We find that Solomon (Kings I 7,48) hid the golden altar constructed by Betzalel for the Tabernacle and constructed another one in its place as explained in <i>Menachot</i> 99. Concerning the Lampstand and the Table there is a difference of opinion in the Talmud whether only the ones used in the Tabernacle were actually used in Solomon's Temple, or whether the additional Tables and Lampstand made for Solomon's Temple were also used in rotation for their respective functions. The Talmud agrees, however, that there was only a single golden altar in the Temple and that the original golden altar was hidden. It remains for us to understand why Moses' golden altar had to be hidden.
  We will observe that the Torah alluded to this by not reporting the construction of the golden altar at the place where we would have expected to read about it. The Torah commenced by describing the dimensions of the Holy Ark, a piece of furniture that stood in the innermost part of the Tabernacle. This is followed by the dimensions of the lid of said Ark. Subsequently the Torah describes the Table, the Lampstand, followed by the directives to erect the beams, and the carpets forming the roof of the Tabernacle, as well as the supporting columns, the sockets and the priestly garments. This is followed by the directives to construct the copper altar, the one positioned in the courtyard of the Tabernacle, the details about the courtyard, the anointing oil. Even the details of the inaugural offerings are all described before the Torah mentions the construction of the golden altar. Clearly, the fact that the Torah delayed mentioning the construction of the golden altar must have a special reason. The reason may be that the rules applying to it are significantly different from the rules applying to all the other components of the Tabernacle. Whereas the parts of the Tabernacle which were suitable for use in the eventual Temple were permitted to be used there, this was not the case with the golden altar. This in spite of the fact that the golden altar was only used for minute amounts of incense twice daily as compared to the Table and the Lampstand which were used far more during the over four hundred years which elapsed between the building of the Tabernacle and the building of the Temple. The original Table made for the Tabernacle in the days of Moses as well as the Lampstand made for the Tabernacle were superior to the ten Tables and ten Lampstands constructed by Solomon for his Temple. The allusions to the eventual Temple are, of course, only allusions.
  
  Verse 10
  
   ועשו ארזן, "They shall construct an ark." It is strange that G'd phrased the directive to build the ark in indirect speech whereas the directives to construct the Tabernacle, the Altar, the Table, and the Lampstand are all phrased in direct speech, i.e. ועשית. Not only does the Torah employ indirect speech in this verse, but when elaborating on the details of the construction the Torah reverts to use of direct speech, i.e. "you shall cover it with pure gold, etc." Perhaps we can find in this anomaly a hint that the bulk of Torah cannot be fulfilled by any individual but requires participation of the entire nation. No single individual can fulfil all the commandments of the Torah, however much he may desire to do so. If an individual happens to be a priest he cannot fulfil the commandment of allocating the 24 gifts which the Torah directs the Israelite to give to the priest. He cannot fulfil the commandment of redeeming his firstborn son. A Levite also is prevented from fulfilling certain commandments by the mere fact that he is a Levite. The phrasing of ועשו ארון in the indirect plural may be intended to remind us of this fact.
  Possibly, the use of the indirect plural here is an introduction to the construction of all the parts of the Tabernacle and its furnishings. By using the indirect plural at this point the Torah may wish to remind us that even where it uses the direct singular when giving directives, these directives are addressed to individuals only inasmuch as those addressed represent all the חכמי לב, (compare 36,1).
  It is also possible that seeing that prior to receiving the second set of Tablets Moses himself constructed a wooden ark (compare Rashi on Deut. 10,1) in which he placed them as soon as he descended from Mount Sinai, the instructions given here refer to an alternate ark, the one to be constructed by Betzalel. In order to distinguish between these two arks the Torah changed its grammar. G'd had already used direct speech when He commanded Moses to construct the original ark in Deut. 10,1. At that time He added the word לך,"for yourself," to indicate that pending the construction of the permanent housing of the Tablets, Moses was to construct a temporary home for them. Whereas the directives ועשית in our portion always refer to the construction by Betzalel of something permanent, the same word in Deut 10,1 did not refer to something permanent. Moses complied personally with G'd's directive to construct a temporary ark (Deut. 10,3) as we know from: "he placed the Tablets inside" (Deut. 10,5). Phrasing the present directive in indirect plural, i.e. ועשו, was to make plain that G'd spoke of an additional ark. Had G'd merely said ועשית, I would have thought that just as the original ark was meant to be his, personally, i.e. to be paid for out of his own pocket, so the permanent ark was also meant to be paid for by himself. Alternatively, Moses could have thought that G'd spoke of the very ark Moses had already made and that now it was to be overlaid with gold inside and out, have staves attached to it, etc. In order to prevent any misuderstandings, the Torah wrote ועשו.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   לא יסורו ממנו, "they shall not be removed from it." The reason that the Torah had to add the word "from it," and could not simply write: "they must not be removed," may be that without the words "from it" we would have understood that as long as the staves were not taken out of the rings completely it did not matter. However, we are taught in <i>Yuma</i> 72 that Rabbi Yossi bar Chanina queried an apparent contradiction between verse 15: "the staves shall remain in the rings of the ark," and 27,7, where the Torah writes: והובא את בדיו בטבעות, "and its staves shall be placed through the rings." This appears to indicate that the staves were inserted in the rings again and again. If so, how could one comply with the need for the staves to remain within the rings? The respective ends of the staves must have been thicker so that they could not slip out of the rings as demanded by the words: "they shall not be removed from it," i.e. they had to be attached so that they could not move. Thus far the Talmud. It is clear from the words of the Talmud that the words לא יסורו are enough to teach us that movement of these staves is forbidden. Perhaps the word ממנו has a different meaning, i.e. that even motion of the staves backwards and forwards within the rings was prohibited. In order to prevent us from thinking that this was also not allowed, the Torah wrote והבאת in verse 14.
  It is also possible that but for the word והבאת I would have assumed that whereas the prohibition of removing the staves is not punishable by <i>malkot,</i> i.e. 39 lashes, as long as the staves had not been completely removed from the rings it is nonetheless forbidden. The word והבאת therefore comes to teach that if the Torah had wanted to forbid any kind of movement by these staves it would have written וקבעת, "you shall affix them," or וחברת "you shall attach them," instead of והבאת, "you shall insert them."
  I have seen that <i>Tossaphot</i> on <i>Yuma</i> 72 ask why Rabbi Chanina based his query on the word והובא seeing that that verse deals with the staves that the copper altar was to be carried by while he ignored the word והבאת in our verse? Tossaphot ask further why Rabbi Chanina did not mention Numbers 4,5-7 which implies that the staves were removed each time the Israelites broke camp and dismantled the Tabernacle. This would contradict the Torah's directive not to remove the staves from the Holy Ark. Tossaphot answer that there were a total of eight rings and four staves attached to the Holy Ark. They base themselves on the wording: (Exodus 25,12) according to which four rings were to be attached to the four corners of the altar and another 4 rings, two each, to opposite sides of the ark. Accordingly, there would have had to be four staves, etc. I cannot justify the opinion expressed by Tossaphot. Many objections can be raised against that interpretation of the verse quoted. The matter is really very simple. The copies of the Talmud quoting Rabbi Chanina as basing himself on the word והובא are simply a scribe's error; Rabbi Chanina did indeed refer to the word והבאת.
  As far as the question raised from Numbers 4,7: ושמו בדיו is concerned, I think that seeing that the purpose of the staves on the Holy Ark was that it be carried by means of them when G'd commanded that the dividing curtain be used to cover the ark when it would be transported, He instructed that the priests drape it over the ark in such a fashion that the Kehatites who would carry it on their shoulders would not need to set eyes on the exposed ends of these staves. Rabbi Yehudah of Orleans (in that Tossaphot) felt that the meaning of Numbers 4,7 is that the staves be put on the shoulders of the Levites. Other Tossaphists have already discounted such an explanation as you can see when perusing the text on <i>Yuma</i> 72. There are additional arguments which can be raised against Rabbi Orleans' suggestion. Considering all the arguments, it is better to adopt my solution. I have no idea how these Tossaphists propose to deal with the fact that our verse (25,12) speaks distinctly of "two rings on its side," not of four. Possibly, G'd commanded two rings to be affixed to the body of the ark in such a way that they could not move, whereas afterwards He commanded Moses to insert two more rings inside the original ones. The latter could be moved backward and forward. This would then be part of the artistic excellence employed when constructing the ark enabling those who carried it to do so with relative ease. At any rate, I cannot abide the thought that there were more than two staves by means of which the ark was carried.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   ונתת את הכפרת על הארון מלמעלה, "And you shall put the lid on top of the ark, from above;" Why did the Torah have to repeat that the "testimony" (Tablets with the Ten Commandments) should be placed inside the ark? We have already been told of this in 25,16! Rashi answers this problem saying that Moses was to first put the Tablets inside and subsequently to put the lid on the ark. He quotes 40,20 where the Torah describes Moses carrying out the instructions given here. Rashi's commentary suggests that unless the Torah had repeated itself one could have erred and thought that the Tablets were to be placed on top of the lid of the ark. I am not satisfied with this. First of all, there was no room on top of the lid for the Tablets as the whole top of the lid was taken up by the cherubs. Besides, if the Torah was concerned about the reader making such an error, it only had to add the word בתוך, "inside," in verse 16 instead of writing אל! There are other objections that could be raised against Rashi's commentary. The comments by Rabbi Eliyah Mizrachi on this duplication are not compatible with his usually profound insights. He wanted to defend Rashi by using the fact that Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra did not see any need to comment as proof that there is no difficulty at all. With all due respect, I feel that Rabbi Mizrachi succeeded in defending Rabbi Ibn Ezra's words rather than those of Rashi. The instructions in verse 16 had to precede those in verse 21 as otherwise the Torah would have commanded placing the lid on an empty ark, seeing that the instruction to put the Tablets inside it would have been issued after the directive to put the lid on top of the ark!
  I believe that the correct interpretation of our verse is to underline that not only are the Tablets to be placed inside the ark but they are not to be taken out again forever, similar to the original Torah scroll which Moses was commanded to place next to the Tablets. Our sages in <i>Devarim Rabbah</i> 9,9 say that if ever there is a discrepancy between the Torah scrolls of one tribe and that of another tribe [the 13 original ones were all written by Moses personally, Ed.], the Torah scroll to be used as the one to compare to is the one which was kept inside the ark. [One could compare what was written in that scroll without removing the scroll from the ark. Ed.] This also helps us to understand why the Torah in our verse mentions the placing of the lid on the ark before mentioning the fact that the Tablets were to be placed in it. All the verse came to tell us is that once the Tablets had been placed inside the ark and the lid had been placed on top they were to stay there forever.
  Another meaning of the verse, i.e. the repetition of what was mentioned in verse 16, is that Moses was to wait with placing the Tablets inside until all three parts of the ark had been completed together with the lid and the cherubs on it. This would appear to be so, based on the sequence of the words: ונתת את הכפרת…followed by אל הארון תתן את העדות.
  A third possibility is, as our sages stated in <i>Baba Batra</i> 14, that the ark contained both the second set of Tablets and the broken pieces of the first Tablets. The two instructions to place the Tablets inside the ark would then refer to the two sets of Tablets, respectively.
  There may also be a moral-ethical lesson in the wording of these instructions. The Torah first describes the lid as being on top of, i.e. spiritually higher than the Tablets which are inside the ark. At the same time the wording of the subsequent verse gives the impression that the Tablets are on top of the lid, i.e. that the Tablets represent spiritually higher values than those inside the ark. The Torah therefore succeeds in conveying to its readers that it is on a spiritually higher level than even the lid with its cherubs, the source of G'd's voice speaking with Moses. If the Torah had used the words ונתת את הכפרת על הארון מלמעלה in verse 16, we would have concluded that the כפרת represented the symbol of supreme spirituality.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   אמתים ארכו, its length two cubits, etc. When you "cube" the dimensions of the Table, i.e. multiplying the two cubits length by one cubit width and by one and a half cubits height, you will find that you have a total of three cubits, or three times one cubit. This corresponds to the influence on our material world by the mystical dimension of the Celestial Table which represents the three levels of נצח, הוד and יסוד.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   לבתים לבדים, as housings for the staves. Whereas I have explained in connection with the rings of the ark that Betzalel had to cast four rings and attach them firmly to the ark, whereas he would insert a second set of rings inside the first ones to support the staves, the Torah here alters its instructions. Here there was no need to make a second set of rings. The rings mentioned here were the ones into which the staves were inserted directly.
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   תיעשה המנורה, the Lampstand shall be made. Why did the Torah need to write these words at all? Was it not enough to write: "you shall construct a Lampstand made of gold?" Our sages in <i>Menachot</i> 28 comment that the word תיעשה allows for the fact that if necessary the Lampstand could be constructed of other metals. The passive form of תיעשה rather than תעשה, "you shall make," is justified then, seeing that in Moses' time there was no need to take advantage of the permission to construct the Lampstand of inferior materials.
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
   כפתריהם וקנותם ממנו יהיו, Their knops and their branches shall be of one piece with it. We are taught in <i>Menachot</i> 28 that both the seven branches of the Lampstand and the seven lamps were essential. [if even one of these items were to be missing the Lampstand could not fulfil its function. Ed.] The Talmud bases this rule on the use of the word יהיו in connection with this directive. This appears difficult as the word יהיו appears only after the mention of the branches, and not in connection with the lamps. The word יהיו appears altogether only twice in connection with the Lampstand, once in our verse and once previously in verse 31 where the making of the Lampstand is commanded. If the Talmud were correct, why does the Torah not mention the word יהיו when describing the construction of the lamps in verse 37? The fact that verse 31 does not speak about the lamps at all surely suggests that only the items mentioned prior to the word יהיו are essential? Even though the <i>Mishnah</i> does not mention anything but the Lampstand itself and its branches, Tossaphot already added that this ruling also applies to the cups, knops, and flowers mentioned in verse 31, but that the reason the <i>Mishnah</i> does not mention those items is that they would not apply when the Lampstand is not made of gold. Maimonides writes in the same vein in chapter three of his <i>Hilchot Beyt Ha-Bechirah.</i> The fact remains that the word יהיו does not appear in connection with the lamps themselves. There is an argument in <i>Menachot</i> 98 as to whether the lamps were an integral part of the Lampstand or whether they were removable. According to the view that the lamps were removable and were separate utensils, whence do we know they were considered essential seeing the word יהיו is not mentioned in connection with them? Even according to the view that the lamps were integral to the Lampstand, surely the sage holding that view concedes that they were not cast in one piece with the rest of the Lampstand, and our problem remains? The problem discussed by our sages in the Talmud appears to center around the question whether the Lampstand consumed the whole talent of gold mentioned in verse 39, or whether the various other utensils were all cast out of the same talent of gold mentioned in verse 39. When the Torah singled out the knops, the flowers and the cups as being מקשה, i.e. cast as a single piece with the Lampstand, no mention is made of the lamps. Seeing that the Torah went to some length to describe the details of the construction of the Lampstand, it is rather evident that any utensils not mentioned were not an integral part of the Lampstand. Besides, when one considers that the Torah emphasises concerning the items mentioned in verse 31 that they were to be ממנה, an integral part of the Lampstand, surely the rules implied by the word יהיו apply to all of them, as mentioned by Tossaphot!
  Perhaps we can say that seeing that the Torah took pains to reveal the function of the seven shafts of the Lampstand, namely to place the lamps on top of them, this is sufficient evidence that just as the shafts of the Lampstand were essential so were the lamps which had to be placed on top of them. This may be the reason the Talmud did not even bother to mention the status of the lamps when it stipulated what was essential and what was not.
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
   ומלקחיה, ומחתותיה זהב טהור; both its tongs and its snuffdishes to be of pure gold. The Torah had to mention the words "pure gold" here as everybody agrees that these utensils were not cast from the previously mentioned talent of gold.
  
  Verse 39
  
   ככר זהב טהור, a talent of pure gold. We have a Baraitha in <i>Menachot</i> 88 which states: The words: "he shall make the Lampstand out of one talent of pure gold," teach that the Lampstand including its lamps are to be made out of the same talent of gold. How did I arrive at the conclusion that the lamps themselves are included in the amount of one talent of gold mentioned? It says in our verse: "all these utensils." This might have led me to believe that the snuffdishes and tongs were also to be made out of the same talent. To prevent me from thinking this, the Torah uses the restrictive clause אותה, "it (alone)."
  Let us take a look at the true meaning of the various exclusions and inclusions in the Torah's text. What is it that we have not yet been told concerning the commandment of the Lampstand so that our verse became necessary at all? Apparently, but for our verse I would not have any idea of the amount of gold needed to carry out G'd's instructions to construct the Lampstand. Ergo, our verse provided this information, i.e. the amount of gold required was one talent of pure gold. Having received this information we became doubtful whether the one talent of gold was enough to include the making of the lamps themselves or not. Such doubt did not include the snuffdishes or tongs, seeing the Torah employed the words "pure gold" when speaking of their construction. Had they been part of the talent of gold mentioned by the Torah, the Torah would not have had to stipulate that they too were to be made of "pure gold," seeing the Lampstand itself was made of pure gold. On the other hand, we cannot argue that the Torah's not mentioning "pure gold" in connection with the lamps proves that they must have been made as part of the talent of gold mentioned. It is entirely possible that seeing that the lamps would be in constant use and the Torah had not mentioned what materials they were to be made of is proof that it did not matter to G'd of what materials the lamps would be made. The Torah had to add the words את כל הכלים "all the utensils," in order that we should know that G'd was very much concerned with what material the lamps were to be made. They were to be part of the talent of gold mentioned earlier. I have no doubt, however, that the snuffdishes and tongs were not part of that talent of gold, otherwise the Torah did not need to stress the words "pure gold" in connection with their construction. Therefore, I am not likely to make a mistake when I read the words "all these utensils."
  After all this, what does remain difficult is the word אותה, "it," which clearly intends to exclude something else. Is this word intended to exclude the snuffdishes and tongs? If so, why was a further word needed to do this? It would appear that a further careful examination of the text reveals that the very fact that the Torah mentions the talent of gold only after having already instructed Moses to construct the knops, cups, and flowers, that they must surely be included in that talent of gold. The Torah therefore had to write the word אותה to exclude said items from that talent of gold.
  There are two reasons why G'd may have decided to write the verse about the snuffdishes, etc. prior to the verse telling us that the Lampstand was to be constructed of one talent of pure gold. 1) The first reason is that the Torah writes in 25,40: "and see that you make them after their pattern which was shown you on the mount." This means that the Torah mentions the overall appearance of the Lampstand immediately after telling us about the amount of pure gold to be used in its constructions plus all its utensils. Had the Torah written verse 39 prior to verse 38, it would have meant that the items mentioned in verse 38 were included in those mentioned in verse 40 about the vision shown Moses on the mount. This would have been misleading, however, as it is entirely possible that G'd had never shown Moses all these snuffdishes, etc. when he had the vision on the mount.
  2) Another reason why the Torah chose to write about the snuffdishes in connection with the lamps is to let us know that just as the snuffdishes were constructed separately, so the lamps were also constructed separately, though the gold used for their construction was part of the talent of gold described in verse 39. The fact that these lamps were constructed from the gold of the talent mentioned did not obligate the Torah to mention it with the Lampstand itself, seeing that their construction was not part of the requirement "you shall make them of beaten work," as were the knops, cups, and flowers (verse 31). Although I explained earlier that the fact that the lamps are not mentioned in the same context as the other details of the construction of the Lampstand as being beaten work, and that this fact proved that they were not included in the directives applicable to construction of the Lampstand, the fact that the Torah wrote about the talent of gold where it did indicates that there are some matters in which these items were comparable to the Lampstand itself. Logic would have suggested that the common factor was that the lamps also had to be made of beaten work seeing that we do not find any item which is specifically excluded from that directive. The Torah therefore had to mention the lamps in context with the snuffdishes to ensure we would not misunderstand its intention.
  Seeing it had become necessary for the Torah to write the verse about the talent of gold after the verse dealing with the snuffdishes, etc., for the reasons we have mentioned, the Torah was afraid that intelligent people examining the subject should not misunderstand G'd's intention in the matter. They should not clim that the reason the Torah wrote about the snuffdishes prior to mentioning the talent of gold is that the gold for it was to be part of that talent. They should not think that the Torah forced itself to write the words "pure gold" in order that we should learn something from the extra word "pure," such as that the purity of the gold used for these utensils was essential in order for them to be capable of performing their function. This would be so even if the Lampstand itself did not have to be constructed out of gold. The Torah wisely used the word אותה to indicate that the snuffdishes, etc., were not part of that talent of gold the Torah spoke of as being "the materials of the Lampstand itself together with its knops, etc." The information that the lamps themselves are to be made of the gold which is derived from the words את כל הכלים, "with all the utensils," remains valid. We can now say with certainty that the reason the Torah listed the verse containing the directives about the snuffdishes, tongs, etc., prior to the verse mentioning the talent of gold, is because of the considerations we have already mentioned. This is the reason that the sage of the <i>Mishnah</i> explains the word אותה as excluding the snuffdishes and pans and all the other utensils including the lamps. He even concludes from the expression את כל הכלים that every single one of the lamps must be constructed from the gold of that talent. I have only expanded this thought by not interpreting all this from the absence of the letter ו which we would have expected the Torah to write in front of the words את כל הכלים. [According to the author these words are best translated as "together with all these utensils." Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ואת המשכן תעשה עשר יריעות, "And you shall construct the Tabernacle out of ten strips of cloth, etc. This number is an allusion to the ten directives G'd used when creating the universe. The Torah wants to tell us that construction of the Tabernacle was as important to G'd as creation of the universe itself. Constructing the Tabernacle would also confer as much merit on the Israelites as if they had personally brought about the creation of the universe which was created by means of ten directives.
  There are still other considerations behind the requirement to use such materials as twisted linen of specific colours, goats' hair, etc. It is not accidental that G'd commanded ten strips of cloth to be made of linen whereas He commanded eleven strips of cloth made of goats' hair (verse 7) to be constructed and to be placed on top of the ten inner strips of cloth. Also the commandment to join five each of the linen strips of cloth together to form one unit, or in the case of the strips of cloth made of goats' hair, to combine two units of five or six strips together, this too was not arbitrary. The reason for all this was that G'd thereby symbolically impressed the three basic letters of His Ineffable Name on these four sections of strips of cloth joined in units of 10+5+6. (י+ה+ו). G'd commanded that all of these strips of cloth be four cubits wide, regardless of whether they were made of linen or of goats' hair. The number four symbolises that G'd's name contains four letters. You will find that our sages in <i>Shabbat</i> 6 state that a minimum of 4 handbreadths square and ten handbreadths height is required to qualify as a private domain. This is an allusion to the four letters in the Ineffable Name of G'd adding up to the number 26. Similarly, 4 by 4 plus 10 adds up to 26, i.e י+ה+ו+ה. Seeing that the letter י is relatively holier than the other letters in G'd's name, the unit of ten strips of cloth made of linen formed the inner cover of the Tabernacle, being closest to (directly exposed to) the Holy Ark. The reason the strips had to be joined in units of five is an allusion to the thought that the first letter ה in G'd's name is always associated with the letter י. This is part of the mystique of the reading of the letter י. When you read (look at the spelling of) that letter as if it were a word, i.e. י־ו־ד, you are combining the י with the letters ו and ד, which between them make up the shape of the letter ה, although you actually read only a single letter. This is part of the mystical dimension חכמה and some of these mystical apects are alluded to in the details of the coverings of the Tabernacle. The first two letters of the word חכמה add up to 28, corresponding to the length of these various strips of cloth the Torah commands as coverings for the Tabernacle. The third letter of the word חכמה, i.e. the letter מ whose numerical value is 40, is represented by the width of 40 cubits which the two units of linen strips amount to when joined together width-wise. The fourth letter in the word חכמה, i.e. the letter ה, equals 5, which is represented by the fact that 5 such strips of cloth had to be sewn together into a unit. It also alludes to the five different kinds of kind deeds that derive from the emanation חכמה. Subsequently, G'd commanded the making of eleven strips of cloth out of goats' hair, their number (11) to complete the name of G'd, i.e. ו־ה. They were to be divided into units of five and six respectively to form an allusion to these two letters in the latter half of G'd's Ineffable Name. The combined width of these eleven strips of cloth of goats' hair, i.e. 44 cubits, are an allusion to the mystical dimension of the spelling of the Ineffable Name as words, i.e. יוד־הא־ואו־הא. When you spell the name in this fashion you obtain a total of 45. (We have already explained on Genesis 48,5 that a discrepancy of a single digit when working with numerical values is compensated for by either adding or subtracting the entire word as required in order to make up this digit, i.e. 44 plus or minus the word serving as basis of the <i>gematria.</i>
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ועשית את הקרשים למשכן. "You shall construct the boards for the Tabernacle." The word למשכן indicates that only the coverings qualified for the term "Tabernacle," not the boards supporting the tent.
  עצי שטים עומדים, "of acacia wood, standing up." Our sages in <i>Yuma</i> 72 say that they were standing up the way they grew. Apparently they derived this from the fact that the Torah did not write the word עומדים prior to the words "acacia wood" but afterwards. Alternatively, the word עומדים, "standing up" could have been written after the word למשכן. Had the Torah written the word in that order I would have considered it as part of the directive, i.e. that these boards were not to be used lying down. As it is, the word only describes the condition of the boards, i.e. that they were in the same position as when they still grew in the earth.
  The moral-ethical significance of the word קרשים becomes evident if one transposes two letters of the word so that it reads קשרים, "forming connections." By means of these boards the celestial forces and the terrestrial forces were to unite. The need for them to be ten cubits high alludes to the number ten which is essential whenever matters of sanctity are at issue.
  When the Torah requires that the width of these boards be one and a half cubits, this is an allusion to the way we celebrate the redemption from Egypt by eating both a whole מצה and a half מצה; the former symbolises freedom, the latter slavery. This is the mystical dimension of the letter ה and the letter ד. Passover reminds us of both our status as slaves and our new-found status as free men.
  The total number of boards, i.e. 48, alludes to the mystical dimension of Isaiah 54,12: ושמתי כדכד שמשותיך, "I will make your "windows" [inlets for spiritual input from the celestial spheres, Ed.] of rubies." The word כדכד=48.
  The mystical meaning of the sockets, i.e. אדנים, is self-explanatory by the fact that their very name alludes to G'd the Master. Perhaps we can best phrase this as "when The Master (G'd) is your foundation (read socket), then the Tabernacle has a chance to fulfil its purpose." The reason that these sockets number 100 is that the square root of 100 is ten, and we have already mentioned that the number 10 appears whenever spiritual values are involved. The number 100 is also the tenth in a graduated levels of "steps" in Kabbalistic literature.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   והקמתה את המשכן, "And you shall erect the Tabernacle, etc." According to Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra, Moses was to relay these instructions to the people described earlier as חכמי לב. Rabbi ibn Ezra considered the totality of the commandment to construct (and erect) the Tabernacle and concluded that just as all the directives which had been given to Moses in direct speech did not mean that Moses personally was to carry them out, so this commandment too was addressed to the people who were to perform the work of construction. I do not agree with Rabbi ibn Ezra's premise. All the directives given to Moses in direct speech meant that only he himself was to carry them out unless G'd repeated the instructions and said specifically that others should execute the directive. In those instances the reason G'd addressed Moses himself in the first instance was that inasmuch as Moses would delegate the work he himself would receive credit for it as if he himself had perfomed all the details personally. Although in our portion the directive about all the details of the building of the Tabernacle were addressed to Moses, the Torah repeats them in פרשת כי תשא when Betzalel, Oholiov, and all the חכמי לב, men of understanding heart, were put in charge of supervising the execution of all these plans. In 31,6 the Torah specifically charges these people with carrying out "all that I have commanded you (Moses)." This is the Torah's way of making clear that Moses personally was not involved in the construction of any of these parts. Seeing that G'd's instructions to Moses to erect the Tabernacle were not repeated, however, means that only he himself was charged with that task. In fact it was Moses who personally erected the Tabernacle as we know from 40,18 where the Torah reports Moses as personally erecting the Tabernacle. This is what our sages say in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 52. Any other interpretation is to be disregarded.
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   ונתתה את הפרכת…והבאת שמה מבית לפרכת, "You shall hang up the curtain…and bring it within the curtain, etc." This appears to teach that the dividing curtain was to be hung prior to the Holy Ark being brought inside the Holy of Holies. In 40,3 G'd said to Moses: "You shall place the ark of testimony there and you shall cover the ark with the curtain." This appears to mean that the ark was already inside the Holy of Holies when the curtain would separate it from the Sanctuary proper. Moses also appears to have acted in accordance with the instructions in chapter 40 seeing that we read in 40,20: "And he took and put the testimony in the ark and set the staves on the ark and put the ark cover above, upon the ark."
  Apparently we must resolve this contradiction by understanding our verse here as meaning that the curtain should be completed before the ark was to be placed inside the Holy of Holies. The curtain was not to be hung, however, before Moses had placed the ark of testimony inside the square provided for the Holy of Holies. In our verse no mention is made at all of the ark being introduced into the Holy of Holies. Our verse deals only with the eventual function of the dividing curtain, namely to separate the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies. This is why there was no need to speak about the order in which these furnishings were arranged inside the Tabernacle.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ועשית את המזבח, "You shall make the altar, etc." The Torah speaks of המזבח, instead of saying merely מזבח. Perhaps this is because the Torah refers here to what has already been mentioned in 25,9 when the Torah described that G'd had shown Moses a blueprint of both the Tabernacle and its furnishings including the altar. When adding that the altar was to be made of acacia wood, the Torah elaborated that whereas G'd had shown Moses a picture of the completed altar, i.e. a structure covered with copper, He now revealed that the altar was not to be of solid copper but of acacia wood which would be overlaid with copper.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   חמש אמות, "five cubits high, etc." Please refer to what I have written about this in connection with 25,9 on the words וכן תעשו.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ואתה תצוה, "And you shall command, etc." We need to explore why the Torah had to write the words "and you," seeing G'd had been speaking to Moses continuously; He had not spoken to anyone since He commenced chapter 25. Moreover, why did the Torah write תצוה instead of merely צו (as in Leviticus 6,2). Why did G'd employ an imperative altogether? Our sages in <i>Torat Kohanim</i> at the end of Parshat Emor have written a number of commentaries about this, such as that the word צו is employed when performance of the commandment involves a financial outlay by the person who is to fulfil the commandment.
  Perhaps another reason is the very fact that lighting lamps in a Sanctuary which is supposed to be the source of our enlightenment seemed quite inappropriate. The Torah had to tell Moses that such considerations not withstanding, Aaron was to light the lamps on the Lampstand. This commandment was not given to Israel by G'd, for the reason I have just mentioned, but Moses himself (in his own name) should proceed to instruct the Israelites as a sign that they should honour the Lampstand by providing the oil to light its lamps. By saying to Moses ואתה, G'd hinted that the directive was to appear as if it had emanated from Moses rather than from G'd. By telling Moses to "command" the Israelites rather than merely to "speak" to them as was the norm, this served to make the matter more urgent in their eyes. Had G'd used the normal form of address the Israelites would not have felt especially urgent about this directive. G'd meant for Moses to add his own exhortation to that of G'd. The expression תצוה rather than צו was meant to make the directive appear as having emanated from Moses rather than from G'd Himself. G'd mentioned to Moses that although the directive was phrased as תצוה, and not as תדבר, and this was to convey the impression that it emanated from him, this was no reason to treat it more lightly than if it had appeared to emanate from G'd Himself. Using the root צו rather than the root דבר was meant to ensure that the people would relate to this commandment with urgency, eagerly. The combination of the use of the root צו on the one hand and the future tense as expressed by תצוה rather than the imperative צו, were meant to achieve that the donations for the oil should be motivated by the desire of the donors to honour the Tabernacle, i.e. to honour G'd. At the same time the fact that the directive appeared to emanate from Moses rather than from G'd was not to result in it being considered as an unimportant command. Perhaps the words: "and they shall take to you (pure olive oil)," are an expression of the nature of this commandment, i.e. that the people should feel they bring it to Moses, personally, not to Moses in his capacity as G'd's representative. 
  Furthermore, seeing that when G'd had commanded all matters concerning construction of the Tabernacle He had always used direct speech, i.e. He told Moses: "you shall do, etc.," and had thereby involved Moses personally in every aspect of the building of the Tabernacle, the switch to indirect speech, i.e. "and they shall take" may indicate that G'd told Moses that the only way in which he was superior to the rest of the people was that it was he who would command the people to do their part. This is why G'd said: ואתה, "and you." The letter ו preceding the word אתה was a reminder that there were others beside him involved in performance of the directive. G'd may have had something similar in mind when He said תצוה instead of צו.
  The Torah may have introduced another element here altogether. Seeing the time had come for appointing Aaron as the High Priest, G'd used this opportunity to demonstrate to the people that Moses was to occcupy the position of king, and He "crowned" him. This is the deeper meaning of: "you shall command the children of Israel." Our verse then is G'd's blanket authority for Moses to perform the function normally performed by a crowned head, a king. Our verse would be analogous to Samuel I,13,14: "G'd has appointed him as ruler over His people." It is true that we had a similar and apparently more direct form of Moses' appointment as ruler in Exodus 6,13 when the Israelites were still in Egypt, and when the Torah stated: "He (G'd) ordered them to be in charge of the Israelites," and we stated there that the meaning of the verse was that G'd appointed Moses and Aaron as king and High Priest respectively. In our context G'd allocated the position of king specifically to Moses, and the position of High Priest specifically to Aaron. We have another instance where the Torah refers to the division of the people into different levels of authority, i.e. in Exodus 15,6 where the Torah says: "you shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." The word "kingdom" there referred to the people led by Moses, whereas the word "priests" referred to the people's religious leadership, i.e. Aaron and his sons, whereas the words "holy nation" referred to the Levites.
  Perhaps the expression תצוה in our verse alludes to a thought expressed in the <i>Zohar,</i> section one page 83 that we find a spark of Moses' soul within the soul of every Torah scholar. This is why we have an instance in <i>Sukkah</i> 39 where the scholars called each other "Moses." This was because Moses personified the soul that is immersed in Torah-study. When the Torah uses the expression ואתה תצוה this may also be parallel to Psalms 91,11 in which the Psalmist speaks of כי מלאכיו יצוה לו, where the word יצוה may also refer to צוותא, a company of like-minded people. The Psalmist describes G'd as despatching His angels to keep company with deserving Jews as they are of equal status. There is no worthier pursuit than the study of Torah which supplies all enlightenment for the world. Compare the next verse.
  ויקחו אליך, "and they shall take unto you, etc." We can understand the reason for the word אליך by referring to <i>Shabbat</i> 22 where the Talmud explains that the words: "outside the curtain of the testimony" mean that the "testimony" the Torah refers to is that all the people who came to see the Tabernacle realised that G'd's presence was hovering over the the Israelites. Rav defined the testimony as specifically the "Western Lamp," i.e. the light on top of the middle shaft of the Lampstand. [This lamp burned around the clock instead of only at night although not only did it not receive more oil than the other lamps, but the other lamps drew on its oil supply. Ed.] <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 52,2 relates that the scoffers amongst the Jews ridiculed the idea that G'd would take up residence in a structure made by Moses. From this we see that not only did the Gentiles not credit the idea that the G'd of the Heavens had come down to earth, but even some of the Jews could not believe this. Accordingly, even though it was evident that G'd's presence was indeed in the Tabernacle on the first day of Nissan, the day the Tabernacle had been erected, they did not consider this as evidence that G'd's presence would remain there on a permanent basis. Once they observed the ongoing miracle of the Western Lamp, this served as testimony that G'd's presence was there to stay. The Torah impressed upon Moses that the oil for the Lampstand in the Tabernacle would become the vehicle by means of which G'd's presence in the Tabernacle would be demonstrated when the "eternal flame" would be lit. This matter would have far-reaching consequences for Moses' own standing as a prophet, hence the word אליך is of crucial importance. Perhaps G'd hinted at this already when He said: ואתה תצוה, i.e. "do not worry that the people will not believe you when you tell them that I will take up residence in the terrestrial regions." G'd's prediction indeed came to pass. Should you Moses ask how such a fact could be demonstrated, G'd continued by instructing Moses: ויקחו אליך שמן זית זך.
  A moral-ethical approach to our verse may be based on the <i>Zohar Chadash</i> found on Genesis 8, that the Israelites were or would be redeemed from each of their four exiles due to a specific merit. The Jews were redeemed from their first exile in Egypt thanks to the merit of the patriarch Abraham. They were redeemed from the second exile thanks to the merit of Isaac; they were redeemed from the third exile thanks to the merit of Jacob, whereas they will be redeemed from the fourth exile thanks to the merit of Moses. Moses' merit was that of his dedication to Torah-study. The interminable wait for the redemption from the fourth exile is due to our not pursuing the study of Torah and the performance of its commandments with sufficient vigour and diligence. As long as we do not engage sufficiently in Torah study, Moses on his part is not willing to invoke his merit to redeem the Israelites who continue to neglect his Torah. By writing ואתה תצוה את בני ישראל the Torah hints at something we mentioned earlier in connection with Psalms 91,11, that G'd would despatch angels to commune with the Jewish people. The meaning of the line may be that the timing of the redemption depends in large measure on Moses seeing that it is his merit that will have to be invoked in order to orchestrate the final redemption. Alternatively, the word צו implies Royal authority. Moses will be our king in the future. When that future will occur depends on the amount and quality of Torah studied by the Jewish people. The words: "they will take to you pure olive oil" are an allusion to the Torah which has been compared to oil. Just as oil lights up the universe, so does the study of Torah result in enlightenment. This is basically, what the <i>Zohar</i> we have mentioned before had in mind.
  The reason the Torah was careful to stipulate that the oil had to be זך, pure, was to convey that the study of Torah had to be motivated by pure, not by self-serving considerations. Impure thoughts fuelling Torah study would turn such study into a source of accusation by Satan instead of conferring merit on the student or scholar in question. Even the intent to become well known as a Torah scholar is considered an unworthy thought in this connection. Such thoughts may be considered as equivalent to oil which contains sediments.
  The Torah adds the word כתית, pounded, as a further prerequisite for such oil to be used in the Lampstand of the Tabernacle. The idea is that true Torah study involves the student as flagellating himself (at least spiritually) as the Talmud <i>Berachot</i> 63 explained in connection with Numbers 19,14: "A person who dies in the tent." I have already dealt with this interpretation by the Talmud in my treatise <i>Cheftzi</i> chapter 5.
  The reason the Torah adds the word למאור, for light, may also be understood in line with our approach to the subject. During exile, the Jewish people are perceived as dwelling in darkness of a lunar eclipse, the moon being known as the המאור הקטן, "the smaller luminary." This means (homiletically speaking) that the one who used to be Master has been demoted from his true position of eminence so that the handmaid has inherited his former place. This is why G'd commanded that Moses should aspire that the olive oil for the Lampstand in the Tabernacle should provide an specially potent light, i.e. the light of the great luminary mentioned in Genesis when these luminaries are described as being hung in the sky. You know from the words of the sages in <i>Megillah</i> 29 on Deut. 30,3 where G'd is described as "having returned with the exiles" instead of as "returning with the exiles in the future," that the presence of G'd had already previously returned with the Jewish people when they came out of exile. Our sages interpret Hoseah 11,9: "The Holy one is in your midst and I cannot come to the city (i.e. celestial Jerusalem)" in a similar fashion in <i>Taanit</i> 5.
  The Torah continues: להעלות נר תמיד, "to cause a lamp to burn continually." The expression תמיד denotes that the burning will be of unlimited duration. The homiletical meaning is that Israel should not ever again experience periods of spiritual darkness. Perhaps the expression למאור להעלות נר תמיד means that this oil should light the great luminary in a manner similar to the period the prophet Isaiah 62,8 speaks about when he says: "I will not ever again give your grain to your enemies for food," i.e. "you will proceed to rise ever higher."
  
  Verse 21
  
   מאת בני ישראל. From the children of Israel. We may interpret these words according to the <i>Tossephta Shekalim</i> chapter 2 where we are told that all public offerings which are offered on the first of Nissan should preferably be of money donated for the offerings of the year just beginning; even if they are from money donated during the previous year they are acceptable as long as the money for them has been donated by an individual who has first made it over to the treasurer of the Temple so that it becomes public property. Our verse tells us something similar; the oil donated for the Lampstand becomes public property after the donor has turned it over to Moses as representative of the people.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ואתה הקרב אליך את אהרון אחיך, "And you shall bring near to you your brother Aaron, etc." We must understand the words: "and you- bring near- to you," in light of the statement in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 3,17 according to which it was G'd's original plan to appoint Moses as High Priest. This was changed due to Moses' repeated refusal to accept the role assigned to him by G'd which angered G'd. As a result (Exodus 4,14), G'd told Moses that his brother Aaron who had merely been a Levite up to that point, had now been promoted to be a High Priest. When G'd commanded Moses at this point to perform the ceremonies required for Aaron to assume the office of High Priest, He told Moses that he had to make his own contribution to this ceremony so that he would not be perceived as begrudging Aaron an office which had originally been intended for him. In fact, the appointment of Aaron to this position would serve as atonement for Moses who had resisted G'd's invitation to become leader of the Jewish people at that time.
  The point mentioned last may be better understood in light of our tradition (Kabbalah) that when man opposes G'd, one of the many branches of his soul becomes detached from its holy root. At the time when Moses raised repeated objections to G'd's demand to accept the mantle of leadership, one of the branches of Moses' soul became detached from its celestial root. Although Moses had been punished for this, he had not obtained atonement until Aaron was inducted into the office of High Priest. Moses' active participation in this procedure would accelerate his atonement for this mistake. When the Torah speaks of ואתה הקרב אליך, we may understand this in the sense of "And you shall bring the estranged part of your soul close to you." G'd informed Moses that appointing Aaron would be his תקון, his rehabilitation for the error committed when he said to G'd: "send the one You are in the habit of sending (Exodus 4,13)."
  This may also help us to understand a somewhat strange imperative in <i>Berachot</i> 54 according to which a person must pronounce a blessing when he receives evil tidings just as he is obligated to pronounce a blessing when he receives glad tidings. The Talmud explains on folio 60 of that treatise that this means that even evil tidings must be welcomed with joy. I have always found this demand difficult to accept. When we consider the fact that afflictions are the instrument which reunite the branches of the soul which have separated from their holy root, it becomes easier to accept. After all, what worse fate could befall a person than that his soul become estranged from his Creator? When a person receives evil tidings this means that he suffers an affliction as a result of which the part of his soul which has become estranged to G'd will become reunited. How could a person fail to rejoice over this aspect of the afflictions he is being subjected to?
  
  Verse 2
  
   ועשית בגדי קדש לאהרון…לכבבוד ולתפארת, "And you shall make holy garments for your brother Aaron for splendour and beauty." These beautiful garments are an expression of joy, and will convince Aaron that Moses wanted him to appear robed in splendour. A person who only carries out a directive under duress does not go to the trouble of constructing such splendid garments for the person who replaces him in a role that had originally been slated for himself. Although the garments in question were a must for the person wearing them whenever he performed service in the Tabernacle, G'd followed the principle of allowing Moses to accumulate this merit for himself by allowing him to perform this commandment joyfully. In this instance, Moses' action represented a rapprochement between the souls of Moses and Aaron respectively. Perhaps G'd even meant that Moses should pay out of his own funds for these garments Aaron would wear during performing the functions of his new office. Although we have learned that as a rule the cost of the priestly garments was to be defrayed by the public purse (<i>Yuma</i> 3,7), the Talmud allowed for individuals to donate such garments and hand them over to the public. We need to explore the meaning of the word לכבוד, for honour, in this verse after G'd had already informed us of both the purpose and the nature of these garments. If all the Torah meant to tell us was that honour and glory would be conferred upon Aaron its wearer, what have we gained by this knowledge? Perhaps we can understand the meaning of this word by reference to <i>Avodah Zarah</i> 34. The Talmud quotes Rabbi Akiva as not having an answer concerning the question of what garments Moses wore (when he temporarily functioned as High Priest) during the seven days of the inaugural offerings of the priests. When he enquired in the academy they told him that Moses wore a white shirt while performing the service during those days. The fact that Moses wore only a white shirt during those days is clear evidence that the priestly garments themselves were not an essential part of the Temple-service except for Aaron and his sons. If any of the other priests performed the service without wearing their special garments the sacrifices offered by such priests would be acceptable to G'd. Accordingly, the word לכבוד means that these clothes are not for G'd's sake but for man's sake, merely for the sake of the image of the priest wearing them, especially when such a person was a priest on a permanent basis. Seeing Moses performed such service only on a temporary basis, he did not have to wear such garments.
  Alternatively, G'd wanted to give us a reason why the Torah commanded that the High Priest wear 8 garments, 4 made of white linen and four containing gold. The Torah says that the reason is לכבוד ולתפארת, for splendour and for beauty. We find the following comment in the introduction of <i>Tikkuney Ha-Zohar.</i> "The four golden garments are an allusion to the four letters in the Ineffable Name, whereas the four white linen garments are an allusion to the four letters in G'd's name א־ד־נ־י." We should remember that the Ineffable Name reflects G'd's attribute of תפארת, whereas G'd's name א־ד־נ־י reflects His attribute כבוד. According to this, the word לתפארת in our verse would refer to the golden garments, whereas the word לכבוד would refer to the white garments. The Torah listed varying degrees of holiness in ascending order, hence the attribute לכבוד precedes the attribute תפארת.
  G'd directed that eight garments were to be made for the High Priest in order for him to be able to obtain atonement for his people for the various imperfections that people are guilty of as a normal part of their lives. Aaron's wearing these garments would enable the Israelites concerned to achieve their proper place in the higher regions. Having said this, we need to understand why G'd was insistent that Aaron wear these garments whereas He did not provide similar garments for Moses to wear. The Talmud (<i>Erchin</i> 15) tells us that each of these eight garments conferred atonement for a specific type of sin. The reason that only Aaron and his sons were commanded to wear special garments was because such atonement could be obtained only by people who were intended to serve as priests all of their lives, something that did not apply in the case of Moses. Moses' function in temporarily serving as High Priest was only to obtain atonement for the sins of Aaron and his sons so that they could assume their office as priests. As a result, Moses wore only a white shirt when acting as priest.
  
  Verse 3
  
   ואתה תדבר אל כל חכמי לב, "And you are to speak to all wise-hearted men, etc." The reason the Torah introduces this verse with the word ואתה is that Moses was to involve himself personally in speaking to those people. Although G'd had already said: "you are to make the holy garments," G'd repeated instructions to Moses here to make clear that Moses was not personally to make these garments but that they should be made at his behest. If the Torah had not issued instructions for Moses to personally speak to the artisans who were to make the garments, we would have thought that as long as these garments were made according to Moses' instructions it would not matter if he had personally charged the artisans with their task.
  The Torah is careful to say אל כל חכמי לב, "to all the wise-hearted men," as the fact that Moses would take out time to speak to all of them individually would be one of the signs demonstrating that he was personally anxious that Aaron be provided with such splendid robes. Had he not been enthusiastic about this task, Moses would have delegated as much of this task as he could and would certainly not have addressed every single artisan who was active in their construction.
  Furthermore, the reason that the Torah employs the word ואתה no less than three times in these five verses is a sign that Moses would enjoy the merit of performing three distinct services in connection with the building of the Tabernacle. He would receive credit for a) issuing the instructions to bring the donations enabling the Tabernacle to be built; b) for the overall instructions for building Tabernacle including its furnishings and the priestly garments; c) for the service that would be performed in the Holy Tabernacle as a result of his being instrumental in the Tabernacle being built. This was one of the reasons G'd said that the Israelites were to take things to him, or to bring things to him, or why he was to speak personally to all the wise-hearted men. All of this made Moses a messenger of the people. It would therefore be accounted for him as if he himself had performed every single activity connected with the project. The instruction to bring Aaron close to himself meant that when Aaron would perform the Temple service he would also do so as Moses' messenger. This is why the Torah was careful to write: אליך, "to you." The above-mentioned considerations also account for G'd' issuing these instructions to Moses in direct speech rather than in the third person describing what the individuals who actually fashioned the Tabernacle and its furnishings were to do. G'd meant for Moses to issue directives for others to carry out the work.
  
  Verse 4
  
   ואלה הבגדים, And these are the garments, etc. Why does this verse list only six out of the eight priestly garments, omitting mention of the pants and the High Priest's ציץ, golden headband? Perhaps the missing garments have been alluded to already.The headband may have been alluded to in verse three as included in the line: "and they will make Aaron's garments to sanctify him." The words: "the garments of Aaron" in that verse were not really necessary; it would have sufficed to say: "and these are the garments, etc." The exclusive mention of Aaron alludes to the headband which was worn only by the High Priest. The reason it is mentioned together with the other garments is that it alone would not be able to perform any function. Aaron's (The High Priest's) eight garments performed their function only if all of them were worn by the High Priest at one time. This is also the justification for the conjunctive letter ו before the word אלה, "these." At first glance that letter appeared to have referred to other garments over and above the eight garments listed in the Torah at this stage. Actually, it only suggests that all the garments that were now being mentioned were interdependent on each other, essential. As far as the pants are concerned, we find an entirely unnecessary line at the end of verse four, i.e. "and they will make sacred garments for your brother Aaron and for his sons so that he will be a priest unto Me." Seeing that this line was unnecessary, we may see in it a veiled reference to the pants. Both Aaron and his sons are mentioned in that line as both he and his sons had to wear pants beneath their long tunics.
  The question which remains is why the Torah did not list these two garmennts together with the list of the six garments listed in verse four so that the allusions which we just mentioned need not have been recorded at all? We may have to look at these two garments as being in a category by themselves, the headband because of its special significance, and the pants because of their being of inferior status as a garment symbolising the priest's holiness. This is why each of these is alluded to separately and is not lumped together with the other six priestly garments. The six garments mentioned in a row in our verse are basically of equal worth as far as their symbolising the status of their wearers as priests is concerned.
  An additional reason for listing only the six garments here may be that the Torah wanted us to know that the priestly garments needed to be constructed for that specific purpose. This is why the Torah emphasised: "they shall make holy garments." Even Aaron's pants had to be made especially for him to wear when performing his duties. If so, we would realise that the same rule applied in even greater measure to the making of the garments which were holier than the pants by definition. The first verse which we explained contained the allusion to the headband, also speaks of לקדשו, "to sanctify him;" in the case of the ציץ, it was not only sacred, but it was inscribed with the words: קדש לה׳ "Holy unto G'd."
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ולקחת את שתי אבני שהם, "You are to take the two Shoham-stones, etc." The word את in this connection needs explaining. Perhaps the expression is to draw our attention to the previously mentioned Shoham-stones at the beginning of Parshat Terumah (25,7). The meaning of our verse then would be: "you shall take the two Shoham-stones which I have already commanded you to bring (as gifts)." This would account for the מתג, hyphen, between the words אבני and שהם, i.e. why only these two gemstones have been singled out here by name. These two stones performed a function additional to that of the gemstones called אבני מלואים, "stones to be set" (where the Torah did not employ the hyphen).
  
  Verse 10
  
   ששה משמותם על האבן האחת, "Six of their names on the one stone, etc." Why did the Torah use the unusual expression משמותם, "of their names," instead of saying simply ששה שמות, "six names," etc.? Besides, the word הנותרים, "the remaining ones," is quite unnecessary as we all know that there were only a total of twelve tribes. We are therefore forced to conclude that the adjective "the remaining ones," implies that the latter six tribes were inferior to the the first six. We find something similar after the death of Nadav and Avihu, where the Torah describes Eleazar and Ittamar as the "remaining" sons of Aaron (Leviticus 10,12). Our sages in <i>Yuma</i> 87 describe the word הנותרים as referring to something inferior, using the word in Leviticus as their example. <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 73,9 discusses Genesis 30,36 where the Torah speaks about "the remaining flocks of Laban," and also describes the word "remaining" as referring to something inferior. If the meaning of the word הנותרים in our verse were to indicate that these tribes were inferior, this is most surprising seeing that the Torah underlines that they were recorded כתולדותם, "in the order of their (their founder's) birth." Why would the sons born to Jacob later be inferior to those born to him earlier? This seems especially unlikely seeing that Joseph was Jacob's favorite and is known as "Joseph the righteous." How could he be considered "inferior?" Moreover, we find that amongst the first 6 names listed are sons of the maidservants whereas several of the names inscribed on the second stone were of sons born by Jacob's true wives!
  In order to understand what is meant in our verse let me first preface with a statement in <i>Sotah</i> 36. Our sages there relate: "The High Priest wore two gemstones on his shoulders. The names of the children of Israel were engraved on those stones, six of them on the one stone and six on the other." The Talmud quotes our verse as proof for this statement. The names on the second stone were in accordance with the order of birth of the founders of those tribes, whereas the names engraved on the first stone did not correspond to this order, seeing that the name Yehudah appeared on the first stone and each stone had 25 letters engraved on it. Rabbi Chanina son of Gamliel says that the names did not appear in the order in which the tribes were counted in Numbers 1, 1-15, but in accordance with their being enumerated in Exodus I, 2-4. In what order precisely were they engraved? The sons of Leah were listed on one stone, the sons of Rachel were listed one on top of the second stone, the other on the bottom, with the names of the sons of the maidservants in between. If so, how does this agree with the Torah's statement that they were engraved in accordance with their respective births? Answer: "according to the names their father Jacob called them, and not in accordance with the names that Moses called them, i.e. Reuveni, Shimoni, etc." Thus far the statement of Rabbi Chaninah. The apparent meaning of the opinions expressed in the Talmud seems to be that the first opinion (Rav Kahane) understands the word כתולדותם as a reference to both stones although Yehudah's name preceded that of Reuven so that the names which appeared on that stone were: Yehudah, Reuven, Shimon, Levi, Dan, Naftali, whereas the sequence on the second stone was: Gad, Asher, Yissachar, Zevulun, Joseph, Benjamin in accordance with the order of their births. When you will count the number of letters which appear on each stone you will find that the first stone had 25 letters whereas the second stone had 24 letters. This would require the addition of the letter ה in the middle of the name Joseph, thus: יהוסף. Rabbi Nachman disagreed, claiming that Benjamin's name was spelled with an additional י, i.e. בנימין. The question of how many letters were engraved on each stone is not alluded to in the Torah but we rely on tradition for this knowledge. I believe that we can, however, find an allusion in scripture for the fact that Yehudah's name was engraved on top of that of Reuven, seeing that the word כתולדותם in accordance with their birth, does not appear until the end of the verse. Had the Torah insisted that all the names would appear strictly in accordance with their births, the Torah should have written: "and you shall engrave on them the names of the children of Israel in accordance with the order of their births," at the end of verse nine. I would then have understood clearly that the directive applied to the names on both stones. You are not to ask who it was who revealed that the names on the first stone were not meant to be engraved in accordance with the births of those sons, seeing that the name of Yehudah appeared on top, and that therefore the order in which the brothers were born did not matter at all when it came to engraving their names on the first stone. Such an assumption is untenable because if the names on the first stone could have been engraved in a different order such order should have paralleled either the order in which the names appear in Numbers or in accordance with their appearance in Exodus. If that were the case, it would be impossible to list the names on the second stone in order of their births and still wind up with 25 letters on each stone. It is therefore mandatory that any change concerning the order of the names on the first stone must be such that it would not interfere with the list of names on the second stone being in accordance with the order of the brothers' birth. It is perfectly logical that Yehudah's name should appear on top as his future standing amongst the Jewish people as the tribe which provided the kings justified his name appearing at the head of the list.
  One could argue that the order in which the names were engraved on the stones of the Ephod were no reason to make the Ephod unfit for its function, and that it did not matter whether the name of Shimon appeared above that of Reuven. In order that we should not argue in this way the Torah wrote: "six of their names, etc., and the names of the remaining six, etc." The meaning is that only the remaining ones, i.e. the ones that you have not yet engraved, כתולדותם, have to be engraved according to their seniority. We can prove that this interpretation is correct by referring to the <i>Tosephta</i> in <i>Menachot</i> chapter 5 where we are not told that the order of the engraving of the names was indeed mandatory. Whereas the <i>Tossephta</i> states that the garments of the priests were mandatory, and that the presence of the gemstones was mandatory; not a word is mentioned about the order of engraving the names of the tribes being mandatory. It is quite possible that the sage who was the author of this <i>Tossephta</i> did not believe that the order was mandatory.
  When Rabbi Chaninah claimed that the names of the sons of Leah were engraved on the first stone in their order of seniority, he meant that the fact that the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah were born before the last two sons of Leah was ignored when the names were engraved on the first stone. On the other hand, the names which were engraved on the second stone were headed by that of Benjamin, though he was the youngest of all the sons of Jacob. According to his arrangement the number of letters on each stone could not possibly equal 25, seeing that the number of letters on the first stone totalled 28, whereas we would have 21 letters as the total on the second stone. Even if you add either the letter ה for Joseph's name or the letter י for the name of Benjamin, you will still only wind up with 22 letters on that stone. If we adopt Rabbi Chaninah's interpretation, the meaning of the words ששה משמותם will begin to make excellent sense. The wording would indicate that the names were not engraved in the order of seniority of the sons of Jacob. The meaning of the words הנותרים would be that the names of these tribes which should have been engraved on the first stone, if strict attention had been paid to the principle of seniority of birth, were "left out." Although also the names of Joseph and Benjamin were engraved on the second stone, seeing that the other tribes were the majority they are nonetheless described as "left over."
  Let us now examine how Maimonides describes the arrangement of the names on these stones in chapter nine of <i>Hilchot Kley Hamikdosh.</i> This is what he writes: "Six were on one stone and six on the other stone. The name Joseph was spelled יהוסף. As a result there were 25 letters on the first stone and 25 letters on the second stone. The list of names on the first stone was: Reuven, Levi, Yissachar, Naftali, Gad, Joseph; the order on the second stone was: Shimon, Yehudah, Zevulun, Dan, Asher, Benjamin." Maimonides' words do not agree with either of the views expressed in <i>Sotah</i> 36. His view does not even coincide with that of Rav Kahane which the Talmud rejected. The latter had given the following list: Reuven, Gad, Asher, Zevulun, Dan, Naftali, and Shimon, Levi, Yehudah, Yissachar, Joseph, Benjamin on the second stone. The כסף משנה attempts to prove that Maimonides adopted the view of Rabbi Chaninah while explaining that when Rabbi Chaninah claimed that the names of the sons of Leah appeared in order of their birth he meant that they would appear on alternate stones and that the same applied to the listing of the names of the sons of Rachel, top and bottom respectively, with the names of the maidservants in the centre.
  I do not believe that the suggestion of the כסף משנה is acceptable for two reasons. 1) Why would Maimonides ignore the first sage mentioned in the Talmud and rule according to the dissident view of Rabbi Chaninah? When the כסף משנה describes Rabbi Chaninah's view as logical, I beg to differ. I do not believe that his reasoning is logical at all seeing that he changes the plain meaning of the verse that the names were to be engraved in order of seniority of the sons of Jacob, i.e. the way Jacob named his sons and not the way Moses referred to them. What would prompt a person to call the sons of Jacob "Reuveni, Shimoni, etc.," instead of calling them by their original names? Besides, the meaning of כתולדותם according to כסף משנה is not "according to their seniority of birth, which is usually the meaning of that word throughout the Torah. There is absolutely no need to ignore the customary meaning of the word כתולדותם. At any rate, the problems we have raised so far are minor compared to another problem we are still going to raise.
  2) According to the view of the כסף משנה that the names of the sons of Leah were written in such a fashion that one was on one stone and the name of the brother born next appeared on the second stone, "similar to the names of the sons of Rachel, the names of the sons of Rachel should not have appeared on the top and bottom of the second stone at all. All the כסף משנה had to say was that both the names of the sons of Leah and the names of the sons of Rachel were engraved at the end. Why did he add the words: "one on one stone and one on the other?" What precisely are the words: אחד מכאן ואחד מכאן supposed to mean? He should have said: "the name of one of each of the sons on each stone," as Rashi explains when he adds: "one at the head of the stone, the other at the bottom." This objection to the כסף משנה is still minor compared to the next one.
  According to the words of the כסף משנה, the list of the names of the tribes at the beginning of Exodus would not follow the pattern he suggested here at all, seeing that there we find the names of the sons of Leah followed by the son of Rachel, Benjamin, followed by the names of the sons of the maidservants, with Joseph at the very end. According to the opinion of Rabbi Chaninah as understood by Maimonides, Joseph's name was engraved beneath the names of the two sons of one of the maidservants, Naftali and Gad on the first stone, whereas the name Benjamin was engraved on the second stone beneath the names of the sons of the other maidservant, Dan and Asher. How could Rabbi Chaninah say: "in the manner they were divided in the Book of Exodus," when we find that the name Benjamin appeared ahead of the names of any of the names of the sons of the maidservants? Besides, why would he engrave the name Joseph before the name Benjamin, when it is a fact that Benjamin is mentioned first in Exodus? We cannot answer that the reason was to enable the names on both stones to total 25 letters so that each stone would have the identical number of letters engraved on them. The same number of letters would appear on the stone even if the name Benjamin preceded that of Joseph. Should Rabbi Chaninah insist that this was indeed what he had in mind, he would simply be wrong, seeing that he made the sequence dependent on the way the names were divided up in the Book of Exodus. His words would be unacceptable as the Torah there listed Benjamin's name before that of any of the sons of the maidservants whereas according to the כסף משנה the name of Benjamin would be the last one to be engraved?
  What is Maimonides' source for alternating the names of the sons of Leah between the first and the second stone of the Ephod? According to the words of Rabbi Chaninah that the names of sons of Leah were engraved in their order (of birth) there is no suggestion that this would be on alternate stones! Where does Maimonides get his theory of interpreting Rabbi Chaninah in such a manner? Finally, the כסף משנה had difficulty with providing a reason as to why Maimonides wrote that in order to complete the 50 letters on the stones of the Ephod, the name Joseph had to be spelled with an additional ה. He quotes the Talmud (<i>Sotah</i> 36) which says as follows: "These 50 (letters) are in reality only 49 letters. Rabbi Yitzchok said that they added a letter to his name as we find in Psalms 81,6: עדות ביהוסף שמו בצאתו ממצרים, 'they added a testimony to Joseph when he came out of Egypt.'" Rabbi Nachman questioned Rabbi Yitzchok that the Torah specified that the names should be engraved כתולדותם, i.e. as they had been known at the time of their respective births? Therefore Rabbi Nachman concludes (as opposed to Rabbi Yitzchok) that the extra letter was the letter י added to the name of Benjamin, seeing that his name is always spelled without the letter י before the final letter ן, except in Genesis 35,18 when his father Jacob named him בנימין with the additional letter י. Thus far the Talmud. It is clear from the quote of the Talmud that the idea of adding the letter ה to Joseph's name was rejected and that they accepted the alternative suggested by Rabbi Nachman. כסף משנה anwers that the rejection of Rabbi Yitzchok's theory by the Talmud applies only to the original view expressed in the Talmud concerning the arrangement of the names, but does not apply to the view expressed by Rabbi Chaninah, which is, after all, the view Maimonides' diagram is based on. The only meaning Rabbi Chaninah had derived from the Torah's directive was that the names should be כתולדותם, should not appear as Moses had referred to them, i.e. as Reuveni, Shimoni, etc. Seeing this is so, Maimonides remained entitled to accept Rabbi Yitzchok's suggestion that the name Joseph be spelled with the additional letter ה as in Psalms 81,6. Thus far the כסף משנה.
  I confess that I find this reasoning very difficult. The first opinion cited in the Talmud did not even deal with the question of spelling the names but discussed only the meaning of the word כתולדותם as meaning that the names were to be inscribed in accordance with the order of the births of Jacob's sons. How could one question what the <i>Tanna Kama</i> in the Talmud meant by the word כתולדותם? Any question in the Talmud obviously was only directed at the viewpoint of Rabbi Chaninah that the word כתולדותם concerned the manner in which their father had called his sons. According to this, Rabbi Nachman answered that the name Benjamin was spelled מלא, i.e. with the extra letter י. It is absolutely clear from the wording of Maimonides that he considered the meaning of the word כתולדותם as describing the order in which the names of the tribes were to be inscribed and not as referring to the spelling that was to be used when engraving these names. Here are the words of Maimonides: ששה על אבן זו וששה על אבן זו כתולדותם. If Maimonides' intention had been to rule according to Rabbi Chaninah, he could not have concluded his words with the cryptic "כתולדותם," seeing that the Talmud queried the meaning of that word. Maimonides would have had to tell us the meaning of that word according to his view! The fact that he did not do so is evidence that he accepted the viewpoint of the תנא קמא. The כסף משנה would have done better to leave the problem he raised unsolved instead of attempting an answer which is clearly unacceptable.
  Perhaps one may say that Maimonides did not understand the first version in the Talmud in which it is stated that the reason why the order of birth had to be observed only starting with the second name was "because Yehudah was to appear on top," as we have understood it thus far. He may have understood the words שניה כתולדותם ולא ראשונה כתולדותם, as applying to the difference in appearance when one reads across or when one read down, respectively. If one read the names across, שניה (i.e. assuming that the two stones were next to one another instead of on different shoulders of Aaron), they would appear to be in the order of their births כתולדותם. If, however, one read the names from the top to the bottom of the first stone, followed by reading the names on the second stone from the top to the bottom, i.e. ראשונה, "each stone as a unit by itself," then they would not be found to appear כתולדותם. According to Maimonides the names would appear (on the first stone) as: Reuven, Levi, Yissachar, Naftali, Gad, Joseph (with the ה), followed on the next stone by : Shimon, Yehudah, Zevulun, Dan, Asher, Benjamin. Clearly, this arrangement does not correspond to the order of their births.  The meaning of כתולדותם in front of us can be that the list is to correspond to the list we find at the beginning of the Book of Numbers. In that case, the names of the sons of Leah appear together followed by the names of the sons of Rachel, followed by the names of the sons of the maidservants. Alternatively, we could use as our model for the word כתולדותם the list of names as it appears at the beginning of the Book of Exodus. There we find first the list of names of the sons of Leah, the names of the sons of the maidservants at the end, the name of Benjamin, one of Rachel's sons in between, with Joseph the remaining son of Rachel listed at the very end. The <i>Tanna Kama</i> did not elaborate on which method of these two he preferred. Even though he mentioned כתולדותם, he might have meant that listing all the names of one mother in the order of their birth fulfils the commandment of כתולדותם. As long as there is no mention of the sons of a different mother before the list of names of the sons of a mother mentioned previously has been completed, this meets the requirement implied in the word כתולדותם. Inasmuch as Leah was the first wife who bore sons for Jacob, all her sons are listed in the order she bore them, i.e. they are considered as one unit. We could accept this although these names do not appear in this order anywhere else in the Torah. Maimonides carefully examined the words of Rabbi Chaninah who said that the words כתולדותם are not to be interpreted as the order in which these names are listed in the Book of Numbers but in the manner in which they appear in the Book of Exodus. His words mean that unless specifically stated to the contrary, the <i>Tanna Kama</i> could accept either version as a role model for the order in which these names were engraved on the stones of the Ephod.
  We are entitled to understand the <i>Tanna Kama</i> as agreeing with Rabbi Chaninah that the role model for the word כתולדותם is the list we find at the beginning of the Book of Exodus. The only argument between the two Tannaim is that the meaning of the words שניה כתולדותם is as we explained whether the names were to be read across, or as Rabbi Chaninah feels that the sons of Leah had to be arranged on a single stone, etc. Maimonides ruled in favour of reading the names across (alternating between the two stones) as the preferable way of complying with the requirement that they appear כתולדותם. This means that he ruled in accordance with the opinion of the <i>Tanna Kama,</i> and not as כסף משנה wanted us to believe as in accordance with the dissident view of Rabbi Chaninah. If the names of Joseph and Benjamin had preceded that of the names of the maidservants' sons, even "the שניה" would not have been כתולדותם in accordance with the order of their respective births. The reason that in Maimonides' diagram the name of Naftali appears ahead of that of Dan (who was born earlier), is in order to ensure that there are 25 letters engraved on each of the two stones in accordance with the requirement listed by the <i>Tanna Kama.</i> Rabbi Chaninah had never spoken about such a requirement. While the fact that Rabbi Chaninah did not relate to the requirement that there should be 25 letters on each of the stones is not normally proof that he disagrees with the view of the <i>Tanna Kama,</i> in this instance we must assume that he does indeed disagree even without going on record that he does so. The reason is simply that according to Rabbi Chaninah's division of the names we find 28 letters on one stone, and 21 or maximum 22 letters on the other stone, as we have pointed out earlier. Maimonides completes his diagram by having the names of Joseph and Benjamin at the respective bottoms of each stone, adding the letter ה to Joseph's name in order to have 25 letters on each of the stones. This is the way we propose to explain the Baraitha according to the ruling of Maimonides. Perhaps Maimonides had another ancient text in front of his eyes in which all this is spelled out more specifically. Whatever the case may be, we have dealt with all the nuances in our verse satisfactorily.
  Now let us look once more at the reason the Torah wrote ששה משמותם, instead of writing ששה שמות. Had the Torah written ששה שמות it would have been evident that the names were to appear on each stone in order of seniority and not partially so as indicated by the word משמותם, "of their names." The unusual word משמותם means that Moses was to engrave these names in pairs on the two stones starting with the order of the births of the respective sons. There will always be one name of such a pair "left over" to be engraved on the opposite stone. The six names left over, i.e. הנותרים. These "left over" names are to be engraved one beneath the other on the second stone of the Ephod. The very words ואת שמות השמות הנותרים mean that these names were previously "left over" and awaited being engraved on the second stone, כתולדותם, in accordance with the seniority of these sons, respectively. The appearance of the word כתולדותם at the end of the verse instead of after the words על האבן האחת, is perfectly justified then.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   ובצאתו ולא ימות. "and when he comes out, so that he will not die." It appears from this verse that if the High Priest's tunic did not have the bells that could be heard he would be guilty of the death penalty to be administered by Heaven. Were this not so and the verse had referred to the absence of the garment to which the bells were attached or to any of his special garments, the words: "so that he will not die" should have beeen written after the list of the garments was complete in verse 43. The fact that the Torah did not wait with this clause until then is to teach us that even the absence of the bells only made the High Priest liable to death at the hands of Heaven. Repetition of the threat of death in verse 43 refers to a priest who serves without one or more of the garments he is to wear at that time.
  
  Verse 36
  
   קדש לה׳. "Holy unto G'd." This means that as long as the words "Holy unto G'd" appeared on the headband (golden plate), this was acceptable. When the Talmud said in <i>Shabbat</i> 63 that the words were arranged in two rows, this means that the name of י־ה was engraved on top and the word קדש followed by the letter ל underneath. Such an arrangement of the words was not mandatory. You will find there that Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Yossi reported that while in Rome he personally had seen the ציץ which the Romans had captured, and that the words "Holy unto G'd" were engraved on it in a single line. This proves that the order in which the words were engraved did not matter. When Maimonides wrote in chapter nine of his treatise on <i>Kley Hamikdosh</i> that the words appeared in two rows, with the word קדש in the second line, this does not present a difficulty. He referred only to the preferred way of engraving these words.
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
   לרצון להם לפני ה׳. "that they may be accepted on their behalf by G'd with goodwill." We need to understand why the two words "Holy unto G'd" possessed the ability to attract G'd's goodwill. Perhaps the word "Holy" referred to the people of Israel. We find Israel described as "Holy" by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 2,3). The word "unto G'd" are meant to convey that the Jewish people as a whole are devoted and dedicated to G'd. This fact (and not merely the words on the ציץ) ensure G'd's goodwill towards the people. This is the mystical dimension of the words אני לדודי ודודי לי, in Song of Songs 6,3. Solomon means that "if I am devoted to G'd, as a result G'd i.e. דודי, will turn His benevolent attention towards me."
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
   לכבוד ולתפארת. "for splendour and for beauty." The reason the Torah repeats this expression again is to allude to something we have learned in <i>Zevachim</i> 18. The Talmud there states that if the priestly garments were soiled or torn they were unfit to be worn when the priests were about to perform service in the Temple. According to a Baraitha quoted there the garments had to be made from new cloth. The Talmud there also says that if they were new this was alright whereas if they were old or made from recycled material this was inadmissible. Another Baraitha is quoted saying that recycled material was acceptable but that the requirement that they be made from new material was recommended but not mandatory. The word לכבוד concerns the rule that they were not to be torn, an absolute law, whereas the word ולתפארת refers to the garments being new as a condition which was not mandatory though desirable. This is the reason the Torah had to write both expressions. If our interpretation were not correct, the Torah would have written only the word לתפארת which implies more than the word לכבוד. [There is an opinion offered in the Talmud according to which the garments which became dirty as a result of contact with the אבנט, the girdle, did ot become disqualified. However, if they were dirty when the priest put them on they were disqualified. Ed.]
  
  Verse 41
  
   והלבשת אותם…ומשחת אותם, "and you will dress Aaron and his sons in them and anoint them, etc." The Torah means that the priests are first to put on the garments and that they are to be anointed while still wearing these garments. The act of anointing the priests with the anointing oil helped to make them into priests. When the Torah speaks of ומלאת את ידם, instead of merely of ומלאת אותם, this may mean that the priests would be affected emotionally by this procedure so that they would become recipients of G'd's kindness, known as "His great Hand." Students of the Kabbalah will understand what I refer to.
  וקדשת אותם, "and you will sanctify them." This refers to the performance of the sacrificial service which (Moses) would perform in order to sanctify them. This had to be mentioned here in order for us to know that until Aaron and his sons wore the priestly garments and had been anointed, the sacrificial service performed by Moses did not accomplish the change in their status.
  
  Verse 42
  
   ועשה להם מכנסי בד, "and make for them pants of linen, etc." Why did the Torah wait so long with the commandment to make pants for the priests? Inasmuch as the Torah had instructed Moses to dress the priests in their service garments I would have thought that this instruction included the need for Moses to put on their pants. In order for us to know that the priests were to put on the pants themselves, the Torah delayed telling us about the pants until after commanding Moses to put the other garments on Aaron and his sons. We must not conclude from the positioning of this commandment that the pants were the last garment the priests were to put on. The Torah mentions in Leviticus 16,4 that the pants should cover the flesh of the priests, and we learned in <i>Yuma</i> 23 that the pants were the first garment the priests were to put on. Our interpretation of the delay in mentioning the need for the priestly garments to include pants is correct then.
  Another reason for listing the pants as the last of the priestly garments may be the Torah's intention to position this commandment immediately adjacent to the warning in verse 43 for the priests not to become guilty of an iniquity as a result of which they would die. Had the Torah included the commandment for the priests to wear special pants when the other garments were listed, I might have concluded that the warning in verse 43 applied only to the garments other than the pants seeing that the reason the priests had to wear pants was for the sake of chastity, something applicable to every male, not just to priests. By positioning the requirement that the priests were to have special pants to be worn when they performed the service in the Temple, the Torah made it clear that whatever rules applied to the other priestly garments also applied to their pants.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וזה הרבר אשר תעשה, "And this is the thing you are to do for them, etc." I have explained in connection with 27,20 that Moses' part in the construction of the Tabernacle was merely that he should instruct the artisans who would perform the work, whereas he personally was not to weave, embroider, or perform any of the various activities required. This rule was broken in the paragraph commencing here, where Moses is instructed to personally perform sacrificial rites as part of conferring the priesthood on Aaron and his sons. This is why the Torah commences the chapter with the words: וזה הדבר, "and this is the thing, etc." He was to offer animal sacrifices for seven days in a row. The word וזה, "and this," is justified seeing Moses had already been commanded to clothe the priests and to anoint them, i.e. physical activities, not just verbal instructions. The Torah therefore says: "You are also to perform this additional task with your hands, etc." If the Torah had not written תעשה, i.e. "you will do it," but had only written: "take one young bullock, etc.," we would have been justified in assuming that Moses was merely to issue a directive to Aaron or his sons to do this. Seeing there was a chance that we would interpret the instruction for Moses to act as priest and offer sacrifices as something applicable only to the inaugural sacrifices recorded here and not to any of the regular public offerings to be offered on those days, the Torah repeats by saying וזה אשר תעשה…כבשים בני שנה in verse 38 of this chapter. The repetition of this phrase indicates that Moses would officiate as priest also for those sacrifices. The Torah repeated the phrase "and this is what you shall do on the altar" (verse 38), so that we should not assume that Moses would be allowed to offer the daily public offerings also after the expiry of the seven inaugural days.
  According to <i>Yuma</i> 4 the word הדבר in our verse may mean that everything connected with the instructions about the inaugural offerings is mandatory. According to the opinion offered there that only those details which are mandatory for the offerings which are offered throughout the generations are also mandatory for the inaugural offerings, the word הדבר tells us that the detail mentioned here is mandatory but not every other detail.
  לקח פר אחד בן בקר, "take one young bullock, etc." Perhaps the Torah implied that either Moses or Aaron could pay for the bullock in question; there was nothing mandatory about this aspect of the inaugural sacrifices.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ויצקת על ראשו ומשחת אוהו, "and pour it upon his head and anoint him." The verse means that the oil had to be poured on his head. The same applied to the anointing of Aaron's sons. Aaron and his sons each required a separate pouring of oil upon their heads seeing that the verse referred to both of them in the same way as we know from 28,41. This is further reinforced by the wording in 40,15 where the Torah said: "you will anoint them just as you have anointed their father. <i>Torat Kohanim on Parshat Tzav</i> explains the meaning of that verse in the same spirit.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ומלאת יד אהרון ויד בניו, "and you will consecrate Aaron and his sons." This refers to the anointing of Aaron and his sons, similar to what the Torah wrote in 28,41. The only thing missing in this verse is the reference to the anointing. This is alluded to by the word ומלאת.
  
  Verse 10
  
   וסמך אהרון ובניו את ידיהם, "and Aaron and his sons will place their hands, etc." The reason that the Torah uses the singular וסמך instead of the plural form וסמכו, is that Aaron was to place his hands on the bullock and his sons were to repeat this action individually, one at a time. I have come across a <i>Tossephta</i> in chapter 10 of <i>Menachot</i> which states: "When five people jointly offer one sacrifice they all perform the rite of placing their hands with all their weight on the animal; they do not do this simultaneously but one after another." Maimonides rules similarly in chapter 3 of <i>Maaseh Ha-korbanot.</i> Accordingly, we can well understand why our verse describes the act of סמיכה in the singular, i.e. וסמך, instead of וסמכו, as they were not to do this simultaneously. We still have to clarify why the Torah had to give these instructions twice in connection with the ram in verse 19 and was not content with Leviticus 8,18 where it is reported that Aaron and his sons did perform סמיכה and the fact is reported in the plural. Perhaps the Torah felt that if it would not repeat the report we would think that seeing that the bullock was a sin-offering, only Aaron performed the rite of סמיכה because only he and not his sons had been involved in the sin of the golden calf. By telling us that the same procedure was followed in connection with the ram which was a total-offering, the Torah made plain that none of these offerings were connected with Aaron's share in the making of the golden calf. The method chosen by the Torah makes it clear that the performance of סמיכה was required for all meat-offerings other than birds. Now we can understand why there was no need to write the word ויסמכו in the singular in Leviticus 8,18, seeing the point had been made already in our verse here. [With all due respect to the author, why did the Torah repeat the point in Leviticus 8,14 where the Torah again uses the singular in connection with Aaron and his sons? Ed.]
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   מאשר לאהרון ומאשר לבניו. "of that which is Aaron's and of that which is his sons'". Why was this phrase needed at all? Perhaps the Torah meant to inform us that Moses was allowed to eat these parts only in this instance. He would not be permitted to eat of the breast or thigh of any other sacrificial offerings in the future, they would be exclusively Aaron's and his sons.
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   ואכלו אותם אשר כפר בהם, "and they will eat them with which atonement was made." They will eat those parts of the animal in their capacity as owners and not in their capacity as priests. The meaning of the words אשר כפר בהם is that the consumption of meat of the peace-offerings by their owners confers atonement upon them. Even Moses was forbidden to eat of any of these parts of the animal, though he was permitted to eat the breast and the thigh.
  
  Verse 34
  
   כי קדש הוא, for it is sacred. This is the reason it had to be burned.
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
   את הכבש האחד תעשה בבקר, "you will offer the one lamb in the morning, etc." The Torah emphasises the definitive article הכבש, so that there can be no doubt that the one mentioned in verse 41 is not an additional one. The emphasis on the word האחד is to tell us that even if at the time when the daily morning sacrifice was offered there was not yet a second lamb at hand for the daily evening sacrifice, this fact did not disqualify the first lamb from being offered up in the morning. Although we have learned in <i>Menachot</i> 44 that when inaugurating the altar the two lambs' presence was mandatory, this means only that the evening sacrifice must not be offered unless the one for the morning is at hand. A morning sacrifice may be offered even in the absence of a lamb for the offering to be brought the same evening.
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
   ונעדתי שמה לבני ישראל, "And there I shall meet with the children of Israel, etc." What precisely is the message of this verse? I believe the verse provides the rationale for the words ונקדש בכבודי, "and it will be sanctified by My Glory." Our sages said in <i>Zevachim</i> 115 that this is why the Torah mentioned in Leviticus 10,3: "I will become sanctified by those who are close to Me." The Torah first had to tell us that G'd's presence would be in the Tabernacle so that people would keep a respectful distance and not become victims by entering areas that were out of bounds to them. G'd hinted that the only reason He warned the ordinary Israelites i.e. לבני ישראל, about such trespass on their part was for their sake. As far as Moses or the priests were concerned, the Tabernacle was not out of bounds to them.
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
   אני ה׳ אלוקיהם, "I am the Lord their G'd." The reason the Torah repeats this after having said almost the same thing in verse 45 may be to remind us that even at a time when G'd's שכינה is not manifest amongst us, He still remains our G'd. Alternatively, G'd's being truly our G'd depends on our being aware of and recognising this fact. We are only worthy of bearing His name while we recognise Him as our G'd as mentioned at the beginning of this verse. Failing this, the result will be that the people will shake off the burden of the Torah, in which event they would "belong" to other gods.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ועשית מזבח מקטר קטורת, "You shall construct an altar for offering up incense, etc. I have already explained (Exodus 25,9) why the construction of this altar was mentioned last. The reason for the word תעשה (in addition to the directive "you shall make"), is to prevent something which Solomon did when he had no acacia wood and constructed the altar for incense completely out of gold.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   כי תשא את ראש, "When you count the sum, etc." Why did the Torah choose the expression תשא to describe counting instead of the customary תפקד as we find in Numbers 3,15? Why did the Torah mention ראש and did not content itself with writing כי תשא את בני ישראל, seeing that the Israelites were not to be counted by means of a head count? Besides, what did the Torah have in mind with the word לפקדיהם?
  Our sages comment that a sinner causes his head to be bowed as a result of his sins. Evil is defined as something which causes man to look only at what is below him, at the ground, whereas קדושה, sanctity, results in raising up one's head and elevating a person spiritually. We note that the Torah describes even the cave of Machpelah as undergoing an elevation after Abraham purchased it (Genesis 23,17). Our sages in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 58,8 describe the cave as undergoing an elevation. Inasmuch as the Torah commands this count after the sin of the golden calf as Rashi concluded based on the words ונתת אותו על עבודת אהל מועד "and you will appoint it for the service of the Tent of Meeting" in verse 16, we can understand why the expression כי תשא, "when you will raise," is appropriate. We encounter a similar use of the word תשא in Genesis 40,13 when the Torah refers to Pharaoh "raising" the head of the chief of the butlers who would be reinstated into his position. In our case, the Israelites will be enabled to hold their heads high again as a result of this count which served as atonement for the sin of the golden calf. Up until this time they had not felt able to raise their heads due to the shame of having had a part in that sin. לפקדיהם, "according to their number;" this is to be understood as parallel to Numbers 31,49 where the Torah states that not a single one of the 12,000 men whom Moses had sent on the punitive expedition against the Midianites had become a casualty during that war. There too the words נשאו את ראש meant that "they counted the sum." <i>Shabbat</i> 64 explains that the words ולא נפקד ממנו איש, meant that not a single one of those soldiers was guilty of a sin. ונתנו איש כפר נפשו, "each one will give (this) as ransom for his soul to G'd." This is a reference to the Israelites each having forfeited their lives through participation in the sin of the golden calf. בפקד אותם, "when numbering them." The meaning is literal. 
  The reason the Torah added the conjunctive letter ו before the word נתנו, is that in order to be effective as ransom each Israelite first had to acknowledge his guilt; only after he had done so could he contribute the half-shekel as ransom for his life.
  Another meaning of the word לפקדיהס is that the only reason a count was justified at all was the fact that their number had diminished (due to the people who had either died or been executed during that episode). The count was meant to establish how many of the people had survived. The count in Numbers 31,49 we mentioned was also undertaken only to determine if and how many soldiers had become casualties during that campaign. Basically, a census was to be undertaken only in order to count the number of soldiers going to war or returning from war. The extra letter ו in ונתנו is to tell us of an additional condition, i.e. that these people were not only to be counted but that they also had to contribute a half-shekel as ransom for their souls. This was a unique occurrence. Future counts of the Jewish people were never accompanied by the handing over of a half-shekel of every person to be counted.
  ולא יהיה בהם נגף בפקד אותם, "so that there not be a plague amongst them when numbering them." Why did the Torah write the expression בפקד אותם twice in the same verse? Seeing that at the time when the commandment of this count was given Israel was already guilty of the sin of the golden calf, one could assume that at other times it would not matter if the count would be a head count instead of counting the number of half-shekel coins, the Torah had to refer to the future by saying: "so that there will not be a plague when they are being counted."
  There is also an assurance here that not only would the Israelites obtain their atonement by means of this count and the manner in which it was conducted, but it would protect them against a plague in the future. We learn by inference that a head count would be liable to result in a plague for those so counted.
  There may well be yet another message in our verse. G'd commanded two things. 1) The number of the Israelites should be arrived at by means of each person to be numbered handing over an object, i.e. ונתנו, as the Torah stated in verse 13: זה יתנו, "this is what they shall give." This was the atonement factor of this count. The second commandment implied here is that a count should never be a head count but should be conducted by means of some other object. This is why the Torah had to add: "so that there shall not be a plague on them, etc." The latter condition is not one that enhances the objective of the census, it merely ensures that there will be no negative fall-out. We find this confirmed when King Saul numbered the people he mobilised in his war against the men of Yavesh Gilead, where we are told (Samuel I 11,8) "he numbered them by means of shards" (based on Rashi, <i>Yuma</i> 22)." Unless you interpret the verse in this fashion we must ask who permitted Saul to conduct the count by means of shards seeing that the Torah had spoken of each person handing over a half-shekel? When you accept our interpretation that in future people to be counted would simply hand over some object (other than a coin) you will have no difficulty.
  I have examined the count David conducted (Samuel II 24). According to scripture there it appears that David (or better Yoav at David's command) conducted a head count. How could King David be guilty of such a gross error? While it is true that our sages in <i>Berachot</i> 62 claim that David was misled by Heaven into committing an error which every student in an elementary school would not become guilty of, the meaning there is somewhat different than appears at first glance. The Talmud applied to David the verse in Samuel I 26,19 (which he himself had coined when proclaiming his loyalty to Saul) "If the Lord has incited you against me, etc." The fact that David suggested that G'd would incite Saul against him, an intolerable thought, produced an evil force (angel) in accordance with a general statement to that effect in <i>Avot</i> 4,13. The force the sinner creates will eventually be used against him who has created it. Thus it was not G'd who seduced David into sinning by letting him forget such an elementary prohibition but David was the author of his own seduction. All of this is part of the syndrome which our sages called עברה גוררת עברה, "one sin brings another sin in its wake." Inasmuch as a person of the calibre of David most certainly would not intentionally accuse G'd of inciting people's minds to do something wrong, the kind of "evil angel" his exclamation produced could not retaliate by causing him to commit a sin other than an unintentional one. In this instance the vehicle chosen was to cause him to forget a basic <i>halachah</i> concerning the conduct of a census.
  While this explanation enables us to understand why David committed such an oversight, it does not explain why Yoav, his commander-in-chief, did not mention David's error to him before accepting the directive to perform a head count of the people. If he understood David's directive to count the people as an order to comply with the traditional method of counting by means of a half-shekel to be handed over by each person being counted, why did he not do so? On the other hand, if David specifically ordered a head count why did Yoav not remonstrate with him reminding him of the <i>halachah?</i> Why did Yoav carry out a command which contravened Torah law? In situations like this we apply the principle of דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד דברי מי שומעים, that when the instruction by a human king (or human being) are contrary to standing orders of a senior king, i.e. G'd, we must obey the orders of the senior king, i.e. G'd. Maimonides spells out this rule very clearly in chapter 3 of his treatise on <i>Hilchot Melachim.</i> Even assuming that both David and Yoav had been ignorant of the <i>halachah</i> at the time, why did not the Jewish Supreme Court intervene before allowing a head count to take place? Even every individual about to be counted should have objected to the procedure, if only for fear of the plague threatened by the Torah against such a procedure! If their compliance was due to their considering the saving of the half-shekel as more important than jeopardising their lives, they should at least have argued that they could be counted by means of the shards as Saul had done when he counted the soldiers he mobilised against the Ammonites! How could it be that the entire nation was so careless and submitted to a procedure endangering their lives needlessly?
  I believe we must assume that David ordered a census without mentioning whether it should be a head count or otherwise. He did not think he needed to specify the details of how to conduct the census seeing Yoav was a learned man and could be assumed to know the relevant <i>halachot.</i> He therefore assumed that Yoav would conduct the counting of the people in a manner similar to the count performed by Saul by means of shards. When the Talmud in <i>Berachot</i> 62 points to the fact that David's count was not by means of the "ransom for the soul," this means that whereas Yoav did not take a half-shekel from the people whom he numbered, he did take something else such as Saul did. We have already stated that the meaning of "counts should not be conducted בלא דבר," is that unless there was a genuine reason for conducting a census it should not be undertaken. In the case of David, no such reason was evident. Yoav himself protested the need to count the people when David directed him to undertake a census. Perhaps the plague could have been avoided if Yoav had counted the people by means of the half-shekel contribution as in our portion here. You will note that we read in Samuel II 24,1: "G'd continued to be angry at Israel and He enticed David against them to say: "go and count Israel and Yehudah." It is evident from this verse that Israel had already been guilty of another (undisclosed) sin. When they were counted for no good reason they attracted to themselves the attribute of Justice and were punished for their sin.
  We may view the matter thus. Seeing that one of the conditions for counting the Jewish people is that there is a genuine reason for the count, the moment even one of the conditions justifying the count is absent, the people being counted are subject to a plague. David's error was that he had forgotten this. This also explains why Yoav questioned the need to take a census and tried to dissuade David (24,3) from counting the people. Had Yoav seen a genuine need to count the people he would not have objected to it. Clearly, if Yoav objected to the count because he saw no need for it, he would have objected even more strenuously if the census was to be a head count, something expressly prohibited. Perhaps when Yoav saw that David was very insistent to go through with the count, he concluded that the king must have an adequate reason justifying him in giving such a directive; he complied [though incompletely, Ed.] believing David must have a good reason for wanting to know the number of Israelites bearing arms. He may have feared to appear like a rebel if he refused point blank. At any rate, Yoav did not conduct a head count. We cannot fault the individual Israelites for not raising objections as they were not even aware individually that a census was being taken. Besides, they did not have to know which were good reasons for conducting a census and which were not. Since when does each individual Jew have to subject every single directive of the king to his personal scrutiny?
  We may say that there are three הלכות which govern census taking. The first הלכה concerns the census taken after the episode of the golden calf at which time there was a need not only to count heads but each person subject to the census had to contribute a half-shekel in order to atone for his share in that sin. The second הלכה concerns a census which is taken whenever there is a legitimate reason to count the people. At such times there is no need for half-shekel contributions, a shard is just as good to avoid making a head count of the individuals. This is what Saul did when he counted the people. The third הלכה concerns a census which is not justified by legitimate considerations. Such counts are to be avoided at all costs. David's error was that he forgot this particular הלכה because of G'd allowing him to be misled. In such cases, however, if the people to be counted were to each give a half-shekel at the time this would protect them against a plague. You may well ask why David needed to count the people instead of relying on the annual half-shekel contribution for the communal sacrifices which every male over 20 years of age had to contribute? We would have to answer that the half-shekel contributions were not a reliable instrument since even minors used to contribute the half-shekel as we are told in <i>Shekalim</i> 1,3, whereas the numbers counted by Yoav were men who were trained in warfare (Samuel II 24,9). David wanted to know how many men he could send into battle, if the need arose.
  
  Verse 13
  
   זה יתנו, "This is what they shall give, etc." We are told in <i>Tanchuma</i> on this verse that G'd showed Moses a coin of fire situated beneath His throne. It appears strange that G'd did not rather inform Moses of the weight of the coin in question. This would have been easier to comprehend than a coin made of fire. Any image such as that described by the <i>Midrash</i> could at best have given Moses an approximation of the size of that coin.
  Moreover, why was G'd interested in a half-shekel? He should have at least asked for a full shekel! Why did G'd forbid the wealthy to contribute more and the poor to contribute less than the half-shekel?
  There are mystical elements involved in this legislation which are not evident to the average person. The <i>Midrash</i> alluded to this when it described the manner in which G'd explained the appearance, i.e. significance, of the coin in question. The very expression זה יתנו of which our verse speaks begs the question. G'd told Moses that the visible element in the legislation is secondary to the invisible element. This is why the coin described as being shown to Moses is presented as only an image, not as the real thing. We have mentioned several times that the Presence of G'd is usually referred to by our sages as the Throne of G'd's Glory. This "Throne" and its location are determined in large measure by the conduct of the Jewish people. The prophet Isaiah refers to this in Isaiah 50,1 when he describes G'd telling the Jewish people that not He had divorced them, but their iniquities had resulted in the alienation between them. Solomon uses a similar hyperbole in Proverbs 16,28 when he describes quarrel-someness as alienating one's friends. The alienation between Israel and its G'd resulted from the episode of the golden calf which affected the roots of all the Jewish souls. G'd therefore commanded that the people give a "half-shekel" to symbolise that their previous action had resulted in something whole having become divided. The contribution of this half-shekel was to repair the damage done to the whole through the people's participation in the sin of the golden calf. When G'd showed Moses the coin of fire as being immediately beneath the throne of G'd, He drew his attention to the mystical dimension of this legislation. Payment of a ransom is not merely a transaction in this material world, but has far-reaching effects in a spiritual domain. Performance of G'd's commandments is predicated on the participation of the heart of the performer in his deed, i.e. רחמנא לבא בעי. Every מצוה is meant to close a gap that may exist between man and G'd. This is why the Torah added the words את תרומת השם, the contribution restores one's closeness with G'd.
  We can now understand that if the wealthy person were allowed to contribute more, the whole purpose of the half-shekel would be denied. The same applies to the prohibition for the poor to contribute less than the half-shekel. The symbolic meaning of the "half" was paramount in drawing people's attention to what was to be accomplished. The Torah wanted to stress this element and that is why it first stressed the details about the amount. Ordinarily, the Torah should have spoken about a תרומה, a gift, a contribution, and only afterwards about the size of the contribution. The Torah changed its regular syntax in order to draw our attention to the primacy of the amount of the gift.
  If we are looking for a moral-ethical dimension in this paragraph we may find in it an answer to the age-old problem of why some outstandingly pious and valuable people die prematurely. At first glance such people appear to share the same fate as that of confirmed sinners to whom G'd does not grant a normal lifespan. When the average individual reflects on this phenomenon he is apt to arrive at one of two conclusions. 1) He will deny our system of reward and punishment and conclude that there is no point in living a life dedicated to the service of the Lord. 2) Or, if he is not daring enough to accuse his mentors of having misled him and of having taught him a set of illusory values, he will conclude that the person who died prematurely was a charlatan and that his "piety" was only make-believe so that G'd punished him by having him die early. The result of such an attitude is that one would deny anyone who died prematurely the good reputation he had established while alive. The Torah counters such thinking by saying: כי תשא את ראש בני ישראל, "when you elevate i.e. remove to a higher world, a leader of the Jewish community through premature death," לפקדיהם, "and he does not live a normal lifespan," then the reason is ונתנו איש כפר נפשם, that "the people who have now been deprived of the leadership provided by such a person have to pay for their sins by being deprived of the presence of the pious person in question." We have used the word לפקדיהם in the sense that the Torah used it in Numbers 31,49 when it means becoming a casualty. The idea of the leader serving as atonement for the multitude is taken from our sages' interpretation of Song of Songs 1,14: אשכול הכפר דודי לי, "the person who combines within him every virtue serves as atonement for me for my beloved (G'd)." The expression לפקדיהם may also be understood in accordance with the comment of <i>Zohar Chadash</i> on the words כל העובר על הפקדים in verse 13. The <i>Zohar</i> translates these words as: "anyone who transgresses the commandments, etc." This means that the reason for the premature absence (death) of these pious people we referred to are the sins of their contemporaries. Let no one draw negative conclusions about the character of people who die prematurely and have led an exemplary life as far as their contemporaries were able to judge.
  G'd said that inasmuch as it is their contemporaries who have caused the premature death of such pious people, the ones they left behind have to pay a ransom for having been the root cause of this early death by the righteous. This is the meaning of ונתנו איש כפר נפשו. We find this concept spelled out in greater detail in Isaiah 57,2: כי מפני הרעה נאסף הצדיק, "the righteous has died because of the evil (sins)." This can mean that: a) the premature death of the righteous acts as a catalyst for the people whom he left behind to mend their ways, or, b) the righteous was removed from the earth before his time in order that he not share the retribution G'd will bring on his contemporaries. One of the ways in which the survivors express their repentance is the payment of the half-shekel as a ransom for their own sins.
  The words: בפקוד אותם, mean that the process of repentance had to commence immediately, i.e. when they were being counted." In the event that they would be tardy in doing so, G'd threatened the people in question with the plague as punishment for their participation [even though passively, seeing the active participants had already been executed by either the Levites or by the hand of G'd. Ed.] It is an historic fact (according to <i>Sanhedrin</i> 113) that whenever pious people died prematurely in order to awaken the survivors to do <i>Teshuvah,</i> failure by the survivors to do so resulted in almost immediate mass retribution by G'd. The author cites occurrences in his own time as proof of this theory.
  When the Torah commences with the words: זה יתנו, this introduces the manner in which atonement is to be achieved. The word זה is a veiled reference to the Torah scroll which is described as זה in Joshua 1,8: לא ימוש ספר התורה הזה מפיך. Our sages also say that just as the Torah commanded the king to always have a Torah scroll with him (Deut. 17,19), so G'd Himself always has a Torah scroll in front of Him. This is the mystical dimension of G'd pointing with a finger and saying to Moses: "This is what they are to give!" G'd must have referred to something which lies in front of Him all the time, seeing He did not define the "This" further. The message is that the atonement will accrue to the people to be counted by means of their immersing themselves in the study of the Torah and in the performance of the commandments which are written therein. According to <i>Menachot</i> 110 Torah study protects a person, assures him of atonement for his sins, and it is the single most potent factor in amassing merits in this world. It is an effective antidote against punishment even if the person studying Torah had been guilty of many sins previously. The Talmud there interprets the verse in Leviticus 7,37: זאת התורה לעולה, למנחה, ולחטאת ולאשם to mean that if one concentrates on the study of Torah this is equivalent to one's having offered all the kinds of sacrifices listed in this verse in order to achieve atonement. The relationship of זה and כל העובר על הפקדים is that anyone who has violated the orders (of G'd) will be able to rehabilitate himself by means of the Torah. The words כל העובר על הפקדים may also be read as belonging to what follows, i.e. that they should contribute a half-shekel each. Seeing that not everyone is capable of "immersing" himself in Torah, we have here an allusion to the traditional partnership of Zevulun and Yissachar, the former supplying the latter with the financial means to enable him to devote himself to Torah without the need to worry about making a livelihood (compare <i>Sotah</i> 21 on the subject). There are many people nowadays who allocate half of their money (חצי שקל) for the scholars who toil studying Torah.
  The words בשקל הקודש may be translated as "for the sake of the holy shekel, i.e. Torah." Alternatively, the meaning could be that people who contribute of their money to enable scholars to study undisturbed thereby acquire a merit similar to those who do the studying. Perhaps this is what Solomon referred to in Kohelet 7,12 כי בצל החכמה בצל הכסף, "for to sit in the shelter of wisdom is to sit in the shelter of money." Were it not for the money supplied by generous donors the scholar could not afford to sit in the academy and study Torah. Concerning the "holy shekel" and the misleading term בקע לגלגלת, we are taught in <i>Bechorot</i> 5 that the holy shekel comprised twice the weight of silver in an ordinary shekel. There is a profound moral significance in this dual use of the word shekel. If a scholar who is subsidised by a layman should feel that inasmuch as he "shares" the merit of his Torah study with the donor he does so at the cost of "losing" part of the merit accumulated by his study, and both of them would wind up with only "half a shekel's worth of merit," this is not so. Inasmuch as the "holy shekel" is worth twice what an ordinary shekel is worth, both parties individually enjoy the full merit due to their respective input.
  When the Torah describes a full shekel as consisting of 20 <i>geyrah,</i> this is an allusion to the two units of ten [the standard symbol for anything holy, as the author has mentioned on occasion, Ed.] which together form the concept of שכינה, the Presence of G'd, i.e. His throne and His sitting on it in His capacity as King of Kings. These two units are intended to fuse, just as the ideal personality of a human being is achieved through his studying Torah on the one hand and his practicing its precepts on the other. The combination of these two factors leads to the ideal possible. When the Torah emphasises מחצית השקל תרומה לה׳, this is an allusion to the damage caused to the union of G'd and His throne through the sin of the golden calf the Israelites had become guilty of. This damage can be repaired only through Torah study and performance of its precepts. Even when two people combined in fulfilling these two requirements, each one will receive the reward for having fulfilled both parts of the commandment as we already pointed out in connection with the respective roles of Zevulun and Yissachar.
  העשיר לא ירבה means that he who donates his half-shekel in this world should not view himself as having made a substantial donation, begrudging it, and thereby reducing its moral value. On the other hand, והדל לא ימעיט means that a person should not use the excuse of his poverty to refrain from making his fair contribution. In both instances the consideration that must be uppermost in the heart of either the wealthy or the poor is לתת תרומת ה׳ לכפר על נפשותיכם, that this relatively insignificant gift to G'd counts as a ransom payment and atones for the capital sin committed during the episode of the golden calf. Considering that we have it on the authority of Satan in Job 2,4 that man willingly sacrifices all his material possessions in order to save his life, the amount G'd demanded is very paltry indeed.
  The Torah stipulates that the minimum age at which a person had to make this half-shekel contribution was from twenty years and up. The Torah revealed a secret here when it did not demand that males from the age of 13 and up had to make this contribution. Seeing that males are considered as adults from the age of 13, why would teenagers not have been liable for this ransom? They also had participated in the golden calf episode! The Torah told us here that a person's personality (נפש) has not matured until age 20 as he has not had time to absorb and comprehend the various spiritual components which make up a true Israelite until he has reached that age. This is the mystical dimension of Psalms 2,7: "You are My son, I have fathered you this day." Compare what the Zohar Mishpatim 98 has to say on that verse. [The <i>Zohar</i> on Exodus 21,9 writes that man is called בן from the age of 13, and בן להקב׳ה from the age of 20. Ed.] There is a sound reason why man should not be liable to punishment at the hands of heaven until he has reached that age, seeing that he has not yet matured emotionally and intellectually. Such maturity is essential to enable us to successfully battle the evil urge and to appreciate G'd's message to man. By the time man has reached the age of 20 he is considered as fully equipped to cope with all kinds of temptations.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ונתת שמה מים. "you will put water into it." Apparently it did not have to be Moses who had to fill the basin with water. Any non-priest was qualified to perform that chore.
  
  Verse 19
  
   את ידיהם ואת רגליהם. "their hands and their feet." The two words את were not really necessary. The reason the Torah wrote the word את each time is to tell us that washing of the hands without washing of the feet at the same time, or washing of the feet without washing of the hands at the same time did not accomplish its purpose. In other words the word את really means עם. The source for our explanation can be found in <i>Zevachim</i> 19 where we are told that the priest had to sanctify hands and feet simultaneously.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   חק עולם, an eternal law. Even though the priest may have just emerged from immersing himself in a ritual bath in order to purify himself from a more severe category of impurity, this does not relieve him of the need to wash his hands and feet from the water of the כיור. The Torah warns the priest for the fifth time not to risk the death penalty to warn him that the ritual immersion did not replace the commandment to wash their hands and feet before either entering the Sanctuary or approaching the copper altar in the courtyard to perform service therein.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ואתה קח לך, "And as for you, take for yourself, etc." The plain meaning of the verse is that Moses was to pay for the anointing oil out of his own pocket. This is why the Torah prefaced the directive with the word ואתה. Moses was to perform this particular commandment personally, as opposed to the other commandments concerning which G'd had also addressed him in direct speech, commanding him to perform the respective directive. Even though the Torah included the oil and the various spices in the list of items to be donated by the general public (25,3), the Torah here revealed its intention that these items be contributed by Moses personally.
  We have a Baraitha in <i>Keritut</i> 5 according to which Moses boiled the oil he took to anoint the priests with during the seven-day inaugural service of the Tabernacle. The remnants of the oil were preserved for future occasions. We have been taught that no such oil was ever again prepared at any time as the oil Moses had prepared was used again and again and it did not diminish in quantity. Maimonides rules in chapter in chapter 1 of his treatise <i>Kley Hamishkan</i> that apart from the quantity of anointing oil prepared by Moses, none was ever made again. This is the additional dimension of the words ואתה קח לך, indicating to Moses that only he would have the privilege to prepare this oil for anointing. <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> item 764 sees in these words an allusion to the fact that in Messianic times it will be the resurrected Moses who will personally perform the Temple service. While it is true that the Torah also uses the expression: קח לך in connection with the fragrances for the frankincense in verse 34, the word ואתה does not appear in connection with that directive.
  וקנמן בשם מחציתו, "and half as much sweet cinnamon, etc." According to the Talmud in <i>Keritut</i> 5 this means that Moses was to bring five hundred units of sweet cinnamon but was to use only half of it in preparing the oil for anointing. The Talmud wonders if perhaps the directive in the Torah meant that Moses was only to bring two hundred and fifty units, i.e. "half," just like the amount of <i>Kneh bossem</i> mentioned immediately afterwards. The answer given is that if this had been the Torah's intention the directive should have read: קנמן בשם וקנה בשם מחצה, ומחצה חמישים ומתאים. Thus far the Talmud on the subject.
  Perhaps we can suggest an additional answer to the question raised by the Talmud. If the Torah had meant for Moses to contribute only a total of 250 units of sweet cinammon, the word "half of it," would have been totally superfluous; who does not know that 250 is half of 500? The Torah intended for two quantities of 250 units to be weighed [on opposite sides of the scale but that only one half was to be mixed in as an ingredient at that time. Ed.]
  I have seen a comment by Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra who writes that it is not the custom of the Arabs to add even as much as the weight of a single grain of mustard to the recipe according to which they prepare such oils for incense. I do not think that this is correct. The process of weighing requires that one adds the quantities gradually in order to know when the correct weight has been achieved. I have seen that when the most experienced goldsmiths weigh gold they add another small weight to one side of the scales [and then presumably withdraw it, Ed.] in order to be certain that they have the correct weight. The reason that the Talmud did not mention our answer may be that according to the understanding of the Talmud the one unit of 250 remained separate at all times. The word מחציתו, "half of it," would then mean that Moses was to bring two amounts of 125 units each.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   קדש הוא, "it is holy." This refers to the quantity being sacred. Even if the oil would be compounded of materials not listed here, i.e. something altogether profane, a combination of components in the quantities mentioned here would make it "sacred" in the sense of "forbidden." Anyone concocting such a mixture would be as guilty as a layman offering a total offering or sin-offering on his own behalf. If all such a person wanted to do was to train himself in the art of making such compositions, or in order to donate it to the community, this is permissible as we learned in <i>Keritut</i> 5.
  The wording: "it is holy and it shall remain holy" may have yet another meaning. The words "it is sacred" refer to the oil for anointing made by Moses; it possessed an additional degree of holiness in that any private person using it to smear it on himself would be guilty of <i>Karet.</i> The Talmud understands the words "from it" in verse 33 as referring to the oil of anointing prepared by Moses. Any oil for anointing prepared by somebody other than Moses would not be forbidden on pain of this harsh penalty. The words "it will be holy," refer to such mixtures which would be prepared in the future. Unless such oil for anointing conformed to the exact measurements or weights as mentioned here, the user would not face any penalty. Had the Torah not written ממנו "from it," this would not have sufficed as I would have concluded that unless one smeared one's whole body with such oil one would not be guilty of the penalty threatened by the Torah.
  Our sages in <i>Keritut</i> 6 derive from the wording of this verse that the oil for anointing had to be prepared in a holy area. If they would be right, the Torah should have written such a provision where it formulated the commandment not where it only threatened the penalty. We may therefore conclude that the sages in the Talmud do not really mean that their ruling has Biblical force; they only looked for some hint in the written text to drive home their point. Presumably, they had a tradition concerning this requirement to prepare the oil for anointing on holy ground. Our explanation follows the plain meaning of the text.
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  ממלח טהור קדוש. Salted, pure, holy. It appears that the meaning of "pure" refers to colours. The incense was to be of a uniform colour throughout. Seeing that it consisted of many different spices and a quantity sufficient for 368 portions of it was prepared at one time, it would most likely have had a mottled appearance unless the Torah had directed that it should be mixed in such a way that its spices would merge into a single uniform colour. Even though it possessed a uniform colour after having been thoroughly mixed, if someone examined it carefully he would notice that the uniformity was not due to all of its components being of the same colour. Such uniformity would not qualify for the definition "pure." The words: "salted, pure" mean therefore that it was to be so finely ground that even upon visual examination from close quarters its colour would appear to be uniform. This required expertise on the part of the people who pounded it into small particles.
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
   והקטרת אשר תעשה, "And the incense which you are to make, etc." According to <i>Keritut</i> 6 the words: "you shall make," mean that Moses was to separate an amount needed for the daily incense offerings from the total on the day it would be used. This means that if an individual would compound an amount of incense of even half the daily portion offered on the altar, [the daily portion was divided into a half to be offered in the morning and the other half to be offered close to evening. Ed.] such an individual would be guilty of the most severe <i>karet</i> penalty; he would be cut off from his people (for all times).
  לא תעשו, "you must not make it, etc." This means that even if the person making it had no intention of smelling the incense he had made he would still be guilty of a penalty though not the same penalty as if he had smelled the fragrance of the incense he had compounded. We derive this conclusion from the fact that the <i>Karet</i> penalty is mentioned in our portion only in verse 38 where the Torah speaks of someone smelling the incense.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  ראה קראתי בשם בצלאל, "See, I have called by name Betzalel, etc." Perhaps the extra word בשם is intended to draw our attention not only to Betzalel's name but also to that of his father and grandfather and how those names reflected Betzalel's impact on his contemporaries. The name בצל־אל suggests that he was the man through whom a shelter was provided for G'd on earth. בן אורי suggests that Betzalel's father looked upon G'd as the source of his inspiration and enlightenment. בן חור is a reference to freedom, בן חורים. Betzalel helped free the Israelites from the remaining stigma of the golden calf by helping Israel to regain its good graces. Our sages in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 51,4 in connection with the words משכן העדות in Exodus 38,21 point out that the reason for that designation of the Tabernacle was that its existence was testimony, עדות, that G'd had forgiven the Jewish people for the sin of the golden calf. This very thought was also anchored in Betzalel's name and the name of his forebears. The allusions we just referred to would justify the conjunctive letter ו in front of the words ו־אמלא אותו רוח אלוקים בחכמה,"and I will fill him with a spirit of wisdom." This may also be the reason that the Torah speaks of בחכמה, instead of simply חכמה when describing G'd's input as additional to Betzalel's natural talents and virtues. Alternatively, the word בחכמה may reflect a statement of our sages in <i>Berachot</i> 55 based on Daniel 2,21 that G'd adds additional wisdom to people aleady possessed of a measure of wisdom. Accordingly, the words ואמלא…בחכמה, mean: "and I will add wisdom to Betzalel who already possesses wisdom."
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   לקדש, "for the holy place, etc." Seeing that none of the materials used for the Tabrnacle and the priests have been forbidden to be used for profane purposes with the exception of the oil for anointing and the incense, the Torah had to underline that these two had to be made on a holy site as they themselves were for use exclusively for consecrated people or holy structures.
  
  Verse 12
  
   ויאמר ה׳ אל משה, G'd said to Moses, etc. We have to examine why the Torah changed here to using the word ויאמר when describing G'd as speaking to Moses whereas all the time He was described as וידבר, speaking in a stern voice. I have seen a comment by our sages in the <i>Mechilta</i> according to which the term ויאמר ה׳ indicates that G'd did not speak to Moses through an intermediary, i.e. angel, but directly. If so, we must still analyse what change had occurred since 31,1 where G'd was still reported as speaking through an intermediary, i.e. וידבר ה׳ אל משה לאמר. Not only that, but why did the author of the <i>Mechilta</i> wait until here to give us this information? This should have been explained when we find that G'd was speaking to Moses as וידבר ה׳ the first time this occurs. [The author suggests an answer based on a variant text of the <i>Mechilta</i> not at my disposal. Ed.]
  
  Verse 13
  
   ואתה תדבר אל בני ישראל, "You too speak to the children of Israel, etc." Why does the Torah use the unusual ואתה in this instance? The letter ו is also unusual, as is the repetitive דבר, seeing the Torah already reported G'd as saying to Moses לאמור? Besides, why was the word לאמור repeated once more in this verse? To whom were the children of Israel supposed to communicate this directive? Even though I have already explained at the beginning of פרשת תרומה that the word דבר is needed and it is not enough to write לאמור, in this instance even the word לאמור has been repeated! Another problem is the word שבתותי in the plural. According to <i>Shabbat</i> 69 the reason for the plural is to decrease the liability of someone who through lack of knowledge of the principle of work-prohibition on the Sabbath has violated a string of Sabbaths. His offence would be considered as being only one offence covering all these Sabbaths and a single sin-offering would suffice to obtain atonement for such a person.. In the <i>Mechilta</i> on our verse the use of the plural is explained as including liability for transgressions of rabbinic commandments commonly known as שבות. 
  Before we offer our own commnetary on the meaning of this verse let us first examine the word אך which introduces this directive. By understanding the significance of that word we will arrive at a clearer understanding of why the Torah wrote the word לאמור twice, as well as the other details we queried at the beginning of this paragraph. Our sages in <i>Shabbat</i> 129 state that it is permitted to violate the Sabbath legislation for the sake of a sick person if the sick person's life would be endangered unless the Sabbath were violated for his sake. Any situation in which a life is at stake overrides the Sabbath prohibitions. This is what the Torah hinted at when it introduced this piece of legislation with the restrictive word אך, "however." The word simply means that situations may arise which override the legislation about to be recorded. The meaning of the plural is that any day which is also described as שבת in the Torah such as the Day of Atonement or the other festivals, falls into the same category when it comes to the principles permitting violation of the Sabbath or even demanding violation of the Sabbath. It also means that for the sake of such sick people one may violate more than one Sabbath if the patient has not recovered in the interval.
  A further ruling derived from the above wording is the case of a patient who requires eight days' consecutive treatment. One should not delay commencement of such treatment in order to violate only a single Sabbath but one has to commence treatment of the patient at once even if this involves the violation of two Sabbath days (based on <i>Yuma</i> 84).
  When the Torah emphasis that the Sabbaths belong to G'd, i.e. שבתותי, this may be an allusion to the reason behind the legislation to violate the Sabbath when observing it involves danger to one's life. Inasmuch as it is G'd's Sabbath, it is in G'd's interest that we observe the Sabbath as many times as possible. When violating one or several Sabbath-days results in the patient recovering and observing many more Sabbaths when he has recovered, G'd's purpose in giving us the Sabbath legislation will be fulfilled. This is the only case where we do not follow the principle of not telling one person to commit a sin in order to enable others to perform the commandments. We are told in <i>Shabbat</i> 4 that if someone deliberately stuck dough for bread on the walls of the baking oven in order to bake bread on the Sabbath, he may remove it (a prohibited act) in order to escape the death penalty if he had allowed it to become bread. However, a fellow Jew is not allowed to remove that dough in order to rescue the first Jew from the consequences of his sin. Even the king himself is not only allowed but commanded to violate the Sabbath for the sake of saving a patient's life. In fact, failure to do so (in the absence of trained personnel) is considered a slight against G'd's commandments.
  כי אות היא ביני וביניכם, "for it is a sign between Me and between you, etc." This means that unless there are people observing the Sabbath, the Sabbath is considered as non-existent.
  לדעת, "(for you) to know", etc. With this word the Torah revealed that it considers the sanctity of the Jew's soul as on a higher plane than the sanctity of the Sabbath seeing that the Sabbath is subordinate to the survival of the Jew. The word לדעת means that we are to appreciate that G'd sanctifies us.
  Rashi explains that the word אך means that the work of constructing the Tabernacle is not to supersede the Sabbath legislation but that such work must be interrupted in order for even the artisans to observe the Sabbath. Halachically speaking, Rashi is correct; however, the meaning of the word אך is intended to limit the application of the Sabbath itself, not to impose limits on people concerning the Sabbath. Besides, why would anyone have thought that the building of the Tabernacle should override the work prohibition of the Sabbath so that the Torah had to caution the Israelites against making such an error? It is not our intention to cast aspersions on other commentators and especially on Rashi's sacred words; all the various commentaries fall into the category of אלו ואלו דברי אלוקים חיים, "the various commentaries are all inspired by genuine Torah study."
  When the Torah said: ואתה דבר it is necessary in light of the exclusions to the Sabbath legislation alluded to by the word אך. Moses did not know when such exclusions would apply. G'd therefore told Moses orally what these exclusions were to be .The words ואתה דבר mean Moses was to relate these rules only by oral instructions and they were not to be written down in the Torah scroll. Our holy Torah not only uses words extremely sparingly but even each individual letter is never wasted. The absence of a letter we would have expected, or an additional letter which we did not expect, teaches man <i>halachot.</i> This is the meaning of the saying of our sages that the written Torah has seventy "faces," four levels of exegesis, and thirty-one tracks. Each "track" in turn consists of many different paths. <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 19,3 commenting on Kings I 5,12 that Solomon composed 3.000 parables, etc., quotes a Rabbi who searched the entire Bible for comments by Solomon and did not find even eight hundred verses attributed to him. He therefore concluded that each utterance of Solomon had a number of meanings and this is what the verse referred to which credited Solomon with the composition of 3.000 parables. This is simply an example of the succinct manner in which the Holy Scriptures employ words. At the same time you must appreciate that there are homilies and <i>halachot</i> with which every person has to be familiar even though some of these may be laws applicable to every single Jew whereas others may be applicable only in very rare situations. There are even some which have no application in practice at all. 
  Do not ask why G'd in His wisdom has decided to allude to these homilies and <i>halachot</i> only peripherally instead of spelling them out in the written text of the Torah. The answer to such a question is right in front of your eyes. They are matters not suitable for recording in a book. Consider a statement of our sages in <i>Avot de Rabbi Natan</i> chapter 25 where we find the following in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanus. He said to Rabbi Akiva: "if all the oceans were to be ink, and all the reeds were turned into quills, and all men scribes, they could not commit to paper all the <i>halachot</i> about ritual purity and impurity which I have learned through constant close association with my teachers during my life." All of these teachings are somehow alluded to in the Holy Torah though it has used words so sparingly. Although it is not given to man to record all these teachings in a book, Moses was taught all of this during the forty days he spent on Mount Sinai. The Sabbath legislation is only one example of the written Torah recording a minimum (apparently) of <i>halachot</i>, whereas the oral Torah augments this many times over. The Torah simply hinted to Moses by the way it expressed itself that there are many more exclusions to the applicability of the Sabbath legislation than the single one hinted at by the word אך. G'd instructed Moses to fill the people in on this when the Torah reports G'd as saying: ואתה דבר.
  When the Torah repeats דבר אל בני ישראל לאמור, it means Moses was to tell the people of this habit of the written Torah not to spell out every little detail of its legislation but to reserve much to be communicated orally to the people by Moses. By adopting this approach we may be able to account for the apparently superfluous לאמור in many instances where this occurs. It means that the people are obligated to study these details though they are not spelled out in the Torah.
  We may also understand the unusual word ואתה in the light of <i>Shabbat</i> 10 where the words לדעת כי אני ה׳ מקדשכם are explained in these terms: G'd said to Moses 'I have a beautiful gift in My treasure chamber, its name is Sabbath, and I want to give it to the Jewish people.'" We learn from here that if someone wishes to give a gift to a child, he must first let the child's mother know of his intentions. The Talmud asks why G'd had not advised Moses that his face was radiating light when he descended from Mount Sinai (Exodus 34,29). The first answer is that the rule does not apply when the gift becomes self-evident such as in the case of Moses' skin radiating light. G'd therefore had to tell Moses ואתה דבר, so that Moses would not draw a comparison between what had occurred when his skin began to radiate light, but that he would advise the people that the Sabbath was indeed a gift. In the case of Moses, he was bound to find out that G'd had given him this gift of a skin which radiated light. The Jewish people might not become aware of the nature of the Sabbath as a gift unless told specifically. Moses might have concluded that inasmuch as the Sabbath is something visible [such as the fact that no manna fell on that day, Ed.], he did not have to reveal further details just as G'd did not reveal to him the fact that the skin of his face radiated light. He would feel certain that the people would conclude all by themselves that the day was one of rest and enjoyment. G'd therefore told Moses אות היא, that the rest and enjoyment aspect of the Sabbath is only a symbol of the eventual Sabbath, i.e. a time when life on earth will be a "Sabbath" all week long and we do not have to content ourselves with the spiritual elevation we experience once a week when G'd grants us the additional soul, נשמה יתירה, only to remove it again at the termination of the Sabbath. G'd therefore said to Moses דבר…לדעת, to inform the people of the nature of the gift that G'd was bestowing upon them and the spiritual contentment attainable through observance of the Sabbath.
  
  Verse 14
  
   ושמרתם את השבת,"And you shall observe the Sabbath, etc." Why did G'd repeat the need to observe the Sabbath by adding a new rationale, namely that it was holy? Seeing that immediately before this verse the Torah had permitted violation of the Sabbath laws for the sake of sick people, we might have concluded that the holiness of the Sabbath is relative, i.e. that when compared to a sick person the Sabbath is merely secular. As a result people would violate the Sabbath to prepare medications, etc., even when the life of the patient was not in danger. The Torah therefore underlined the holiness of the Sabbath to warn us not to violate its statutes unless there was danger to a patient's life.
  We can also understand this verse when considering something we learned in <i>Menachot</i> 64. The Talmud discusses a situation in which doctors estimated that the patient urgently needed figs [which had not yet been plucked off the tree; sometimes one stalk supports more than one fig, sometimes not. Ed.]. The question is raised that if two figs can be found each of which grows on a separate stalk, necessitating two separate pluckings, or there is a single stalk on which three figs grow, which is to be plucked? The Talmud answers that it is obvious that it is better to pluck the three figs which require only a single act of plucking, i.e. a single violation of the Sabbath. [I have quoted the Talmud correctly; the author, or at least the version I have at my disposal, quoted the Talmud incorrectly. Ed.] The author quotes a hypothetical situation where the patient needed to eat two figs in order to recover. There could be found either a) two figs growing on one stalk or b) 3 figs growing on one stalk. Would it be permissible to pluck the three figs seeing that they too grow on a single stalk and only a single violation of the Sabbath takes place? The answer the author gives is that one must pluck the two figs rather than the three. Although from the point of view of the prohibited work to be performed there is no difference if one plucks the stalk supporting three figs or the one supporting only two figs, the effect of the action is different. The Torah demands that "you shall observe the Sabbath," and this means that any work not necessary for the patient in question must not be undertaken, כי קדש היא, because of the sacred nature of the Sabbath. The Torah made the decision dependent on the nature of the Sabbath and not on the nature of the work performed. If one were to cut off more figs than needed this would be a desecration of the holiness of the Sabbath. The lesson from our verse is that the Sabbath does not lose its holiness even when it is being violated for the sake of a person whose life may be in danger unless we violated the Sabbath on his account.
  מחלליה מות יומת. "those who desecrate it shall be executed." It is peculiar that the Torah first speaks about people who desecrate the Sabbath in the plural whereas it speaks of the penalty to be applied to a single violator. We may understand this in light of what we have just explained. There may be a person who was permitted to violate the Sabbath by plucking a stalk on which two figs grew which were needed by the sick person. This person plucked the stalk on which three figs grew, instead. A second person also plucked figs but not for a sick person. Both these people violated the Sabbath. Only one of the two is subject to the death penalty. The person who cut three figs for the patient instead of two is not guilty of the death penalty seeing that the basic act he engaged in when plucking the figs was not prohibited at that time for that purpose. In order to be liable for the death penalty the basic act must have been prohibited at that time.
  The plain meaning of the words is that the expression מחלליה plural, refers to people violating the Sabbath intentionally. Most people do not do this if warned of the penalty that follows. Therefore, concerning the individual, i.e. the exception who insists on going through with the violation after having been warned of the consequences, the Torah says that he is to be executed. A person who has deliberately violated the Sabbath and has not been warned is liable to the <i>Karet</i> penalty, i.e. he will die prematurely by Divine decree.
  We may also attempt to understand the peculiar wording of our verse in light of <i>Shabbat</i> 106. The subject is the definition of the forbidden activity "hunting." The Talmud describes that a deer had entered a private domain, i.e. the courtyard of a Jew on the Sabbath. The entrance to the courtyard was wide enough to accomodate two people, so that if one sat in the entrance the deer could theoretically still escape by running past that individual. Once two people took up position in the entrance, the deer could no longer escape. The Talmud describes that the two people took up position in the entrance one after the other. In such a situation only the second person is considered as having violated the law against hunting. The word מחלליה plural, in our verse refers to desecrations of the Sabbath which necessitated the participation of more than one person. Inasmuch as only the last person's action completed the act of the violation, only that person is subject to the death penalty, i.e. מות יומת in the singular.
  Our verse makes sense also in a different context, such as the one described in <i>Beytzah</i> 34. There several people combine to perform the forbidden work of cooking. One supplies the kindling, the other the flame, the third places the pot in position over the kindling, the fourth supplies the water. The Talmud concludes that if the person who supplies the flame was the last one, he alone is guilty of the violation whereas the others are all not liable to any penalty. When the Torah writes מחלליה, plural, as opposed to מות יומת singular, it may refer to a situation such as outlined in <i>Beytzah.</i>
  מות יומת. "he will be executed." I have already explained in Exodus 21,12 why the Torah repeated the word, i.e. that while the person in question is guilty vis-a-vis Heaven, G'd has given the terrestrial tribunal authority to execute this person who had forfeited his life. This is in contrast with another type of person who has also forfeited his life where G'd did not delegate a human tribunal to carry out this judgment. By mentioning such an example in the very next verse, i.e. כל העושה בה מלאכה ונכרתה, it is clear why the word מות is repeated in our verse.
  כי כל העושה בה מלאכה, "for whosoever performs any work on it, etc." The Torah underlines here that anyone desecrating the Sabbath when there are no witnesses should not jump to the conclusion that he will escape the death penalty and that he would not be considered any more culpable than someone who violates the positive and negative commandment of the sanctity of the Sabbath. The Torah says that this is not so, but that such a person will face the death penalty at the hands of G'd even if he had not been warned and his deed had not been witnessed here on earth. The clause of מות ימות in the singular which we described as a restrictive clause is applicable only to people who desecrate the Sabbath in public and after having been warned not to do so on pain of death by stoning. However, when a person commits a desecration such as we described when he cut off an extra fig which grew on the same stalk as the ones he was required to cut off, the death penalty does not apply to him even if he had been warned by competent witnesses not to do so. Seeing that the words העושה בה מלאכה suggest that there would not be any exception to the death penalty if the violation is performed knowingly, the Torah adds the word כי to alert us to the fact that such violations as cutting the extra fig by default, (without an additional action by the person cutting it) do not carry the <i>karet</i> penalty.
  
  Verse 15
  
   ששת ימים יעשה מלאכה, "Six days work shall be done, etc." We neeed to examine why this verse which repeats legislation recorded previously had to be written at all. Besides, why does the Torah write יעשה (passive) instead of תעשה, the active form "you shall perform," as the Torah has written repeatedly? Furthermore, why did the Torah choose to describe the Sabbath as the "seventh day," instead of as "the Sabbath," which was the only way the Torah described this day up until now? Why did the Torah revert to describing the violator as כל העושה מלאכה ביום השבת מות יומת, instead of as כל העושה בו מלאכה, or כל העושה מלאכה ביום השביעי?
  Perhaps the Torah alluded to something the sages told us in <i>Shabbat</i> 69 concerning someone who travels in the desert and has lost count of which day of the week it is. Such a person is supposed to begin counting six days once he has become aware that he does not know which day it is. He will observe the seventh day as Sabbath. The Talmud allows such a person to do what is essential in order to keep alive even on the day which -according to his count- is Sabbath. To the query that if so, how can he distinguish "his" Sabbath from the other six days of the week, the Talmud answers that such a person must recite <i>Kiddush</i> and <i>havdalah</i> at the beginning and end of "his" Sabbath. Tossaphot add that he must not continue on his way on that day. The reason that the Talmud did not give the answer that the traveller in question must not continue on his way is that this is not a sufficient distinction vis-a-vis the other days. It could also be that according to the view of the Talmud such a person might be permitted to continue walking even on the "Sabbath."
  According to the view of Tossaphot we can explain our verse thus: "Six days, etc," i.e. a person who finds himself in the desert unaware of which day it is, יעשה מלאכה may have work performed on a daily basis for six consecutive days. He is not required to perform work, as would be implied by the active form <i>Taasseh,</i> but he will do the minimum, whatever is needed to ensure his survival. However, ביום השביעי, "on the seventh day, the day which is Sabbath according to his calculations, שבת שנתון, it is a kind of Sabbath," i.e. a Shabbaton, a day on which one refrains from work just as one refrains from working the land in the seventh year. (compare the expression שבתון in connection with the שנת השמטה in Leviticus 25,4). The way a traveller "rests" is by not continuing his journey, just as a farmer rests by not tilling his land. The Torah adds: קדש לה׳ to indicate that such a traveller is to recite the <i>kiddush</i> and the הבדלה at the appropriate time as if this day would be the "real" Sabbath.
  According to the view that the only difference between this "subjective" Sabbath and the "real" Sabbath is the recital of kiddush and הבדלה respectively, the words שבת שבתון have to be read in conjunction with the words קדש לה׳. The meaning is that this day has to be sanctified. When the Torah continues with: כל העושה מלאכה ביום השבת מות יומת, this penalty of execution is applicable only to a person who violates a "real" Sabbath, not to someone who violates a "seventh day" by his own count. Such a person is free from this penalty even if he had sanctified the day by reciting <i>kiddush</i> and thereby elevating it to the level of "Sabbath."
  
  Verse 16
  
   ושמרו בני ישראל את השבת, "The children of Israel shall observe the Sabbath, etc." Why did the Torah add another "observance?" Besides, why does the Torah use the verb לעשות, "to do," which expresses an activity when the meaning seems to be that the children of Israel are to observe the Sabbath by "abstaining" from a number of activities? Our sages have pursued their own path in explaining this wording.
  Perhaps the Torah employs the word ושמרו to teach the authorities to surround the basic Sabbath legislation with a סיג, a fence, or a framework, which is designed to prevent a person from not knowing which day is the Sabbath. The words לעשות את השבת would mean some action designed to ensure that we know which day is the Sabbath. It is to avoid situations where one recites <i>kiddush</i> when the day in question is not the real Sabbath such as the example we mentioned when discussing the last verse.
  Alternatively, the verse addresses itself to someone who had lost track of time in circumstances we have described. Such a person is obligated to establish his own count so that he does not fail to make one day in seven his own personal Sabbath. Even though in this instance the Torah called that seventh day יום השבת, when in reality it is only that person's "seventh day," the Torah wanted to impress on the individual the absolute need to sanctify the seventh day. The first "seventh" day in such a person's count assumes the designation שבת.
  The meaning of the word ושמרו may also follow the meaning of the word in Genesis 37,11 where Jacob is described as awaiting realisation of Joseph's dream and the word chosen by the Torah is ושמר. In our context the Torah means that the Sabbath should not be considered as a burden because many activities are prohibited on that day, but that it should be eagerly awaited and looked forward to. The words לעשות את השבת are designed to counter the prevailing perception that the Sabbath is a day on which one is passive, rests up and treats it as a day on which to indulge one's laziness. The basic purpose of the Sabbath is not to provide physical rest for the body but to actively fulfil the various commandments associated with the Sabbath.
  The wording may also allude to what we have learned in <i>Yuma</i> 81 that one must add from the week-day to the Sabbath, i.e. that we do not commence the Sabbath only at sundown but that we light candles, abstain from forbidden activities already some time prior to sundown in order to demonstrate how welcome the Sabbath is for us. This additional time demanded by the rabbis based on this verse includes the exhortation to prepare for the Sabbath not after it has commenced, but one bathes oneself, dresses oneself, etc., all before sunset on Friday. Similarly, one does not conclude the Sabbath the moment the three stars become visible in the sky, but one adds some minutes to demonstrate that one does not wish to get rid of the Sabbath as one would get rid of a burden, i.e. at the first possible opportunity. G'd expresses His willingness to also dignify the extra hours or minutes the Israelites add to the Sabbath of their own volition with the name "Sabbath."
  The verse may also reflect a conversation between the Sabbath and G'd reported in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 11,8 according to which the Sabbath complained to G'd that whereas all the other days had been given a בן זוג, a mate, only the Sabbath was left "unattached" so to speak. G'd reassured the Sabbath by assigning Israel as its "mate." The meaning of the story is that at its inception the Sabbath lacked a detail to make it complete. G'd provided this missing detail when He commanded the Jewish people to observe it. לעשות then means "to complete it."
  The words: ושמרו את השבת, "to carefully guard the Sabbath," also refer to the need to take care that no secular elements intrude into our Sabbath. A person must not think that it is enough for him not to desecrate the Sabbath and that if someone else desecrates it that this is not his concern. It is our collective duty to be on guard to prevent חלול שבת by other Jews also. We take it for granted that one safeguards oneself against possible thieves and posts guards in one's orchard, etc. One must do no less to safeguard the Sabbath. Such measures designed to "guard" the Sabbath include rabbinic ordinances to make it more difficult for us to desecrate the Sabbath through carelessness on our part. One of the best known examples is found in <i>Shabbat</i> 11 where reading on Friday night [with an oil lamp whose light could be adjusted Ed.] is prohibited so that one does not accidentally adjust the flame in order to be better able to read. Our rabbis have "surrounded" the Sabbath with many such ordinances.
  The wording the Torah chose to describe observance of the Sabbath is designed to alert us to the totally unique nature of this "observance." This is the only negative commandment in the Torah whose observance is described as something active, i.e. לעשות את השבת. It is possible that the reason is something we learned in <i>Kiddushin</i> 39 where it is stated that if someone sits with his hands folded, totally inactive, not committing a violation, he receives the reward due to someone who has fulfilled a positive commandment. The Talmud questions the logic of this statement and concludes that in the example quoted the person concerned was confronted with the opportunity and the temptation to violate a commandment and he resisted the temptation by remaining inactive. We may apply this rule to Sabbath observance as opportunities to violate the 39 basic work prohibitions of Sabbath are ever present and there is no lack of temptation to do so. Anyone who even passively refrains from exploiting such opportunities to sin is considered as having actively observed the Sabbath.
  The fact that the Torah mentioned the need not to violate the Sabbath and the fact that mere non-violation qualifies for reward might have led people to believe that this applies to one and all; the Torah therefore hastens to add the critical words בני ישראל, the children of Israel. The Sabbath legislation is addressed exclusively to the Jewish people. The Torah phrased the observance here in indirect language, i.e. "they will observe;" because it had already written: "you shall observe the Sabbath." Had the Torah not written also: "the children of Israel shall observe the Sabbath," I would have concluded that whereas only Jews are duty-bound to observe the Sabbath, Gentiles are nonetheless not forbidden to do so. As it is, the wording of the Torah precludes Gentiles from work-abstention on the Sabbath for religious reasons, so much so that it is a capital offence for a Gentile to observe the Sabbath (<i>Sanhedrin</i> 58).
  The emphasis of the Torah speaking about את השבת, "the Sabbath," leads one to conclude that observance of a single Sabbath may sometimes be all that is required of a Jew; not only that, but if a Jew prepared all that is necessary for the Sabbath it would be accounted for him as if he had actually observed the commandment of the Sabbath. The words: ושמרו את השבת לעשות את השבת teach that if someone died before he could even observe a single Sabbath he will not be deprived of the reward of having observed many Sabbath days seeing he had intended to observe the Sabbath and had made preparations for such observance (<i>Mechilta</i>).
  There may also be another hint here concerning the Torah's foregoing this legislation in the event a person's life is at stake, as we have written on the word אך in verse 13. G'd actually commanded desecration of the Sabbath in life-saving situations. The Torah here limits such exceptions to Jews; a Jew does not desecrate the Sabbath in order to save the life of a גר תושב, a Gentile who observes the Noachide laws (Maimonides <i>Hilchot Shabbat</i> chapter 2, item 20 by inference). The words את השבת are interpreted as an exhortation not to let someone die who is supposed to observe the Sabbath. The verse may be interpreted in the following fashion: If you have the choice between Sabbath observance and death of a fellow-Jew, apply the words ושמרו בני ישראל, preserve the Jew, rather than the Sabbath. This rule does not apply if the choice is between saving a Gentile's life or that of observing the Sabbath. In such a situation we apply the exhortation לעשות את השבת "to observe the Sabbath." The reason the Torah permitted the saving of the Jew is only in order to fulfil the end of the verse, i.e. לעשות את השבת לדורותם, "to enable someone to observe the Sabbath in the future." Seeing that Gentiles are not obligated to observe the Sabbath there is no justification to desecrate the Sabbath on their account.
  Our verse may also teach us the following: "When do I (G'd) tell you to preserve the life of a Jew even at the expense of desecrating the honour of the Sabbath?" Answer: "when the situation results in לעשות את השבת, in observance of the Sabbath as a result of what you do." If, however, it is clear according to the available medical evidence, that the patient will not survive for another week even if you save his life at this moment one must not desecrate the Sabbath in order to prolong the life of such a patient.
  There is yet another dimension to what is recorded here. We are taught in <i>Rosh Hashanah</i> 31 that the hereafter is known as a world which is "all Sabbath." We are also told in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 25,12 that the observance of the Sabbath is equal to the observance of all the other commandments in the Torah. The words ושמרו בני ישראל את השבת reflect this thought. The reason this is so is because by observing the Sabbath, לעשות את השבת, they create for themselves the world known as "all Sabbath," i.e. the hereafter. The Torah adds the word לדורותם so that we do not understand the reward of Sabbath-observance as being experienced in this present world. It is ברית עולם, a covenant which assures our eternal existence in the hereafter.
  Another lesson resulting from our verse may be related to what we have learned in <i>Beytzah</i> 16 where we are told that we are equipped with an additional soul on the Sabbath as alluded to in the words שבת וינפש, that the rest resulted in an additional life-force, soul. This is a profound secret G'd did not reveal to the nations of the world. The Talmud states that every commandment G'd gave to the Jewish people He gave them publicly, openly, with the exception of the Sabbath. This is based on verse 17 in our chapter: "between Me and the children of Israel it is a sign forever." To the question: "how could G'd punish the Gentiles for not having accepted the Torah when He had not told them about the Sabbath legislation?" The Talmud answers that all that G'd withheld from the Gentiles was the information that he who observes the Sabbath is equipped with an additional soul (spiritual capacity) on that day. [This is not a contradiction to the statement that Gentiles are prohibited from observing the work-prohibitions of the Sabbath on pain of death at the hands of Heaven. The Talmud refers to the initial rejection of the Torah by the various Gentile Nations when G'd offered the Torah to all the nations and they all rejected it except for the Israelites who welcomed it with open arms. Ed.] G'd "punished" the Gentile Nations for rejecting His rules. Why would these nations not be entitled to argue that had they known about this clause of the Sabbath laws they might have accepted the entire Torah or at least the Sabbath? How could G'd punish people for rejecting something they did not know about? I believe that this is what our sages referred to in <i>Shabbat</i> 10 when they referred to G'd as having offered a "beautiful gift whose name was Sabbath." They meant that the Sabbath is different from other commandments inasmuch as it does not represent a demand made by G'd on man but it is a gift granted by G'd to man (in this instance to the Israelites). One does not receive a reward for accepting a gift; ergo the Gentile Nations have not forfeited a reward by not accepting the Sabbath legislation. They cannot claim that G'd deprived them of an opportunity to accumulate merits, to qualify for a reward. One cannot challenge G'd for His not having chosen to bestow a gift on someone. Besides, you will find that the Israelites had accepted the Sabbath before acceptance of the Torah had become an issue, before G'd had offered the Torah to the other nations. At the time the Israelites accepted the Sabbath legislation (at Marah, Exodus 15,25), the granting of an additional soul on the Sabbath had not been part of their acceptance. It was therefore quite fair for the nations of the world to be punished for their refusal to accept the Sabbath legislation which was given to the Israelites publicly. We regularly witness the punishment the nations suffer for their not having accepted the Sabbath. 
  The concept of the נשמה יתירה is alluded to by our sages when they described it as "a beautiful gift which G'd had reserved in His treasure chamber," a reference to the Celestial Spheres, a region that the souls are "hewn" from. The reason the gift was called שבת is that it described the world which is "totally Sabbath," i.e. the hereafter, the Celestial Regions. There is no sadness in that world and our sages describe it as a world of joy and rejoicing. In order for our Sabbath in this world to parallel the Sabbath in the Celestial Regions it is imperative that we do not allow secular concerns related to our weekday problems to disturb the Sabbath atmosphere in our world. The additional soul, a "guest" from the Celestial Regions, would feel deeply disturbed if it notices our preoccupation with worldly concerns. It may refuse to remain part of us and leave us even before the Sabbath has expired. This is why the sages have warned us that the major element in the work-prohibition on the Sabbath is connected with the thoughts we entertain when violating the actual prohibition. We have been taught in <i>Beytzah</i> 13 that what is culpable is what the sages call מלאכת מחשבת, performance of deliberate activities. Even conversation which is of a secular character is forbidden (<i>Shabbat</i> 113) as we know from Isaiah 58,13: ממצוא חפצך ודבר דבר, "not to look to your affairs, nor speak about them." All of these prohibitions are designed to ensure that we can enjoy the benefits which accrue to us thanks to the נשמה יתירה, the additional soul G'd has equipped us with on the Sabbath. The Sabbath is to give us a taste of the ultimate Sabbath, i.e. the quality of life in the hereafter. All of this is meant when the Torah writes: ושמרו בני ישראל את השבת, i.e. that we are to jealously guard the additional soul called "Sabbath." It alone enables us to fulfil the Torah's directive לעשות את השבת, "to create the true Sabbath." Remember that it is impossible for mortal man to attain a true likeness of the life that awaits him after death even if we do all in our power to observe the Sabbath on earth to the best of our ability. However, in order to attain that kind of life even after we die, we must first have attained a semblance of it by means of true Sabbath observance and all that this entails. The additional soul is our key to such attainment of serenity in the hereafter when the time comes for us to leave this world.
  The word לדורותם may also be understood as connected to דירה, residence. The word is spelled defective, i.e. without the letter ו in the middle. This is an allusion to the residence of the souls, i.e. the Celestial Regions which G'd has covenanted with us that He will give to us. This is the meaning of ברית עולם, "the covenant concerning the celestial world." It is also possible that we have here an allusion to the 613 commandments seeing that the Sabbath plus 612 (i.e. the numerical value of the word ברית) add up to 613. The succinct message is that observance of the Sabbath properly is equal to performance of the 613 commandments.
  The Torah continues: ביני ובין בני ישראל,"Between Me and the children of Israel, etc." This means that no other nation will be together with us in that world. Perhaps the words even exclude the presence of angels in the Celestial Regions reserved for the Jews who have observed the Sabbath meticulously. The regions reserved for the Jewish people are "higher" than those inhabited by the ministering angels. We may understand Numbers 23,23 כעת יאמר ליעקב ולישראל מה פעל קל, "at a time when Jacob and Israel will be told of the works of the Lord," in the sense that our sages in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 20,20 understood them when they said that the angels themselves will enquire from the Jewish people who are close to the Lord about His accomplishments.
  Another meaning of these words is that they are a reference to matters (words) which G'd has articulated but which no human being has ever understood. This is an aspect of what the sages in <i>Beytzah</i> 16 meant when they said that G'd did not announce the fact that He gave the Jewish people an additional soul on the Sabbath because He did not want to acquaint the Gentile Nations with His secrets. This is also what the Psalmist referred to in Psalms 147,19-20: "He reveals His statutes and commands to Israel; He did not do so for any other nation; of such rules they know nothing." Our sages said in <i>Chagigah</i> 13 that the meaning of the words אות היא לעולם, "it is a sign forever," is that we must not reveal the secret of the Sabbath to anyone. How are we to answer in the event someone were to come and enquire about details of the Sabbath legislation wanting to know what distinguishes that day from all other days? The Torah provides the answer by stating: אות היא לעולם, "it will be revealed to the people who will inhabit the Celestial Regions that the six days are radically different from the Sabbath." The revelation is וביום השביעי שבת וינפש, that G'd will then reveal to us exclusively the meaning of שבת וינפש. [The revelation will be that the meaning of <i>shavat</i> when applied to G'd is that He did so because it was <i>Shabbat.</i> ]
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ויתן …שני לוחות הברית "He gave to Moses….the two Tablets of the covenant, etc." Why did G'd insert the words ככלותו לדבר אתו בהר סיני between the announcement that He gave something to Moses and the announcement of what it was that G'd gave to Moses? We would have expected that the Torah would either write: "After G'd finished speaking to Moses, He gave him the two Tablets, etc," or: "G'd gave to Moses the two Tablets of the covenant after He finished speaking to him, etc." Why this peculiar insertion of the words "after He had finished speaking with him at Mount Sinai?" Why did G'd delay giving Moses the two Tablets until this point in time? Seeing that the only thing which was engraved on the two Tablets were the Ten Commandments, why did G'd not give them to Moses immediately, or a day after the revelation at Mount Sinai? Why did He wait for 40 days?
  According to our sages in the <i>Zohar,</i> volume 2 page 93 all the 613 commandments are somehow contained in the text of the Ten Commandments. Seeing that this was so, the words: "when He had finished speaking with Moses at Mount Sinai," are a hint that seeing the entire Torah is somehow part of the two Tablets, G'd had to wait until He had taught Moses the entire Torah at the end of forty days. The words "שני לוחות העדות" are merely a description of what it was G'd spoke to Moses about for forty days. This comment disposes of both our questions at one and the same time.
  כתובים באצבע אלוקים, "written by the finger of G'd." The Torah here describes what we have have learned in <i>Tanchuma Parshat Eykev</i> that the tablets had been "hewn" from underneath the throne of G'd. Perhaps our verse alludes to this with the words מעשה אלוקים, "the work of G'd (32,16)." We have explained that there are many "lights" of sanctity in the Celestial Regions as alluded to by Solomon in Kohelet 5,7: כי גבוה מעל גבוה שומר וגבוהים עליהם, "for there is One higher than the high Who watches and there are high ones above them." The <i>Zohar</i> volume 2 page 53 relates a miraculous story according to which Moses encountered the angel Sandal during his ascent to Heaven. He disabled this angel and subsequently the angel Mattat. The angel was afraid that the fire above Moses' head would burn him. We are told in Deut. 4,24 that "G'd is a devouring fire." His holy fire consumes every other fire. The Torah tells us here the manner in which the Tablets were written. 
  The words: "written with the finger of G'd" mean that G'd drew the shape of the letter with His "finger," i.e. using one of the kinds of light at His disposal. It (the light) assumed the appearance of a finger opposite the Tablets corresponding to the dimensions of the requisite letter G'd wanted to inscribe. G'd did this in order to ensure that no more and and no less than the letter should be engraved on the Tablets themselves. Seeing that the light G'd used to do this with was more powerful than the light the Tablets were made of, the light of the "finger" penetrated the requisite area of the Tablets. We may perceive of that area on the Tablets as having either been devoured or pushed aside. What remained were holes forming the letters G'd had engraved. Thanks to the superior power of the light of the "finger" the inscription became visible from either side of the Tablets. This is what is meant when the Torah wrote in 32,16, that the Tablets were written from both sides, i.e. that the inscription was deeply engraved. The Torah uses the expression חרות על הלוחות "engraved on the Tablets," instead of saying חדות בלוחות, engraved in the Tablets. This is the allusion to G'd having placed His finger "on" i.e. opposite the material of the Tablets as we have explained.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  וירא העם כי בשש משה, The people saw that Moses delayed, etc. The words: "the people 'saw,' refer to their mental eye, of course. Alternatively, we may accept a statement in <i>Shabbat</i> 89 that Satan came and showed them the image of darkness and the picture of Moses lying on a bier, dead. This is why the Torah used the expression וירא העם i.e. that there were circumstances which justified the people thinking Moses had indeed died. Their thinking was reinforced by the arrival of the sixth hour, ב־שש, the hour at which Moses had told them he would return. Had Moses not told them that he would return at noon i.e. "at six hours," no one would have heeded the picture drawn by Satan the swindler.
  ויקהל העם על אהרון. The people gathered around Aaron. The expression על אהרון needs further analysis. If it had been the people's intention merely to speak to Aaron, the Torah should have written: ויקהל העם ויאמרו אל אהרון, "the people gathered and spoke to Aaron." Perhaps the meaning here is that the people gathered in order to kill Aaron, that they said to him: "get up and make for us a deity or we will kill you." Our sages in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 7 have stated that the people had already killed Chur, and this would reinforce our assumption that the people gathered against Aaron. The reason that the text does not refer explicitly to the killing of Chur is so that this murder should not remain as a permanent memory for all future generations. G'd is protective of the good reputation of the Jewish people, and the only reason He recorded the details of the sin of the golden calf is so that if a community would commit a collective sin in the future they would be encouraged to repent using the fact that G'd forgave the Jewish people the sin of the golden calf as proof that their repentance too would be accepted by Him (compare <i>Avodah Zarah</i> 5). Perhaps the Torah did indeed allude to the killing of Chur in Exodus 24,14 where Chur together with Aaron is reported as having been left in charge of the Jewish people when Moses ascended the Mountain. The fact that Chur's name is not mentioned at this point begs the question of "what has happened to him?" Clearly he had been murdered. This matter is alluded to more forcefully in Jeremiah 2,34: גם בכנפיך נמצאו דם נפשות, אביונים נקיים, "also on your garments is found the life-blood of the innocent poor, etc." as pointed out in <i>Vayikra Rabbah</i> 10,3. According to that <i>Midrash,</i> the people killed Chur because he was unwilling to make an idol for them. The people may have interpreted Chur's unwillingness to comply with their request to make a substitute for Moses as proof that he himself had aspirations to take the place of Moses, i.e. to be the people's intermediary between them and G'd. It is quite possible that Jeremiah 2,35 supports the view that the people who killed Chur considered him guilty of the sin of wanting to take the place of Moses, something that made him guilty of a capital offence in their view. They actually considered a human being as an intermediary between them and G'd as a geater threat to monotheism than the appointment of a symbol such as a golden calf which lacked any faculties and any will of its own.
  אשר ילכו לפנינו, "who shall walk before us, etc." The word לפנינו was chosen very carefully. They reasoned as follows: Seeing that G'd Himself who has taken us out of Egypt is invisible and dwells in the Celestial Regions, they were afraid that if they would encounter some evil force in the desert without some visible symbol which reassured them that G'd did indeed watch over them they might lose faith. They wished to construct some symbol of a celestial force which would remind them of G'd in Heaven. The people who initiated the golden calf did not deny for a single moment either the primacy of G'd or the fact that He had made heaven and earth. They merely wanted a go-between them and G'd [similar to when all the people had asked Moses to be their go-between during the revelation at Mount Sinai. Ed.] They may well have thought that the prohibition in the second commandment to having an intermediary between man and G'd was valid only while there was a Moses who was the ideal go-between. This is why they emphasised כי זה האיש משה, "for this man Moses, etc." Possibly, they became victims of a serious sin when they described Moses as the Power which had taken them out of Egypt, i.e. אשר העלנו מארץ מצרים. They meant to say that even when they came out of Egypt G'd had employed a go-between and that this proved that there was nothing inherently wrong in having a go-between themselves and G'd. The fact that they referred to the go-between as אלהים, a deity, may be understood in the same sense as when G'd had told Moses in Exodus 7,1: "here I have made you אלהים (i.e. in G'd's stead) for Pharaoh. Obviously, the people committed a grave error as I have explained on Exodus 20,4.
  
  Verse 2
  
   ויאמר, "He said, etc." This means that what Aaron said was not what he meant in his heart.
  פרקו!, "remove!" Aaron referred to the males, i.e. it was an imperative.
  נזמי הזהב, golden rings; no other gold.
  אשר באזני נשיכם, "which are in the ears of your wives." They were only to bring the golden earrings actually being worn by their wives at the time, not any rings lying in a box, etc. They were not even to put on these rings in order for their husbands to remove them. Aaron spoke of both "your wives, your sons and your daughters;" Aaron did not want the men to leave their family members while the latter were wearing any golden jewelry at all. He intended to delay the menfolk bringing him all that gold as he expected the wearers to put up resistance. When Aaron said: והביאו, "and bring it," he meant that they should bring him the gold personally, not by means of messengers. He added: אלי, "to me," i.e. not to anyone else. Aaron's reasoning in all this was to prevent a collection of these gold rings which could be accomplished more rapidly than if everybody had to personally bring all the gold rings of his family members to Aaron personally. The people complied with all that Aaron had told them except that they did not bring the earrings of their wives as the latter refused to part with them. The men brought Aaron their own earrings instead as they did not want to hold up the construction of the golden calf (<i>Tanchuma</i>).
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ויעשהו עגל, "he made it into a calf." The calf is described as the work of Aaron not because he meant to make it but because he was the instrument which caused the calf to emerge. We hear about this clearly in verse 24 where Aaron describes what happened with the words: "this calf emerged (from the crucible)." It is also possible that the making of the calf was attributed to Aaron because he accepted the gold from the contributors in his hands without first depositing it on the ground which would have deprived it of the magical quality which resulted in it emerging in the shape of a calf (<i>Zohar</i> volume 2 page 192).
  ויאמרו אלה אלוהיך ישראל אשר העלוך מארץ מצרים, They said: "these are your gods Israel which brought you up from the land of Egypt." At first glance the foolishness of this statement is so colossal that one cannot perceive of anyone taking it seriously. How can our sages who characterised this generation of Israelites as the דור דעה, "the generation endowed with superior knowledge," reconcile such a characterisation with the statement in front of us? Even if we accept a comment in <i>Tanchuma</i> according to which the calf was perceived as able to speak through some magic formula employed by the sorcerers amongst the mixed multitude, how could anyone fall for such a blatant lie as "these are the gods which have brought you up out of Egypt?"
  We are therefore forced to conclude that the makers (initiators) of this golden calf did not mean for the Israelites to worship and prostrate themselves to anyone but the one who had truly taken them out of Egypt; the statement reported here only prepared the ground for making a deity out of the calf. The initiators indicated that they worshiped an all-embracing G'd and that the calf was merely part of that greater "whole." It was the part which would "walk in front of them," i.e. be the visible reminder of the Power which had delivered them from bondage. They did not consider making an inert golden calf into such a symbol as anything strange at all. On the contrary, inasmuch as even the "ideal" intermediary Moses had proved to be transient, mortal (according to their perception at the time), they decided to use the most precious and enduring symbol in the future, i.e. the golden calf. According to their reasoning every human being is composed of both matter and spirit, the spirit returning to its Maker at some time or other. In order not to risk losing such a go-between once more, they thought that the golden calf was a superior intermediary between them and their G'd. They actually believed that by means of the enduring nature of gold they could attract G'd's Presence on a permanent and enduring basis. The last thing they had on their minds was to uproot the first of the Ten Commandments in which the G'd in Heaven proclaimed Himself as their G'd and Redeemer. When they spoke about אלה, "These," they made sure that they did not exclude G'd in Heaven. Possibly, they used the expression העלוך "they brought you up," to hint that there was a Power on earth which equals the Power in the Heavens, G'd forbid; by making such a statement they insulted G'd in many different ways and this is why G'd reacted so violently. Please examine my comment on verse eight: "they have departed quickly from the path I have commanded them, etc."
  I am convinced that not all of the Jewish people committed this error and that is why they did not all die. Among those who did not agree with the philosphy espoused by the enthusiastic followers of the golden calf some protested whereas some were powerless to counter the new philosophy. From the fact that the leaders of the new cult addressed the people saying: "these are your gods," instead of saying: "these are our gods," it is clear that they were in a minority. They also did not say "who have brought us out of Egypt," but they said "who have brought you up from Egypt;" all of this proves that the people who said this were a small minority at that time. Some of the people accepted this line of reasoning, others did not. Our sages in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 42,6 state that the whole episode of the golden calf was initiated by members of the mixed multitude, and that the Israelites did not agree with them at all. Had they agreed with the mixed multitude they would all have been guilty of the death penalty as G'd holds one responsible even for idolatrous thoughts not merely for idolatrous actions. The Israelites' sin consisted in their failure to protest what was going on and that is why the people were punished en masse except for a few whose hearts were tested by G'd and the Levites who had remained opposed and whom G'd charged with the task of executing Jews who actively worshiped the golden calf. Once the calf had been made, at least some of the natural-born Israelites erred and believed it possessed some divine powers, and that is why the Torah reported in verse 28 that about "three thousand of the people 'fell' on that day." Seeing that in verse 27 the Levites had been instructed not to spare family members when executing these idol worshipers, we must accept that natural-born Jews were amongst those who worshiped the calf and who were executed, seeing they did not desist in spite of warnings and witnesses.
  
  Verse 5
  
   וירא אהרון, And Aaron saw, etc. He "saw" something amazing; although he had only thrown gold into the fire, a calf emerged.
  ויבן מזבח לפניו, he erected an altar in front of it, etc. It is noteworthy that the Torah did not write: ויבן לפניו מזבח. Had the Torah used the sequence of words we just mentioned this would have indicated that Aaron built the altar in the golden calf's honour. As it is the proximity of the golden calf to the altar Aaron built was purely incidental. Aaron's intention was totally Heaven-oriented. According to the <i>Zohar</i> volume 2 page 193, Aaron erected the altar in order to hold on to it so that the people should not be able to drag him away from there and execute him. The Torah legislated that [normally, when the crime of the accused had not been murder, Ed] the altar serves as a refuge for someone who is guilty of legal execution. While the guilty person holds on to it the messengers of the court cannot violate the sanctity of the altar in order to carry out the court's verdict.
  חג לה׳ מחר, "To-morrow shall be a feast for the Lord." Aaron's intention was simply to stall the people and to gain time until Moses would return and control the situation. By using the Ineffable Name, Aaron had made it plain that he meant for the feast to be in honour of the One and Only G'd. He did not expect the Israelites to disagree as we pointed out already that no one had dared to deny the primacy of the G'd who had introduced Himself at the revelation at Mount Sinai as "I am the Lord Who has has taken you out of Egypt." All the people wanted was to take "part" of that G'd and look at it as a symbol of the invisible Lord in Heaven.
  
  Verse 6
  
   וישכימו ממחרת, They rose up early on the morrow, etc. It is difficult to understand why G'd did not tell Moses to descend from the Mountain as soon as the golden calf emerged from the crucible instead of waiting until the following morning after the people began to worship it by offering sacrifices in its honour. If G'd had told Moses to descend as soon as the calf emerged the people would not have had a chance commit the sin of offering sacrifices to a man-made idol. We cannot assume that the Torah did not report this in chronological order and that G'd did indeed tell Moses to descend at once but that Moses delayed his descent in order to try and diminish G'd's anger at His people. The report of the Torah spoke first about the people offering sacrificing to the calf before it mentions G'd as having become angry and telling Moses to descend. [Verse seven only supplies the reason for what is written in verses eight and nine. It does not represent the order in which things happened. Ed.] While we are aware of the statement by Rabbi Joshua ben Levi in <i>Avodah Zarah</i> 4 that "the children of Israel were not on a low enough spiritual level at the time to make the golden calf, and that the only reason this was allowed to occur was to teach future generations of Jews the power of repentance," this statement would not have lost any of its validity if G'd had interfered before it came to the point when the people actually offered sacrifices to that calf. G'd could have told Moses to descend as soon as some of the people had said: "these are your gods, O Israel, who have brought you up from Egypt." All this occurred on the day before they offered the sacrifices. The people's passive attitude to the idolatrous provocation by the mixed multitude had already made them sufficiently culpable. In fact we can be certain that there were only a few dissidents amongst the natural-born Israelites for if they had indeed been the majority their passive acceptance of such a provocation to sin is totally beyond imagination! If a majority who were physically able to prevent this sin had stood by idly, they would have become guilty as accessories. Why did G'd have to wait until after offerings had been made to the golden calf?
  We may have to look for the answer to our question in Exodus 24, 12-18 when G'd had invited Moses to come up on the Mountain and to remain there (for 40 days) until G'd would give him the Torah, the commandments which He had written down in order for Moses to teach to the people. After the 40 days Moses was to give the people the Tablets (compare <i>Shabbat</i> 89 on this sequence). The word בשש which alluded to the time of Moses' return made it difficult for G'd to have Moses return earlier. I will explain the expression רד which the Torah uses in verse seven when we deal with that verse. Even though G'd was aware of what was going to occur already from the demands made by the people on Aaron, He would not go back on His instruction to Moses to remain on the Mountain for forty days and nights.
  You may well ask that seeing G'd is omniscient, why did He not consider future events at the time He invited Moses for forty days? I have already referred to this problem in my commentary on Genesis 6,5. As far as the situation facing us here is concerned we do not even need to trouble ourselves to find an answer as the Torah has already provided it. There are some reasons which only G'd knows about, but He has revealed to us the significance of the number forty regarding the days it takes for the development of a human embryo. Whereas the entire universe was created in six days, it required forty days to "create" the Tablets. We may be better able to understand this by recalling a lesson taught by Rabbi Yochanan to Rabbi Chiya bar Abba quoted in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 47,5. Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Chiya walked from Tiberias to Tzippori. Rabbi Yochanan saw a certain vineyard and told Rabbi Chiya that the vineyard used to be his, but that he had sold it for a certain sum of money. Upon hearing this Rabbi Chiya started to cry and said to Rabbi Yochanan: "have you not left yourself anything to provide for your old age?" Rabbi Yochanan replied: "Do you consider the fact that I sold something which it took six days to create and traded it for something that it took G'd forty days to create as 'nothing?' G'd created the entire universe in six days and yet it took Him forty days before He could give the Torah to Moses? Moses ate neither bread nor drank water but he was able to subsist on the waters of Torah, etc."
  Another reason that G'd could not tell Moses to descend before the Israelites had already offered sacrifices to the golden calf is connected to the four levels of Torah exegesis, commonly known as <i>Pardess,</i> an acronym for <i>Peshat, Remez, Drush, and Sod.</i> These four methods of exegesis actually reflect four different functions of "light" in the universe. It is the function of the פשט to illuminate the עולם העשיה, the lowest world, the physical universe as we know it. The function of the רמז is to provide insights into the world known in Kabbalah as the עולם היצירה. The function of the דרוש is to provide illumination of the world known as עולם הבריאה. Finally, it is the function of the exegesis known as סוד, to help us gain some enlightenment about the world known as עולם האצילות, a world in which tangible phenomena are totally non- existent. We have explained on several occasions that every one of these "worlds" contains ten levels known as ספירות, emanations. G'd is perceived as having "created" one such level of Torah per day and to have taught it to Moses. Thus you have the number forty as the number of days which were required in order for Moses to gain a full understanding of the Torah. Had Moses descended from the Mountain even a single day earlier, he (and we) would have been deprived of some of the insights the Torah provides. Expressed differently, the Torah would then have remained defective. At any rate, the ways of G'd are sometimes inscrutable but always fair and just. When you will read what we have written on the following verse you will see that we have pursued a different approach there.
  
  Verse 7
  
   לך רד כי שחת עמך, "go and descend for your people have become corrupt, etc." G'd repeated Himself, saying both "go," and "descend!" He first told Moses that the time had come for him to leave the Mountain; He added that his departure would be in the nature of a "descent" from the lofty spiritual heights he had so recently attained. If G'd had only said to Moses: "Descend," we would have understood this as nothing out of the ordinary, seeing he had been on the Mountain and there was no way to go but down, just as when the Torah described Moses' previous descent from the Mountain in Exodus 19,14. G'd wanted Moses to understand that his "descent" had a metaphysical dimension. Perhaps G'd used this method to inform Moses that his entire spiritual progress had been due to the nature of the people of whom he was in charge. Now that the people of Israel had sinned, Moses, their leader, could no longer attain the level of prophetic insights he had achieved formerly. It is also possible that what G'd meant was that inasmuch as the Jewish people were Moses' "helper" and that helper had now become deficient, he, Moses could no longer maintain himself on the lofty plateau he had reached. This is what is implied by the words רד כי שחת עמך, "do not remain on this level seeing you attained it only with the help of your people." 
  The difficulty with this approach is that G'd should have told Moses this as soon as the calf had emerged and the people had said: "these are your gods Israel, etc." Moses should have lost some of his spiritual stature the moment the people had become guilty of idol worship. We must assume that there was a good reason for G'd to delay informing Moses about the sin his people had committed. The Talmud <i>Sanhedrin</i> 43 raises the question why G'd did not inform Joshua of Achan's theft of valuables from the city of Jericho before the defeat of the Israelites at the hands of the people of Ai which prompted Joshua to ask G'd why they had suffered such a humiliating defeat (Joshua 7,6). The Talmud answers that G'd did not want to become known as an "informer," a "snitcher." If that argument were applicable here, G'd should not have told Moses about the people's sin until the latter had found out by himself a few hours later. After all, Moses' time on the Mountain was just about completed. Actually, the situation of Achan and the sin of the golden calf cannot be compared. Achan's sin was unknown except to a few people who kept it as their secret. The Jewish people's dancing around the golden calf and offering sacrifices to it was already public knowledge and Moses would have found out about it within hours even if G'd had not told him. Nonetheless, seeing G'd is the epitome of piety why did He tell Moses before the latter commenced his descent? 
  G'd's reasoning must therefore have been the very reverse of that applied by an informer. The informer delights in implicating people in sin, whereas G'd delights in justifying Himself if per chance He is forced to pronounce sentence over the sinners. Seeing G'd had told Moses to descend from his lofty spiritual niveau, He had to tell him the reason for this, and once having told him that the people had become corrupted, G'd had to add particulars about the form this corruption had taken. G'd listed three sins: 1) "they made a golden calf for themselves;" 2) "they prostrated themselves before it and they offered sacrifices to it;" 3) they proclaimed: "these are your gods O Israel, who have brought you out of Egypt." Israel had therefore sinned in (1) thought, (2) in speech and (3) in deed. G'd first told Moses about Israel having sinned in thought when He said: "they have made for themselves, etc." This was a sin in thought as long as they had not hailed the calf or sacrificed to it. The critical word is להם, "for themselves." Please compare what I have written on Exodus 20,3 on the meaning of the second of the Ten Commandments: לא יהיה לך אלהים אחרים. Concerning the Israelites' sin in deed, G'd told Moses that the people had "offered sacrifices to it." There is no greater act of idol worship than the offering of sacrifices to an idol. Concerning the Israelites having sinned in speech, G'd cited their having said: "these are your gods O Israel, etc." In view of all this Moses suffered a threefold weakening of his spiritual powers. Moses suffered a weakening of both נפש, רוח, and נשמה, and as a result he could not remain in the domain he had previously attained. This proves that unless the people had committed all three parts of this sin, Moses could have maintained his lofty posture. Had this not been so G'd would have already had to command him to descend after the Israelites had committed the first or second stage of that sin. G'd would then have had to reveal to Moses the reason He had asked him to descend at an earlier stage of these developments. At any rate, our question of why G'd did not tell Moses to descend sooner is answered satisfactorily.
  
  Verse 8
  
   סרו מהר מן הדרך, "they have quickly departed from the path, etc." The meaning of these words is clear in view of the statement in <i>Chulin</i> 4 that if someone acknowledges even passively that there is some substance to idolatry he is considered as having denied the entire Torah. This is why G'd said: "which I have commanded them," i.e. "all that I have commanded them."
  It is also possible that the wording reflects- as I have written previously- that the Israelites retained their full faith in G'd and only saw in the golden calf one of His many manifestations. In view of all this G'd had to make clear that He had not ever commanded something of this nature, i.e. Israel was not allowed to employ intermediaries in their worship of Him and that what happened represented a complete departure from the way G'd had instructed them to relate to Him. This explains why G'd did not speak of Israel in terms of their having rebelled against Him or having denied Him. He was well aware that the Israelites had retained their belief in Him.
  עשו להם עגל מסכה, "they made a molten calf for them(selves)." The words עשו להם mean that "others made for them." They had only handed over the gold whereas the calf appeared to have emerged of its own power. G'd informed Moses that the calf did not emerge by itself as we could have concluded from Aaron's words in verse 24, but that an action preceded its emergence as we have learned from <i>Tanchuma</i> that Yanus and Yambrus (legendary Egyptian sorcerers) made the calf.
  ויאמרו אלה אלהיך ישראל, they said: "these are your gods O Israel." Why did G'd tell Moses about the Israelites sinning by speech, i.e. by acknowledging the deity of the calf with their lips, only after He had already told Moses that they had worshiped it by offering sacrifices to it? The order should have been the reverse! According to <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 42,6 that it was the mixed multitude who made tha calf and that the Israelites had no share in this, the verse has to be interpreted as describing different stages of the sin committed by the Israelites, not by the mixed multitude. As to the first stage of what the Israelites themselves were guilty of G'd said: "the mixed multitude made the golden calf for themselves, but the Israelites did not protest. Next, the mixed multitude prostrated themselves before the calf and offered sacrifices to it, and the Israelites again did not protest. Failure to protest this time was already a sin of a much graver dimension than not having protested the mere making of the calf. When the mixed multitude declared (addressing Israel this time) "these are your gods O Israel," and the Israelites even now did not protest, this was the culmination of their sins.
  According to the plain meaning of the verse there is a different reason. G'd did not tell Moses earlier about the Israelites having said: "these are your gods, etc," although sin by speech is not generally as severe as sin by deed because in this case the sin committed by their lips was exceptionally severe. It was reinforced by the words: "who have brought you out of Egypt." Crediting the inert calf with what G'd had done for Israel made the sin absolutely intolerable. The perversion of history for all future generations implied in this utterance made it worse than sacrificing to the calf and prostrating oneself in front of it.
  Furthermore, inasmuch as the words were addressed by the mixed multitude to the Israelites and not by the Israelites themselves, they were relatively harmless as long as the Israelites did not respond to the invitation to worship the calf which was contained within these words. It had become clear only after the Israelites participated in the sacrifices to the calf that their active participation must have started already at an earlier stage, namely when they were invited to pay obeisance to the calf as their redeemer. G'd therefore told Moses that participation of the Israelites in the worshiping of the calf was the result of their agreeing with the people who had said: "these are your gods O Israel, etc."
  
  Verse 9
  
   ויאמר ה׳ אל משה, G'd said to Moses, etc. The reason this is reported as a separate address by G'd to Moses (seing there had been no interruption since G'd commenced to speak in verse 7) is that the first address was only an explanation of why Moses had to descend from his lofty spiritual niveau. Now G'd speaks to Moses concerning the repercussions Israel's conduct will have on their own standing. Had the Torah not inserted the words ויאמר ה׳ at this point, we would have thought that the previous sentence "they have quickly departed, etc." was meant as an introduction to why the people would be punished.
  
  Verse 10
  
   ועתה הניחה לי, "And now, let Me be, etc." The reason G'd said: "and now," was because He had already tried to put Moses in a good mood by offering to make an entire new Jewish nation with Moses as its founding patriarch when He said to him: "and I shall make you a great nation." This promise was designed to silence Moses into not protesting G'd's intention to destroy the present Jewish people. Moses thought to himself that G'd's promise was hardly any reassurance seeing that what happened to Abraham's descendants was liable to happen to his own descendants with similarly terrible results. This is why G'd said to Moses that he should leave Him be only "for now;" G'd implied that if Moses would leave Him alone now He would promise Moses that history would not repeat itself with any of Moses' descendants if he were to become the founding father of a new Jewish nation. There could be either one of two reasons why history would not repeat itself. 1) Moses' descendants would be more virtuous than the present generation of Jews and they would not succumb to the kind of provocation by Satan that the present Jewish people had succumbed to. 2) Even assuming that the "new" Jewish people would succumb to a situation similar to that facing the present one, G'd would not again ask Moses or their leader at that time not to intercede on their behalf. There would always be a chance to nullify any decree of G'd to destroy the new Jewish people.
  A moral-ethical approach to the words הניחה לי would be that it was G'd's way of hinting that if Moses were to allow G'd a brief moment of anger, i.e. ועתה הניחה לי, there was a chance that his subsequent intercession would prove successful. As soon as the present moment had passed Moses was invited, so to speak, to intercede on behalf of "his" people. This brief moment had passed while G'd uttered the word ועתה. This is why Moses immediately began to intercede with prayer.
  According to our sages in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 21,6 who say that the word ועתה in Genesis 3,22 as well as elsewhere always contains an allusion to the need to do תשובה, repentance, G'd hinted to Moses that it was up to him to do תשובה. Seeing that the entire debacle was due to Moses' having told the people he would return at the end of forty days he had misled them. He had failed to inform the people that he referred to a return on the forty-first day.
  Alternatively, Moses needed to do תשובה for having accepted the mixed multitude as proselytes at the time without having first consulted G'd. This is why G'd referred to the perpetrators of the golden calf as Moses' people, i.e. שחת עמך. When G'd said: ועתה, He meant that the time had come for Moses to become a penitent seeing he had a considerable share in the circumstances which made the golden calf episode possible. Not only this, the episode was to teach the Jewish people not to accept proselytes at the time when the Messiah would come (<i>Yevamot</i> 24). At that time it would be reserved for Moses to accept the proselytes and thus to make up for the time he had accepted them without authority from G'd.
  הניחה לי ויחר אפי, "leave Me alone so I can become angry, etc." Why did G'd have to ask Moses to "leave Him alone?" Had Moses done anything to prevent G'd from venting His anger? On the contrary! Moses had not even commenced to pray on behalf of the Israelites until later! Besides, the future tense "so that I may vent My anger" suggests that up until that moment G'd had not even become angry as yet and that He was looking for a pretext to become angry! Since when is it one of G'd's characteristics to want to become angry? We know that it is G'd's virtue to squash His anger whenever possible! We have it on the authority of Rabbi Yishmael the High Priest that G'd was pleased with his prayer asking Him to suppress His anger! (<i>Berachot</i> 7). Perhaps this was precisely Moses' argument when he remonstrated with G'd saying: למה יחרה אפך, "why do you want to become angry?" Moses uses the future tense in this question, suggesting that up until that point G'd had not shown signs of being angry. At any rate we are faced here with a difficulty in understanding the ways of our Lord!
  The whole matter may become clearer when we recall that the source of anger is an insult felt by one's heart. The degree of insult one experiences is in direct relation to the prominence and high position of the one who is guilty of the insult and the nature of the insult itself. There are two possible remedies which help one overcome the feeling of having been insulted. 1) One may take revenge on the person or persons who have insulted him. 2) One may respond to words of conciliation which puts the insult into its proper perspective.
  Inasmuch as the guilty party in this case was Israel, the insult could not have been greater seeing that Israel was G'd's chosen people. G'd Himself had indicated this by saying: "they have departed quickly from the path, etc." i.e. while Israel was still My most recently wed bride it has already abandoned Me, its groom, by whoring around. Initially, G'd felt so strongly about this that He did not think that any of the conventional ways of putting the insult into perspective would be effective and He had to take punitive action to get the feeling out of His system, so to speak. According to our sages in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 2,1 it is one of G'd's virtues that He cannot tolerate seeing His righteous people, His "friends," suffer pain. Accordingly, how could G'd inflict the pain of destroying His people on Moses? Had He not waited with the onset of the deluge so that Methuselah, a righteous man and others like him should not witness it (compare <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 32,7)? Moreover, according to the <i>Zohar</i> volume 1 page 206 the use of the term נשמה in Genesis 7,22 indicates that all the few good people, those possessed not only of a נפש, but even of a נשמה (a superior kind of soul), had died prior to the onset of the deluge. We also find in Isaiah 57,2 that the righteous person dies on account of the evil (which is to come). The prophet means that G'd spares the righteous the need to witness the disaster. Surely G'd was perfectly aware of how Moses would grieve over the destruction of his people! How could He even contemplate this type of revenge (retribution) for the insult He had suffered at the hands of the Jewish people? Had there ever been someone closer to G'd than Moses that he should have to witness such a disaster? When G'd considered all this and concluded that it would be better for Him to suffer the insult than to allow Moses to suffer the anguish of seeing his people destroyed, He begged Moses to allow Him to at least become angry for a moment. He asked Moses not to be upset at what He asked of him. If Moses agreed, this would give G'd an opportunity to first become angry and then regain His composure. He suggested that He would make out of Moses (his offspring in the future) לגוי גדול; He did not say He would make Moses himself into גוי גדול. This meant that though Moses was not at that moment a "great nation," He, G'd, would see to it that Moses' soul would possess the additional qualities needed to ensure that his descendants would be greater than the present Jewish people. The word אעשה also implied that G'd had to undertake a new process in order for future children of Moses to have the potential implied here.
  G'd also wanted to ward off Moses's argument (not yet voiced) "where is Your promise to the patriarch Abraham, i.e. the גוי גדול, the great nation that You promised he would become?" He used the expression לגוי גדול to paraphrase His promise to Abraham in Genesis 12,2 suggesting that this very promise would be fulfilled via the descendants of Moses.
  Moses' answer indicated that he could not allow G'd to do as He had suggested and that he could not conquer his own anguish even for a moment at what G'd planned to let him witness. Moses expressed all this succinctly in the words ויחל משה in verse 11. The Talmud <i>Berachot</i> 32 gives a variety of explanations of the word ויחל, the common denominator of all these explanations being that it is an expression of profound anguish. [The word ויחל is variously connected to חלה to be sick, as connected to חלל, to desecrate, i.e. to violate one's promise; another meaning is the aramaic אחילו, fever or trembling. There are still other interpretations. Ed.] In response to G'd saying: ויחר אפי, "so that My anger will be hot against them," an argument used by G'd to explain that He had no alternative if He wanted to get over the insult heaped upon Him, Moses countered: למה יחרה אפך, "why should You become angry instead of looking for a different method of assuaging Your hurt feelings?" By referring to the Jewish people as בעמך, "against Your people," Moses suggested that killing the Jewish people would "boomerang," that G'd would hurt Himself more than He would hurt the Israelites. After all, You have taken them out of Egypt and thereby made a great name for Yourself amongst mankind. Are You going to let all this go to waste? Why would You give the Egyptians such satisfaction? Moreover, why do You not remember Your promises to the Patriarchs? When You think about the Patriarchs surely You have reason to be well pleased? Moses succeeded in his plea as we know from the line וינחם ה׳ על הרעה, "G'd reconsidered the evil, etc."
  
  Verse 11
  
   למה ה׳ יחרה אפך, "To what purpose, O G'd, will Your anger burn?" If we go back for a moment to the statement in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 42 that only the mixed multitude were involved in the making and worshiping of the golden calf, we had to conclude that G'd's anger was directed at the Israelites for not having protested what the mixed multitude were doing. In that case, Moses' question "Why be mad at Your people?" simply meant that G'd's anger should have been restricted to the mixed multitude. This suggests that Moses had made peace with the idea that G'd would destroy the mixed multitude. Perhaps we can find support for this even in Moses' words: "whom You have taken out of Egypt?" Seeing that G'd had not taken the mixed multitude out of Egypt but they had come of their own volition, G'd's image would not be tarnished if this mixed multitude were to perish! According to the Midrash then we may assume that all the members of the mixed multitude died at that time seeing that even their patron did not speak up on their behalf. Inasmuch as the mixed multitude were seducers, Moses would have been totally out of order if he had asked for mercy on their behalf especially seeing that he himself was being punished for having accepted them as converts to begin with.
  According to the plain meaning of the verse i.e. that the Israelites themselves made the golden calf and worshiped it, Moses' argument applied to the part of the people who did not have a direct share in that sin. After all, the Torah reports that all those who had actively participated died. There were three such groups. 1) The Israelites who did not desist from worshiping the golden calf in spite of witnesses and proper warnings of the consequences were executed by the Levites. 2) The people whose sin had been witnessed but who had not been warned died at the hands of G'd, 3) those who had been warned but whose deed had not been witnessed. They too died at the hands of G'd. When G'd said to Moses that He wanted to destroy the people, He referred to those who were not included in either of the three groups we just mentioned. Moses' outcry: "Why will Your anger burn against Your people, etc.," was on behalf of the people who did not belong to any of the three groups who had been active participants in the sin. His argument was simply that the sin of omission of not protesting the involvement of the others surely did not warrant extinction! Should they cease to be called "Your people" though they had not rebelled against You?
  אשר הוצאת "whom You have taken out of Egypt! He used this argument to refute G'd's suggestion to make out of his descendants a great nation. Moses meant that any nation descended from him will not have the experience of the Exodus. If a nation which had this experience nonetheless succumbed to the temptation of the golden calf, surely a nation which lacked that experience cannot be expected to resist such a temptation! You will find that at the beginning of the Decalogue G'd emphasised the experience of the Exodus as the basis of the Israelites accepting Him as their G'd (Exodus 20,2). This shows clearly how pivotal that experience was for the faith in G'd displayed by the Jewish people, and their willingness to obey His commands. This theme occurs again and again throughout the Torah in connection with G'd's commandments. One gains the impression that the Torah keeps reminding us that the justification of G'd demanding fulfilment of His commandments is due almost entirely to the experience of the Exodus. Please refer to what I have written on that verse. When Moses mentioned G'd as having taken the Israelites out of Egypt בכח גדול, "by expending a great deal of energy," he implied that G'd could not afford to let all of this energy go to waste by destroying the Jewish people.
  Seeing that G'd had refused to associate His name with the people and had referred to them as Moses' people, i.e. שחת עמך, how could Moses dare say to G'd "why would You become angry at Your people?" We must therefore understand that when Moses referred to the Exodus by saying אשר הוצאת, that at that time He had still called them His people, i.e. אשר.
  
  Verse 12
  
   למה יאמרו הגוים, "Why should the nations be able to say, etc.?" Moses suggested that it would be a public desecration of G'd's name to wipe out the Jewish people whom G'd had referred to in Exodus 4,22 as "My first-born son Israel" less than six months previously? It would appear in retrospect that G'd had orchestrated the Exodus only in order to kill this people in the desert? Once all the nations which served idols realised that serving the one and only G'd led to disaster they would be confirmed in preferring the various deities which they were in the habit of worshiping. They would conclude that the fact that the G'd of the Israelites had not killed them (the Gentiles) for worshiping idols proved that it was an extremely dangerous thing to convert to Judaism and to acknowledge the G'd in Heaven.
  The reason Moses added the word לאמור was that the Gentiles might not phrase this in these exact words; nonetheless it was clear that they would draw inferences of that nature when they heard what had befallen the Jewish people in the desert. Alternatively, Moses may have added the word לאמור to show that he knew that this would merely be talk and would not describe the truth; still it was an argument the Gentiles were going to use which it would be difficult to disprove. This misrepresentation of the truth would not be confined to Egypt but would be echoed -לאמור- by all the other nations on earth. There could not be a greater desecration of G'd's name.
  
  Verse 13
  
   זכור לאברהם, "Remember Abraham, etc." Here Moses did not refer to G'd's oath to Abraham to make him into a great nation, etc., a comment G'd had already replied to earlier. Moses referred to the sadness which would engulf people when they would hear about what happened. Moses also argued the merit of the Patriarchs based on G'd's promise in the Ten Commandments (20,6) that He considered such merits for thousands of generations to those who "loved Him and observed His commandments." Moses added the words "Your servants, and "You have sworn," in order to give still greater meaning to what G'd had stated in the Ten Commandments.
  וכל הארץ הזאת, "and this whole land, etc." There are many ways of interpreting these words. Some say that they are part of Moses' words who quotes what G'd had said to the Patriarchs. It is equally possible that they are words spoken by G'd. The meaning of אמרתי would then have to be understood in a sense similar to Isaiah 3,10: "declare that the צדיק is good!" Here G'd would be proclaiming the superiority of the land of Israel by saying: "I declare that I have elevated the patriarchs by swearing to give such a superior land to their descendants, etc." We can find a parallel to this in Deut. 11,11-12, where the land of Israel is described in terms of being a superior land.
  
  Verse 14
  
   וינחם ה׳ על הרעה, "G'd reconsidered the evil He had said He would do, etc." The meaning of the verse is that there were two reasons why G'd reconsidered. 1) The decree was evil objectively speaking. 2) It would have resulted in evil for His people.
  We may understand this statement also as emphasising the דבר aspect, i.e. what G'd had merely said He would do. If He had sworn to do this, He would not have been able to reconsider an oath.
  A further dimension of this statement is that G'd only reconsidered the evil He had said to do, i.e. to wipe out the Jewish people; there were other evil parts which He had not reconsidered, parts involving the sin of the golden calf.
  Furthermore, G'd may only have reconsidered the evil he had said He would do to the people not directly involved in worshiping the calf, those who still were considered His people; those who had worshiped the calf be it with or without witnesses but who believed in it in their hearts would be subject to G'd's original decision and G'd punished them by death. Moses examined some of the people by making them drink of the waters containing the gold dust of the calf, others were executed by the Levites.
  
  Verse 15
  
   ויפן וירד משה מן ההר, "Moses turned around and descended from the Mountain." What is the significance of the Torah reporting Moses as "turning around," i.e. turning His back on G'd's presence? Is this not something which reflects a lack of respect? Perhaps the fact that the Torah added the superfluous words "from the Mountain" were added to prevent the misconception that Moses "turned his back on G'd", as it were. He only turned his back on the Mountain. If that were the meaning of the words "from the Mountain," the Torah should have written "Moses turned away from the Mountain" instead of writing "Moses turned and descended from the Mountain." Furthermore, why did the Torah have to mention Moses as "turning around" altogether? 
  Perhaps the expression "he turned around" signified Moses' reduced spiritual niveau which made it impossible for him to confront the angels. He therefore moved sideways on the Mountain, much like someone who tries to hide.
  We may also understand the word as similar to what we learned in <i>Devarim Rabbah</i> 1, where the <i>Midrash</i> contrasts Moses' mode of speaking directly to the Israelites, i.e. "you have sinned," with his speaking to G'd in the third person "למה יחרה?" The meaning of ויפן, he turned around, then may refer to Moses' change in attitude as he prepared to face his people.
  לוחות העדות, "the Tablets containing the testimony." The word ה־עדות, indicating a unique kind of testimony may be an allusion to the way G'd Himself had inscribed the Tablets so that the writing could be read from either side, something impossible if they had been inscribed by human hands. Such writing would appear as if it had been written backwards had it been inscribed on one side by a human scribe. The letter ה before the word עדות may also hint at the miraculous way the final letters ס and ם appeared with their respective centers suspended in the air miraculously (<i>Megillah</i> 3). Perhaps these two letters were "proof" i.e. "testimony" that the Tablets had indeed been inscribed by G'd Himself.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   וישמע יהושע, "Joshua heard, etc." The expression ברעה needs clarification. What precisely was the "sound" that Joshua heard which he interpreted as the sound of war? In order to understand Moses' response to Joshua one has to have prophetic insight. 
  All of this may be understood in light of a statement in the <i>Talmud Yerushalmi Taanit</i> 4,5 that the righteous are able to distinguish certain sounds as implying either something positive or something negative. This power of aural perception is something G'd has granted to outstanding individuals. When Joshua heard the sound which indicated something negative happening, ברעה, he interpreted it as the sound of fighting amongst the people. Alternatively, Joshua did not refer to a civil war when he mentioned that he identified the sound as the sound of battle; rather he referred to the struggle between the evil urge and the urge to be good which he perceived as being waged inside the Israelites at that time. Moses answered him that this was not how he perceived what he heard. When Moses said that he did not hear קול ענות גבורה, he meant that he did not perceive the good urge being victorious over the evil urge; when he added that he did not hear the קול ענות חלושה either, he meant that the reason was not merely an inherent weakness amongst the Israelites; what he heard was קול ענות, a sound of affliction, i.e. that he heard the breaking of the staff of glory which used to be theirs and which had now been broken. The meaning of this is that as opposed to violating one or another of the commandments, something that is apt to occur in the life of every Jew from time to time and which weakens a person spiritually, this time they had uprooted all the commandments by becoming guilty of idolatry. This is because according to <i>Chulin</i> 5 the sin of idolatry is equal to violating the entire Torah.
  Perhaps the word אנכי which follows the word ענות here is an allusion to the שכינה; it is reminiscent of Deut. 32,18 צור ילדך תשי, that the commission of a sin such a idolatry "weakens" the שכינה. The word שומע refers back to Joshua who had said that he heard the sound of battle within the camp. Moses told Joshua that what he heard was the mystical dimension of the breaking apart of the שכינה, so to speak. Solomon alludes to something like this in Proverbs 10,1 ובן כסיל תוגת אמו, "a foolish son is his mother's sorrow." Having written this, I have found the following statement in the <i>Zohar</i> second volume page 195: "What is the meaning of the word 'ברעה'? It refers to a voice (sound) from the סיטרא אחרא, the "negative part of the emanations." [This is based on the spelling of ברע with the letter ה at the end. Joshua is perceived as like the "moon" compared to Moses, the latter being like the "sun" in our aggadic literature. The "negative emanations" are similarly perceived by kabbalists as being like the "moon" when compared to the positive emanations which are like the "sun." These negative emanations are perceived as having "stolen" the light of the moon which was equal in strength to that of the sun prior to its having had to diminish itself. Joshua was therefore especially attuned to these negative emanations. This is why he "beheld" this "voice." Moses had not heard this voice as he was attuned primarily to the positive emanations, the ones perceived as akin to the "sun." Ed.] Joshua reported to Moses on what he heard immediately.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ויהי כאשר קרב אל המחנה, It was, when he came close to the camp, etc. Our sages have already told us in <i>Megillah</i> 10 that whenever the word ויהי introduces a paragraph this is an allusion to a painful experience. In this instance <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 46,1 describes that Moses noted the letters on the Tablets "flying away." This caused us all the subsequent grief our forefathers and we ourselves have experienced ever since, including the experience of death itself. Had the original Tablets survived, every sorrow and calamity would have disappeared from the earth, and the world would have experienced freedom from the angel of death (compare section 41 in that <i>Midrash.)</i> The word ויהי also refers to the anguish experienced by Moses personally when he saw with his own eyes what was taking place. The word also alludes to the feelings of shame experienced by the Israelites who felt like a thief who is caught in the act of stealing when they saw Moses approaching. The word even alludes to the קליפה, the spiritually negative radiations which now bombarded the camp of the Israelites and which presaged death and destruction. These negative emanations had been called forth by the words: "these are your gods O Israel, etc."
  כאשר קרב אל המחנה, as he approached the camp. Perhaps the Torah wished to tell us that Moses espied the calf even before he actually entered the camp. This had to be so in order for the sacred Tablets not to have to share the same domain with the epitome of impurity, the golden calf. When the Torah writes: "and it was as he approached the camp he saw the calf and the dances (or the musical instruments used during dances)," our attention is drawn to the immediacy of Moses seeing the calf and the activities surrounding it.
  וירא את העגל ומחלות, he saw the calf and the musical instruments, etc. Perhaps the Torah describes that with the approach of Moses the spirit of impurity took fright and flew away so that the calf became inert and lost its ability to utter the words "these are your gods, etc." Even the spirit of impurity which had fashioned the calf unassisted by any artisan or goldsmith departed out of fear of Moses. The words עגל ומחלות side by side conjure up an image of the calf becoming as inert as the מחלות, the musical instruments, once the spirit which had misled the Jewish people into believing that the calf possessed powers of its own had departed from it.
  Alternatively, the Torah uses the wording וירא את העגל instead of וירא העגל, to draw our attention to the fact that Moses did not only behold the calf but also the spirit of impurity it contained, i.e. את. The righteous have the ability to recognise evil; a person of the stature of Moses was certainly able to recognise evil when he faced it. According to our rabbis in <i>Tikkunim</i> 142, Moses asked the calf who had made it to which the calf responded that it had been made by the mixed multitude. Seeing that inert things cannot speak, the meaning of that statement is that Moses realised that the calf contained the spirit of impurity. When the Torah describes Moses as seeing the dances, the word את in front of the word מחלות is absent. This lends credence to the statement that Moses perceived the spirit of impurity as being within the calf.
  It is also possible that the Torah wished to inform us that at the time Moses approached the camp he did not encounter a single person as they were all too ashamed to face him. All Moses was able to see therefore were the calf and the musical instruments used to accompany the dances.
  ויחר אף משה וישלך מידיו את הלוחות, Moses became very angry and he threw the Tablets from his hands, etc. We need to understand why Moses took it upon himself to smash the Tablets ignoring the immeasurable damage this would cause to the Jewish people. Clearly he would not have destroyed something unless he was convinced that by the destruction of whatever it was he would perform something infinitely more useful than that which he destroyed. We are told in <i>Avot de Rabbi Natan</i> chapter 2 that Moses did not shatter the Tablets until told to do so by G'd. This view is confirmed by Rabbi Meir who cites Deut. 10,5 as support for this view. He derives this from Moses saying "they remained therein as G'd had commanded me." If so, we must understand why G'd withheld the good contained in the Tablets from His people. [the question is appropriate in view of the Torah having told us that G'd decided not to carry out His plan to destroy the people. Ed.]
  We must remember that at the time of the revelation at Mount Sinai any residual pollutant of the original serpent had been expunged from the people as we know from <i>Shabbat</i> 146. This is the reason G'd prepared for them legislation engraved i.e. <i>charut</i> on the Tablets. The word חרות which we read in the Torah with the vowel <i>kametz</i> under the first letter may also be read with the vowel <i>tzeyreh</i> instead; as a result of this change it means "freedom." The alternate spelling is an allusion to the freedom from the angel of death which the Jewish people had attained as a result of their ready acceptance of G'd's Torah. Mortality, after all, had only been due to the pollutants with which the original serpent had injected Eve through her eating of the tree of knowledge. The golden calf episode reversed this process and the Israelites became infected with something like the original pollutant once more, though not to the same degree as previously. As a result of their idolatry they became mortal once more and a set of laws designed for immortal people was no longer appropriate for them. This is why those Tablets had to be smashed. All of this is based on the opinions that Moses had not acted of his own accord when he smashed the Tablets.
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויקח את העגל אשר עשו, He took the calf which they had made, etc. The words "which they had made" appear quite superfluous; perhaps the Torah had to mention this according to the view that the golden calf looked like a calf from the front and like a donkey when viewed from the rear as we find in the <i>Zohar</i> volume 2 page 192. If the Torah had written only "he took the calf," I could have understood this as a reference only to the front section of the calf and that Moses burned only that section of the image. By adding the words: "which they had made," the Torah makes it clear that Moses burned the entire inert creature.
  Perhaps the lesson in these words is similar to the message of the prophet Jeremiah in Jeremiah, 2,19: "your wickedness itself has become your affliction;" i.e. the sin itself becomes the bane of the person who perpetrated it. By embracing evil, the sin itself destroys those who love it and who hate sanctity. When the Torah speaks of אשר עשו, it refers to the consequences of the act of making the calf. וישק את בני ישראל, he made the Israelites drink of it. This was designed to open the eyes of the blind and to teach them to hate evil and to love sanctity which implies a love for the good for goodness' own sake.
  Furthermore, the Torah may have wanted to inform us about the nature of the evil the two sorcerers had perpetrated. The first evil was that they formed the golden calf, the second that the calf invited the people to worship it when it said: "these are your gods O Israel, etc." The Torah tells us that Moses "took" i.e. seized both these aspects of wickedness the sorcerers had created. The expression לקח as a description of sanctity gaining control over spiritually negative forces, קליפה, is used by the Talmud in <i>Yuma</i> 69 where the members of the Great Assembly are described as seizing the spirit which seduces men into worshiping idols and other sins, and their trying to eliminate it. Moses did something similar here when he "seized" the spirit of impurity within the golden calf, and burned it. The words וישרוף באש, "he burned it in fire," are far more appropriate when applied to the spirit within the calf than to the calf itself seeing that one cannot "burn" gold. Perhaps this is the mystical dimension of Isaiah 11,4 where the prophet describes the Messiah as "killing the wicked with the breath of his lips."
  
  Verse 21
  
   מה עשה לך העם הזה? "What did this people do to you?" Moses recognised that the making of a cast idol for others is not one of the commandments for which one has to sacrifice one's life rather than to do so under duress. Compare Maimonides' treatise on the laws of idolatry chapter three in which he rules that a person who commits such a sin is punishable only by 39 lashes. If a person performs such a deed under duress he is not punishable at all. If he had not been forced to do what he did under threat of death he is punishable by 39 lashes even if he had not been warned of the consequences of his deed by witnesses acceptable in Jewish law (<i>Makkot</i> 6). Moses therefore wanted to know the circumstances which caused Aaron to make the calf.
  Aaron replied: אתה ידעת את העם הזה כי בדע הוא, "you know from observing the people that they are bent on doing something corrupt." He added that as far as Moses' assumption that he, Aaron, had made the calf with his own hands was concerned, this was not so. All he had done was to throw the gold into the crucible. The calf emerged totally unassisted. This follows the description in the <i>Tanchuma</i> which we quoted earlier according to which the Egyptian sorcerers Yanus and Yambrus made the calf. Aaron explained that if not for this factor which was beyond his control, there would not have been a sin at all as he had made neither a form nor an image.
  Another meaning of Moses asking: "what have the people done to you?" could be this: "Did they put you under sufficient pressure so that you could legally have agreed to comply?" Moses asked whether Aaron had correctly contrasted the enormity, חטאה גדולה, of the sin involved before deciding that he did not have to make a martyr of himself by agreeing to do whatever he did. Aaron replied by outlining the circumstances of what had transpired.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   כי פרוע הוא, for it was out of control, etc. The Torah means that the people had forfeited the protective cover of the שכינה which had hovered over them since the revelation at Mount Sinai.
  כי פרעה אהרון, "for Aaron had let them loose." Perhaps the Torah means that having heard Aaron's answer Moses was now certain that the fault was entirely the people's seeing that Aaron's part in the debacle had been quite incidental. The real fault lay with the people who had contributed their gold, and the sorcery which had subsequently been performed with that gold. The literal meaning of these words then would be that by his explanation Aaron had let loose an accusation at the people.
  לשמצה בקמיהם for a derision among their enemies. Any small measure of an abomination is called שמץ. Our sages in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 102 state that ever since the episode of the golden calf any punishment the Israelites face for any sin committed since, contains some small part of the punishment which had not been administered at the time they committed that sin. It may also mean that whenever the nations display hostility against the Jews one of their arguments of our unworthiness includes a reminder of the sin of the golden calf this nation had become guilty of.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   איש את אחיו…ואיש את קרובו. "every man his brother …or his relative." We need to explore why the Torah had to add the words "and each man his relative," seeing the Torah had already authorised the Levites to kill even brothers who are the closest relatives. We have to remember that there are different categories of "brothers" whose outlook on life and whose lifestyles may be drastically different from one another although they are the sons of the same parents. On the other hand, there are people who are not at all related to each other by blood-ties and yet share the same outlook on life and the same lifestyle. All of this is due to the origin of the respective souls of these people rather than to the origin of their bodies. There are souls whose roots are very close to each other and who become separated from one another by being assigned to bodies which are far apart from one another. The reverse is true also. This is why Moses' instructions to the Levites had to include both such possibilities.
  
  Verse 28
  
   בני לוי, the members of the tribe of Levi, etc. The Torah did not say that all the Levites displayed this loyalty by rallying to Moses' call. We need to understand why this part of the verse had to be written at all and the Torah was not content with reporting the Levites' response to Moses' call in verse 26 when all of them are reported as rallying around their leader. Perhaps the Torah wanted to stress that no one except the Levites acted as executioners at the behest of Moses. Verse 26 in which all the Levites are reported as rallying around Moses would not have made it plain that Moses had charged only the Levites with the task of being executioners. That verse only told us that all the Levites responded to Moses' original call. We could have thought that some Israelites responded in addition to all of the Levites. The Torah had to make clear that only Levites actually carried out Moses' instructions. The emphasis in "the Levites did what Moses said" is not so much on the Levites who did not do so but on the absence of any of the members of other tribes being prepared to kill idolators.
  כדבר משה, in accordance with the word of Moses. The Torah emphasises that Moses' word alone sufficed to prompt those Levites to take such drastic action against the active idolators. It could also mean that they did so without delay as soon as Moses had finished giving them their instructions.
  
  Verse 29
  
   מלאו ידכם היום, "consecrate yourselves this day, etc." It is not clear what the word "consecrate" is supposed to mean in this context. If it referred to the matter of killing one's relatives, this had already occurred. It should have been reported prior to the Levites carrying out Moses' orders. 
  I believe we can explain this verse as being in its proper place. The Torah felt that inasmuch as these Levites had carried out executions with their own hands, something that certainly is not characteristic of righteous people, their image had to be restored. We have learned in <i>Makkot</i> 7 that any court which carries out a death sentence once in seven years (according to some even once in seventy years) is labelled as "a murderous court." In this instance the Levites killed about 3,000 people in a single day. There was a fear that their souls could have been tarnished by the experience seeing that though what they had done was perfectly legal it might leave a residue of mercilessness or a streak of cruelty in their character. In order to reassure both them and the people, Moses the man of G'd, told them to "consecrate their hands." This was not a commandment but a reassurance that by the very act of carrying out the task allocated to them they had consecrated themselves to the service of the Lord. Not only did their action not hint at a character deficiency in them, but, on the contrary, it reflected that they were spiritually very enlightened. The proof was that they did not protest having to sacrifice their own sons or close relatives which put them in a category similar to that of Abraham at the time he was willing to offer up Isaac. G'd testified that Abraham had reached the pinnacle of perfection after he had demonstrated that he had not withheld Isaac (Genesis 22,12). G'd had given Abraham a double blessing at that time (Genesis 22,17). Moses assured the Levites that they too were recipients of a similar blessing by G'd as a reward for what they had done, i.e. ולתת עליכם היום ברכה.
  Moses was very precise in describing this blessing as עליכם, which implied something additional, instead of saying לכם. He told the Levites that not only was G'd's blessing not required to restore a character defect which had been revealed when they acted as mass executioners, but there had not been a character defect in the first place, and He now added a further positive dimension to their respective characters by granting them this blessing. We may view the whole episode as similar to an orchard in which the trees have to be pruned in order to assure that the remaining branches develop more successfully. The house of Israel has frequently been compared to a vineyard (Psalms, 80,9 et al). When Moses spoke of the blessing that G'd would bestow עליכם, "upon you," the meaning of עליכם is "thanks to you," thanks to what you have done, the entire Jewish people will experience such a blessing. It was not the Levites who had been deficient but the people. By removing the superfluous members of the Jewish people, the Levites had assured the successful development of the remaining branches of the trees in that orchard. When we had previously quoted the Talmud which characterised a court that carried out death-sentences as "murderous," the circumstances described in the Talmud do not match what happened here at all, for two reasons. 1) The Levites (read court) executed their beloved ones. This demonstrated that their love for G'd was greater than their love for their errant family members. 2) Failure to carry out these sentences would have condemned the whole nation to destruction at the hands of G'd. The executioners therefore were the life savers of the people, not "murderous." G'd's anger abated only as a result of their action.
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   חטא העם הזה, "This nation has committed a very grave sin, etc." It is possible that with these words Moses alluded to something we have learned in <i>Sotah</i> 3, that no one commits a sin unless his brain had first malfunctioned, i.e. that he was out of his mind. This represents a defect in his spiritual life-force, his נפש. By saying חטא, Moses meant that the people's spiritual makeup had lacked an essential ingredient. This was the reason that they made a molten image for themselves. This is one of the arguments man will use after death when he faces His Maker and has to account for his sins in this life. He will claim that when he committed a sin he was not of sound mind. Although he will be punished, seeing he himself was the cause of being of unsound mind, his punishment will not be as severe as if he had been of perfectly sound mind at the time he comitted the sin.
  Another thought Moses may have had in mind when he formulated these words is connected to the tradition (<i>Kidushin</i> 40) that when man is punished for idolatry he is punished for his idolatrous thoughts alone. When Moses spoke of the people having committed a grave sin without specifying the nature of that sin, he referred to the idolatrous thoughts the people had entertained. As far as their sin in deed was concerned, Moses spelled this out by adding: "they have made golden deities for themselves."
  
  Verse 32
  
   ועתה אם תשא חטאתם "And now, if You are prepared to forgive their sin, etc." We have to understand this wording as corresponding to a statement in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 21,6 according to which the word עתה is always used as related to repentance. Moses argued that seeing the Israelites had already repented, they qualified for forgiveness.
  אם תשא חטאתם "if You forgive their sin, etc." Why did Moses leave the second half of the sentence unfinished? Perhaps we must understand Moses as saying: "and now," seeing that the Israelites have already done תשובה, i.e. they have done their part, it is up to You G'd to do Your part. Moses did not know if G'd would accept repentance seeing the sin was so grave. This is why he did not complete the verse, waiting for G'd to complete the other half of the sentence.
  ואם אין מתני נא מספרן אשר כתבת "and if not, please erase me from the book You have written." A broker is entitled to a commission for all the deals he is instrumental in concluding between two parties. Inasmuch as Moses had "brokered" many deals between G'd and Israel of which the Israelites' acceptance of G'd's Torah was not the least, he was certain that his part in all this had been duly recorded in G'd's Book of records. He argued that if G'd were not to forgive the people He would have to erase all the merits Moses had acquired thus far and which had been recorded in that Book. His own merits, after all, had only been achieved through his association with the Jewish people. G'd answered him that his reasoning was faulty; He would erase only the previously recorded merits of the sinner from His Book. The merits which had been acquired through someone's association with someone else would certainly not be negatively affected through sins committed subsequently by that third party.
  Moses' argument can also be understood in light of the <i>Zohar</i> volume 3, page 273 that all the souls of the generation of Israelites travelling through the desert were "branches" of Moses' soul. If G'd were not to forgive the sins of the Israelites, the effect on Moses' own soul would be devastating. This is why he urged G'd to "wipe me out from Your Book." G'd answered him that only the branches of his soul would be damaged by the sins their bodies committed, not the "trunk (i.e. root) of their souls."
  Another meaning of Moses' words may be that he told G'd that he himself had been guilty of many errors such as recorded in Exodus 5,22 when he had accused G'd of dealing harshly with the Jewish people. Apparently, G'd had forgiven him his errors else He would have to erase him too from His Book as his sin too was unforgivable. G'd answered Moses that it was the nature of the sin of the Israelites,- "they sinned against Me," -which made it impossible to accept repentance without decreeing punishment. Idolatry is a sin against G'd's Essence. It cannot go unpunished even when the guilty have been truly penitent.
  The entire dialogue between Moses and G'd concerned only the timing of the forgiveness. Moses wanted G'd to display forgiveness at once so that the generation of Israelites who had committed this sin could still remain inscribed in the Book of the Righteous. As far as G'd eventually forgiving the Jewish people was concerned, he had no doubts about that. It would certainly occur not later than the Day of Atonement. Moses chose his words very carefully when he spoke about מספרך אשר כתבת, "from the Book which You have written." G'd in the Heavens has three Books. One contains the names of the righteous, another contains the names of the wicked people on earth; the third contains names of people who are considered "borderline" cases. The three Books are open in front of G'd on New Year's Day. G'd personally inscribes the names of the "righteous," the deserving people in the first Book. This is why Moses referred to that Book as "Your Book." He had to add the words "which you have inscribed," as the suffix "your" Book would not make clear whether G'd ever reviews anything written in that Book. After all, seeing the whole universe belongs to G'd, each Book in Heaven would certainly also be described as "Your Book."
  <i>Rosh Hashanah</i> 16 explains the words מספרך as referring to the Book in which the righteous are listed; the words אשר כתבת refer to the Book in which the borderline cases are recorded; according to the Talmud (<i>Kidushin</i> 40) one must always view oneself as being a borderline case, as if the next act one performs could tilt the scales of the world either towards "guilty" or towards "innocent." <i>Berachot</i> 61 tenders similar advice. In view of the foregoing, Moses considered himself as a בינוני, "a borderline case" just like every other Jew. If G'd were not to forgive the Jewish people, which would result in a diminution of his own merits, Moses himself would automatically lose his place in the Book of the בינונים and would become part of the Book in which the names of the wicked appear.
  Still another way of understanding this verse is that Moses argued that his own standing would become that of a righteous person if G'd were to find the Israelites as righteous, seeing most of his own merits derived from them. If G'd were to fail to forgive the Israelites, Moses would himself carry the burden of the sins of the Israelites as any merits he had acquired due to his efforts on their behalf would be considered as null and void or even worse. He would have been better off if he had never accepted the task of leading the Jewish people.
  Another aspect of Moses' argument is that it is part of his response to G'd's offer to make a new Jewish nation out of him after G'd had destroyed the present generation of Jews. Moses simply told G'd that if He were not willing to forgive the Jewish people now, he for his part would prefer to be wiped out of G'd's Book rather than become the founder of what would in effect be a substitute Jewish nation. The underlying thought here is that a) a threat by G'd not accompanied by an oath remains reversible, whereas an oath announcing retribution is irreversible. b) By the same token a promise by G'd that He will do something perceived as good, as desirable, is irreversible even if it was a conditional promise (compare <i>Makkot</i> 11). Accordingly, when G'd had promised to make a new nation out of Moses, this had been recorded in G'd's "Book," a book known as the <i>Sefer Hayashar.</i> Moses' prayer then was that G'd should cancel the entry which contained the promise to make a new nation out of his offspring. G'd told Moses that He would indeed not abrogate the promise to the Patriarachs concerning the future of their offspring while at the same time He would not retract the promise He had made to Moses. We find that He fulfilled His promise to make a nation out of Moses in Chronicles I 23, 14-18 which concludes with the statement: "the descendants of Rechaviah kept multiplying." <i>Berachot</i> 7 claims this means that there were more than 600,000 of Moses' descendants.
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   אשר עשה אהרן which Aaron had made. What was the Torah's purpose in making this statement at this point? Perhaps G'd wanted us to know that the Israelites were punished for causing Aaron to become the innocent maker of the golden calf. G'd deals severely with anyone who causes a great and holy man such as Aaron to become involved in the performance of a sin.
  Alternatively, the Torah wanted to ward off any accusation anyone had levelled against Aaron who was only technically the maker of the golden calf, and to place the blame where it belonged. The fact that G'd smote the people for a calf which Aaron had made, is evidence that G'd considered the people as having made the calf.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   לך עלה מזה, "go and ascend from this place, etc." The mention of an "ascent" is significant. Perhaps the Torah alludes to <i>Shabbat</i> 88 where we are told that Moses appropriated for himself the jewelry the Israelites stripped off themselves. [That "jewelry" was always perceived as being spiritual, such as the phylacteries. Ed.] This is alluded to here by the use of the word עלה in addition to לך. The apparently superfluous word אתה, "you," further supports the idea that the Torah speaks about an ascent by Moses which signified a spiritual dimension. The spiritual ascent was limited to Moses, i.e. אתה, as distinct from the people. As far as the people were concerned, G'd's instruction was only: לך, "go on."
  לאמור, "to say, etc." When the Torah reported communications from G'd to the Patriarchs, such communications did not usually involve לאמור, i.e. that they were to be passed on to others. The Torah wishes to remind us that whenever G'd had spoken to the Patriarchs promising to give the Holy Land to their descendants, such promises were לאמור, i.e. they were meant to be relayed by the Patriarchs to their children, etc.
  
  Verse 2
  
   ושלחתי לפניך מלאך, "and I will send an angel ahead of you, etc." It is clear from this verse that up until now G'd had meant for Moses personally to lead the children of Israel into the Holy Land and to distribute it to them. We have a line in Exodus 6,1 where G'd told Moses: עתה תראה "now you will see," and many commentators understood this to mean that Moses would be a witness only to the Exodus from Egypt but not to the conquest of the land of Canaan. Perhaps G'd had cancelled that decree in consideration of how Moses had interceded on behalf of the Jewish people, putting his own future on the line.
  
  Verse 3
  
   פן אכלך בדרך, "lest I consume you on the way." There is no comparison between someone who angers his teacher while in his teacher's presence to someone who takes advantage of the teacher's absence to anger him. בדרך, "on the way." This is a hint that the announcement that "only" an angel will accompany the Jewish people would not apply at all times and in all circumstances. When Israel would be in a city, i.e. in a relatively safe environment, G'd Himself would be near them (compare Isaiah 26,1).
  According to the Kabbalists the desert is the home of Samael who succeeded on several occasions to overpower and kill Jews who lacked G'd's protection due to their share in the sin. The <i>Zohar</i> volume 2 page 157 expands on that theme when commenting on the words המדבר הגדול והנורא in Deut. 1,17. It uses that verse as proof of how dangerous it is to be בדרך, "on the way."
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ודבר ה׳ אל משה פנים אל פנים, "and G'd spoke with Moses face to face." The message of this verse is that the intimacy between Moses and G'd was in direct proportion to the preparation Moses made to welcome G'd's presence. This teaches each of us that the attainment of sanctity is in direct proportion to the efforts we make to attain it.
  כאשר ידבר איש אל רעהו, "as a man speaks to his friend." We understand this simile as emphasising the word רעהו, "his friend." We find a similar thought in Proverbs 27,19: "as face to face [is reflected] in water, so man's heart [will be reflected by his counterpart]." Solomon speaks of a mental telepathy between the hearts of people who do not even see each other but perceive whether their counterpart loves them or hates them. The relationship between man and invisible G'd is based on something deeper than the exterior sense of sight. The heart senses the attitude of its opposite number. If someone prepares to love his fellow man the heart of his fellow man responds to such invisible feelings. Alternatively, the meaning is that just as his "friend" will not love him unless he has reciprocated the feeling of love, so is G'd's attitude to us. If one wishes to gauge one's standing in the eyes of G'd one needs only to examine one's own attitude towards G'd and His service. If one feels the urge to serve the Lord and delights in doing so, this is proof that G'd relates to such a person with love.
  
  Verse 12
  
   ראה אתה אומר אלי, "See, You are saying to me, etc." Moses refers to the fact that on the one hand he was the leader (messenger) who was charged with leading the Israelites towards the land of Canaan, whereas on the other hand G'd had just told him that He would send an additional supernatural messenger, an angel, to lead the Israelites. Moses wanted to know more about the nature of this supernatural messenger that would accompany the Israelites. This is why he said: ואתה לא הודעתני את אשר תשלח עמי, "You have not told me whom You are going to send with me." Moses made his consent to the new arrangement dependent on knowing more about the nature of that angel. In the event that G'd would tell him that his consent was not needed, Moses added: ואתה אמרת ידעתיך בשם, "You have said 'I know you by name,' meaning that you have elevated me beyond the level of the Patriarchs (compare Exodus 6,3). He implied that his status of being familiar with the attribute י־ה־ו־ה was such that he was entitled to be consulted. The word ידעתיך in this verse corresponds to the word נודעתי in Exodus 6,3.
  Moses quoted something G'd had said to him: וגם מצאת חן בעיני "you have also found favour in My eyes," as additional proof that he expected G'd to consult him about any new arrangements. We find in <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> item 173 (on <i>Parshat Shemot</i>) that during the dialogue between G'd and Moses at the burning bush, G'd showed Moses part of the future including Rabbi Akiva expounding the Torah and its intricacies such as the meaning of the various "crowns" on top of some of the letters. Moses was so impressed that he suggested to G'd to send Rabbi Akiva as the redeemer of the Jewish people instead of himself. G'd had answered him at that time that He specifically wanted Moses to fulfil that role. The <i>Midrash</i> obviously understood this as proof that Moses more than anyone else had found favour in His eyes. The upshot of the allegorical conversation is that Moses realised that although Rabbi Akiva was superior to him intellectually, G'd preferred him for other reasons. He was correct in interpreting this as proof that he had found favour in the eyes of G'd. [I believe that the reason the author quotes the story in the Yalkut is because the Torah did not previously report G'd telling Moses that he had found favour in the eyes of G'd. Ed.] As a result of all these considerations Moses asked G'd to reveal more to him about His attributes.
  
  Verse 13
  
   ואדעך למען אמצא חן, "in order that I will know You and continue to find favour in Your eyes." Seeing that it is not good manners for a servant to tell his master that he wants to get to know him better, Moses added the word למען, "for the sake of, etc.;" he explained that his request was not for his own satisfaction but in order for him to be a more effective leader of his people. This is what he meant when he referred to "finding favour in Your eyes."
  וראה כי עמך הגוי הזה, "and consider that this nation is Your people." Moses carried on this conversation with G'd in complete privacy. He therefore reminded G'd that the souls of the Jewish people were part of G'd Himself, as I have explained in Deuteronomy 32,9 on the words: כי חלק ה׳ עמו, "for His people are a part of G'd." G'd Himself also alluded to this in Exodus 20,20 when He said: "I am the Lord your G'd." I have explained this more thoroughly in that context. When Moses said: וראה, he referred to this as a known fact, implying that inasmuch as there was something divine about the Jewish people, how could G'd despise something that was itself divine?
  
  Verse 14
  
   ויאמר פני ילכו, "He said: 'My presence will go with you.'" Many commentators have addressed themselves to these verses. I believe the correct approach to these verses must be based on a comment in <i>Tikkunim</i> 18 that the Torah refers to the שכינה as פני ה׳, seeing this is the aspect of G'd visible to the Celestial Beings. This is also the allusion contained in the words of Exodus 23,15 ולא יראו פני ריקם, "they shall not see My Face (while) empty-handed." In our verse G'd is responding to Moses' arguments and informs him that He Himself will go with him as His attribute פני השם, i.e. the שכינה. Concerning the matter of Moses having reservations about such an arrangement, G'd added: והניחותי לך, "I will give you rest."
  G'd also meant that He would allow an extra-terrestrial light to rest on Moses, one that would not fade; at the same time whatever degree of spiritual light Moses had enjoyed thus far would continue, although seen from Israel's vantage point the Divine Presence שכינה would be perceived as preceding the people on their journeys. This was an aspect of G'd's attribute of דין, Justice, as is evident from the name with which G'd identified Himself here. [I believe that having said that the expression פני השם referred to the way G'd is manifest in Heaven, the author concludes that this is an aspect of דין, seeing there is no need for the attribute of Mercy in the Celestial Regions. Ed.] Moses responded to this offer by saying: "If Your presence will not go with me," in verse 15.
  
  Verse 15
  
   ואם אין פניך הולכים, "Unless Your face will go, etc." Moses was not satisfied with G'd's previous offer and said that unless G'd's face would go with them as of now the people would be lost, and there was no point in even beginning their ascent towards the Holy Land. His reasoning was that the only way he could be certain that he had indeed found favour in G'd's eyes was the method employed by G'd in accompanying the Jewish people. He referred to Israel's distinction of G'd relating to them as the Attribute represented by His Ineffable Name. Moses was dissatisfied that only he and not the entire people should be the beneficiaries of the "great light" which G'd had promised to bestow on Moses in verse 14. [The author appears to feel that the fact that G'd did not tell Moses in verse 14 that His Attribute would walk with the people instead of ahead of the people, made Moses refuse the offer. Ed.] He prayed for G'd to accompany the people as His attribute of the Ineffable Name, i.e. as the attribute of Mercy. G'd agreed to this request also when He said: "I will also carry out this matter which you have spoken of for you have found favour in My eyes." G'd was careful to let Moses know that His consent was due to His fondness of Moses, not because of His being fond of the people.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   כי מצאת חן בעיני ואדעך בשם. "for you have found favour in My eyes and I have become intimate with you by My revealing to you My attribute י־ה־ו־ה." When Moses had previously referred to his having found favour in G'd's eyes he had reversed the relationship of his finding favour and his being granted an insight into the meaning of the Ineffable Name (verse 12). The Torah revealed here that the revelation of the meaning of the attribute of the name י־ה־ו־ה was the mark of the highest degree of finding favour in G'd's eyes. After all, even Noach had found favour in G'd's eyes (Genesis 6,8) but G'd's attribute י־ה־ו־ה had not been revealed to him.
  The Torah also wanted to make it abundantly clear that the reason G'd had revealed this most elusive attribute of His to Moses was because he had found favour in His eyes. There was a causal relationship between these two experiences. This relationship had not been recognisable when Moses referred to this in verse 12. If not for the present verse, we would have assumed that one could become privy to the revelation of G'd's supreme attribute without first having found favour in His eyes.
  
  Verse 18
  
   הראני נא את כבודך. "Please show me Your glory." While it is true that our sages in the <i>Mechilta</i> on Exodus 15,2 have said that the Israelites became privy to visions not even granted to the prophet Yecheskel when they stood on the beaches of the sea of reeds. We have already heard that G'd spoke with Moses "face to face," and these visions were only of "G'd being a consuming fire." When G'd told Aaron and Miriam that He had revealed Himself to Moses far more clearly than to them (Numbers 12,7), this referred to a level below that which Moses aspired to now when he asked to see G'd's glory in our verse. Moses perceived that the time was opportune for him to ask to be granted still further insights and this is why he now chose to ask.
  
  Verse 19
  
   אני אעביר כל טובי על פניך, "I will make all My goodness pass before you, etc." G'd referred to all His "positive" attributes which he employs for the benefit of His creatures. When G'd added the words על פניך, this is the reason for G'd doing what He said He was about to allow Moses to perceive. Moses' פניך, is a reference to the manner in which Moses had achieved the intimacy with G'd thus far, as we explained earlier.
  וקראתי בשם השם לפניך, "and I will proclaim the name of G'd before you." G'd announced to Moses that He would "parade" each of His attributes before him identifying them by name; it is possible, that G'd meant that He would explain to Moses that all these attributes were in fact part of the INEFFABLE name. There is no greater revelation man can experience than to have all this explained to him by means of his sense of hearing.
  When G'd added: וחנותי את אשר אחון, "I will be gracious to whom I choose to be gracious to," this was a hint that Moses' timing to ask for such revelations was particularly appropriate.
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויאמר לא תוכל לראות, He said: "you are not able to see, etc." G'd meant that it was not He who withheld visual insights from Moses, it was simply that being a mortal human being, a composite of flesh and spirit, made such a thing impossible. This is why G'd added the word וחי, "and remain alive," to explain to Moses that because G'd wanted Moses to remain alive He could not grant his wish at this time. This would correspond to the thoughts expressed by the Psalmist when he said: (Psalms 84,11) "better a day in Your courtyard than a thousand (days in Your palace)."
  Alternatively, we may understand this verse to mean that even if man were חי, i.e. a perfectly righteous individual, immortal, G'd cannot be "seen" by man. We would have to understand the word חי in the sense it is used in Samuel II 23,20 where Benayahu son of Yehoyadah is described as בן איש חי, "a perfectly righteous individual." The letter ו at the beginning of the word וחי in our verse indicates that it adds something to what had already been stated, i.e. the inability to "see."
  Still another way of understanding the words כי לא יראני האדם וחי, is that even after death it is impossible for man to "see" G'd. G'd asks: How can you expect to "see" G'd while still alive? Whatever "light" the righteous will be able to "see" in the hereafter does not come close to what you Moses are asking of Me at this time.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   וראית את אחורי, "you will see My back, etc." The essence of G'd is, of course, not divisible into "front" and "back." G'd is aware of the desire of all His creatures to "see" how His light spells the continued existence of His universe. At the same time it is impossible by definition that any creature can behold this light as it would spell its doom. What did G'd do? He surrrounded His Essence with a kind of "curtain" or screen in order to diffuse the light which would otherwise have proved too blinding. The creation of such a screen created the impression in the beholder that there is something in "front" and something at the "back" of such a screen. When we look at man who is composed of spirit and body, we peceive his body as his "back," and his spirit as his "front", or "face." The "light" that G'd's Essence has made accessible to the spiritually most advanced human being is called "back," whereas the "light" He has screened out is called "front" as it is beyond the screen. This is what G'd meant when He said: "you will see "My Back" but you cannot see "My Face."
  It is also possible that the very mention by G'd of His "face" immediately after mention of His "back," i.e. אחורי ופני, indicated that even the part of Him that He described as "My Back" contained a "face;" however, G'd had arranged that only the rear of that two sided spirit or "light" would be visible so as to provide the prophet with some idea of when he faced a Divine presence.
  The word אחורי may have been employed to indicate that Moses would be very close to perceiving G'd's Essence, that He did not "hide" behind multiple screens. If there had remained several "screens" between G'd's Essence and Moses, G'd would have spoken of <i>Achorey Achoray,</i> and not simply of <i>Achoray.</i> Any intelligent and sincere servant of G'd will make only minimum eye contact with his Creator [in other words not look at Heaven beseechingly while engaged in prayer. Ed.] when bowing down during prayer.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ה׳ ה׳ קל רחום וחנון, "The Lord, the Lord, G'd is merciful and gracious;" Our sages in <i>Rosh Hashana</i> 17 explain the repetition of this attribute of Mercy as the difference between invoking this attribute before man has sinned and invoking it after he has sinned. The <i>Rosh</i>, (Rabbi Asher ben Yechiel) questions why man should be in need of mercy prior to his having sinned. He answers that seeing G'd is already aware that man will sin at some future date, man is already in need of G'd's attribute of Mercy. He suggests an alternative meaning according to which the Torah speaks of someone who contemplates idolatry only with his mind without as yet committing an overt act of any kind. G'd's attribute of Mercy would "call out" to such a person to desist before he performed a punishable idolatrous deed. I must confess that I cannot understand either of the <i>Rosh's</i> two explanations. If man is in need of the attribute of Mercy because of penalties for sins not yet committed, why did G'd create him in the first place, seeing He was aware that he would sin? Was G'd really prepared to judge man for sins he had not committed so that He had to invoke the attribute of Mercy on man's behalf? Concerning a person who contemplates the sin of idolatry, but who had not yet committed an overt act, why would he be considered as not yet having committed a sin seeing that when it comes to idolatry even the intent makes one liable to punishment?
  I believe that a person is in need of G'd's attribute of Mercy even before he has committed a sin unless he had acquired merits through the performance of G'd's commandments. The merit acquired by performance of positive commandments entitles a person to have G'd invoke the attribute of Mercy on his behalf. Examination of Deut. 11,13 will demonstrate my point. The Torah writes: "It will be as a result of your hearkening diligently to My commandments ….and perform them,…I will give the rain of your land in its season…and you will gather in your harvest, etc." This shows that as a result of performing a good deed one will become the recipient of G'd's goodness. If, on the other hand, a person has been prevented from performing G'd's commandments by circumstances beyond his control he will neither receive the reward promised by the Torah for the performance of the commandments nor will he be punished for non-performance. How then would G'd's Mercy become evident? This is why the Torah refers to G'd's Mercy as something that needs to be invoked even before a person commits a sin. This "Mercy" will assure such a person of a harvest, etc., even if he had been unable to establish a claim to G'd's goodness. In addition, G'd promised Moses that He would invoke His attribute of Mercy even on behalf of people guilty of sinful conduct.
  G'd informed Moses of another aspect of the attribute of Mercy by telling him [by means of the repetition Ed.] that a sinner would not forfeit any of G'd's goodness which he had been in line for before he sinned, and before G'd invoked His attribute of Mercy on his behalf. This thought has helped me make peace with the fact that we observe the wicked who have been spared through G'd's attribute of Mercy continue to prosper to the same degree as they prospered before G'd invoked the attribute of Mercy on their behalf.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ילך נא ה׳ בקרבנו, "let G'd go in our midst, etc." How could Moses say this seeing G'd had told him in 33,3 that He would not go up in their midst precisely because they were a stiff-necked people? Here Moses tries to use the stiff-necked nature of the people as a reason for asking G'd to go up in their midst? In 33,3 G'd had warned Moses that if He were to go up in the midst of the people this would lead to their destruction. How could Moses take such a chance? Another difficulty in our verse is why Moses had to ask for something G'd had already been prepared to do as we know from 33,17: "I will also do this thing for you?"
  The matter will become clearer when we look at the names for G'd Moses used in the various verses. In our verse here Moses requests that G'd should go up in the midst of the people in His manifestation as א־ד־נ־י, whereas in 33,3 G'd had warned Moses that He would not go in their midst in His manifestation as י־ה־ו־ה. At first glance this reinforces our problem seeing that I have written that Moses wanted G'd to accompany the Israelites in His capacity as the attribute of Mercy, and here he seems to request a harsher attribute of G'd.
  Perhaps the insights Moses had gained after G'd had revealed to Him His Thirteen Attributes had led to Moses' appreciation that if G'd were to apply only His attribute of Mercy to the people, ignoring the attribute of Justice completely, the people would never survive the long trip because they were so stiff-necked [and would commit too many sins for G'd to overlook permanently. Ed.] Moses therefore reconsidered and asked G'd to provide the kind of presence which would not allow the sinners to count on His Mercy as if it were an inexhaustible attribute. He expressed this by saying ילך נא א־דני, i.e. a mixture of Mercy and Justice. He did so in order for the occasional sinners not to become confirmed sinners when they would perceive G'd as waiving punishment for their sins. When Moses added: וסלחת לעונינו, וג׳ he asked for the appropriate attribute of G'd, i.e. the addition of the attribute of Mercy to the attribute of Justice he had mentioned first. We observe something similar in Exodus 23,21, where G'd had explained that an angel represents only the attribute of Justice and cannot temper Justice with Mercy. Moses now realised how important it was to be under the guidance of both attributes of G'd simultaneously.
  ונחלתנו, "and take us to be Your inheritance." Moses asked that G'd never exchange the Jewish people for some other people but that they should remain His "inheritance" forever.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   שמר לך, "Observe for yourself, etc.!" How does the term "observe" apply to the subject matter of this verse? If the Torah refers to the commandment G'd is about to reveal as something Moses is to "observe" as Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra suggests, why would G'd select this commandment of not concluding a covenant with the seven Canaanite nations rather than any other of the many commandments as something for Moses to be very careful about? After all, Moses had already been told that it was not he who would conquer these nations What point was there in warning him specifically not to conclude such a covenant?
  Perhaps there is a lesson here about how true repentance works. Seeing the Israelites had become guilty of worshiping an idol, the תקון, rehabilitation, for such a sin required that they destroy everything even remotely connected with idolatry if they wanted to attain complete atonement for their sin. This required that they cultivate a strong abhorrence for all forms of idolatry starting already now, long before they would displace the idolatrous Canaanites and destroy any vestiges of idol worship the Canaanites had been guilty of. The verb שמר may perhaps be understood in the sense that Jacob used it when he heard Joseph's dream with the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars bowing down to him. At that time (Genesis 37,11), Jacob had begun to look forward to the way this dream would become fulfilled. The Israelites (including Moses) were now meant to look forward to the time when they could carry out the commandment G'd was about to give them.
  Alternatively, G'd implied that as long as the Israelites had not become guilty of making a molten image He would not have bothered to command them to keep a physical and cultural distance from the Gentile nations and their abominations. Seeing they themselves had become victims of the impulse to worship an idol, G'd now had to give the people this law in order to ensure that they would not again be tempted to succumb to idolatry. The words שמר לך, are a reminder that the law was due to something the Israelites themselves had done.
  A moral-ethical approach sees in the word לך "for yourself" a reference to Moses; G'd hinted to Moses that the words: "I am going to drive out before you the nations, etc." are not a reference to what would happpen in the immediate future, but refer to the distant future, to messianic times. It corresponds to the statement of our sages in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 19,13 which describes the Jews (the generation which perished in the desert) as saying that: "the same Moses who has redeemed us from Egypt will redeem us in the future." G'd told Moses to be looking forward to that time, i.e. שמר לך. You may find support for this interpretation when you consider that the promise contained in the line "I will drive out before you, etc.," has never been fulfilled during the time the Israelites travelled in the desert.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   פן תכרות ברית, "lest you enter enter into a covenant, etc." The Torah stresses that although the Canaanites would be prepared to accept the seven Noachide laws as a pre-condition to such a covenant, the Israelites must not conclude such a covenant with them. The reason is that these nations would display an irresistible temptation to engage in idolatry with their former deities as they do not truly believe in G'd, a fact which is evident to every student of Kabbalah. וזבחו לאלוהיהם, "they will offer meat-offerings to their deities," and they will invite you to participate in such meals. We have been taught in <i>Avodah Zarah</i> 8 that a Jew is considered as having participated in such a meal from the moment he has accepted the invitation to participate based on the word מזבחו. In chapter four of his treatise <i>Hilchot Shechitah,</i> Maimonides prohibits Jews from eating meat slaughtered by a Gentile even if he does not worship idols and the slaughter was performed under the supervision of a Jew. G'd detests the fact that a Gentile slaughters a beast. [Maybe in order to qualify for the right to kill animals for food, man must have demonstrated his superiority to the beast by observing at least the seven Noachide commandments. Ed.]
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   את חג המצות תשמור, "you are to observe the festival of unleavened bread." The reason that the Torah chose to mention this commandment at this point is the need for the Israelites to rehabilitate themselves from the sin of idolatry. The <i>Zohar</i> volume 4 page 40 states that the spiritual equivalent of leavened matter is an alien deity. This is the reason G'd has so insistently and repeatedly warned us about keeping or eating leavened matter on the festival of Passover. In this instance, G'd instructed us concerning the observance of all the festivals. The reason may be that all the major festivals are rooted in the Exodus experience of the Jewish people. Inasmuch as the sin of the golden calf elevated that idol to the redeemer which took the Israelites out of Egypt, all festivals are a reminder of the Exodus. G'd repeated the legislation because it contained elements which demonstrated that he who observed these commandments expressed his opposition to idolatry by doing so. He also mentioned Sabbath observance since the observance of the Sabbath counteracts the previously performed idolatry. Just as idolatry cancels all merits one ever accumulated by performing G'd's commandments, so the observance of the Sabbath is considered as observance of all the commandments and a form of rehabilitation for the idolatry one was guilty of previously. Compare my comments at the beginning of <i>Parshat Vayakel.</i>
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   כי אוריש גוים מפניך, "For I will dispossess nations from your presence, etc." In the event that you would feel empathy with the nations whom you displace, G'd assures us that we would not even see the remnants of these nations, i.e. מפניך, "out of the sight of your face."
  והרחבתי את גבולך, "and I will expand your borders, etc." This may be understood in accordance with <i>Gittin</i> 57 which claims that the boundaries of the land of Israel will expand in direct proportion to the Jewish population in the country. The sages base this on Jeremiah 3,19 where the land of Israel is described as ארץ צבי, as comparable to the deer. The skin of the deer is exceptionally elastic.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   לחם לא אכלתי, "I did not eat bread, etc." The reason that the Torah specified that Moses ate neither bread nor drank water was to make us aware that he did absorb nutrients of a different kind. He absorbed spiritual food. We find something of that nature in Psalms 40,9 where David speaks about תורתך בתוך מעי, "Your Torah being in my entrails." Torah is also compared to water in <i>Taanit</i> 7. Had the Torah merely written: "he neither ate not drank," this would have included all kinds of "food."
  
  Verse 29
  
   ויהי ברדת משה, "It occurred while Moses descended," The Torah uses the word ויהי which portends something painful because all the righteous people in the camp of the Israelites were "burned" when they observed that Moses' face emitted rays of light.
  ברדת משה מהר סיני, when Moses descended from Mount Sinai, etc. I am not sure why these words appear at this point, neither do I know why the Torah repeated ברדתו מן ההר, "when he descended from the Mountain." Besides, why did the Torah have to emphasise that Moses was unaware of the rays his face gave off before even having told us that his face did radiate light? Furthermore, who did finally tell Moses that his face emitted rays of light? If the people told him, why did the Torah not mention this?
  The whole subject becomes clearer when the Torah reports that Moses wore a veil over his face at all times except when he taught the Torah. The question therefore should have been: "why did Moses not wear a veil over his face at the time he descended from the Mountain?" The Torah answers this question by stating that Moses was unaware that his face emitted rays of light. This is why he had not put on his veil as usual prior to descending from the Mountain. This led to Aaron and the children of Israel observing that his face gave forth a beam of light. This still leaves us with the strange phenomenon that a human being should be unaware that his face emits rays of light. This is especially so if we assume the source of these rays to have been some kind of horn-like protuberance on his forehead? Surely Moses must have noticed that he suddenly possessed such an additional feature? This is why the Torah explained the reason of Moses' unawareness by stating that all of this occurred while he descended from the Mountain and held the Tablets in his hand(s). As long as he had been on the Mountain, Moses had assumed that any radiation of light he noted had originated with G'd who was speaking to him. This light which Moses had assumed to originate with G'd disappeared during his descent. The reason Moses still did not notice that these rays originated in his own face was that he carried the Holy Tablets while descending from the Mountain. He therefore assumed that the light he was still conscious of was emitted by the Tablets. He had no idea that he himself had become a permanent source of such light. When the Torah writes: "he did not know that the skin of his face emitted rays," this does not mean that he was unaware of these rays of light. He was only unaware that the source was neither G'd nor the Tablets but the skin of his own face. This is why he did not cover his face with the veil when Aaron saw him. We may now understand the meter of the verse as follows: "The reason that both Aaron and the children of Israel saw Moses' face emit rays of light was that Moses was unaware of his face being the source of that light; he had therefore neglected to cover his face with the veil he normally wore." As soon as he deposited the Tablets and he became aware that the light had not departed, he realised that he himself was the source of the light and he immediately covered his face with the veil. Moses' wearing the veil corresponds to the mystical dimension of Proverbs 25,2: "It is the glory of G'd to conceal a matter."
  <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 47,6 discusses the source of the light Moses' face emitted, and Rabbi Yehudah bar Nachman claims that after Moses had completed writing down the Torah there was a little ink left over on the quill. Moses touched his forehead while holding the quill. The ink which spilled on to his forehead turned into the rays of light. This is a most enigmatic <i>Midrash.</i> Perhaps the rabbis wanted to teach us that the virtue of humility transcends all other virtues. Compare <i>Shir Hashirim Rabbah</i> 1,9 where "wisdom" is described as fashioning a crown for its head, and that "crown" is understood to be "reverence" for G'd, as per Psalms 111,10: ראשית חכמה יראת השם, "the 'head' of wisdom is fear of the Lord." Thereupon "humility" made a heel for its sandal as it is written (Proverbs 22,4) "the heel" i.e. the consequence of humility is fear of the Lord." We note that the Torah testified (Numbers 12,3) that Moses was the most humble man ever. When G'd asked him to write these words, Moses found himself unable to spell the word עניו as it should have been spelled and he omitted the letter י. Moses was rewarded for this act of humility with the rays of הוד, glory. Seeing that Moses had excelled in pleasing the Lord over and beyond what could be expected of him, G'd in turn performed kindness with him over and above what Moses could ever have expected. We believe that when Rabbi Yehudah bar Nachman in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai spoke of "left over" ink, he referred to the ink which had been intended for writing the letter י in the word עניו.
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   וראו בני ישראל, and when the children of Israel saw, etc.; We need to understand why the Torah repeats something we have been told already in verse 30. Perhaps the Torah wanted us to know that the Israelites needed to experience the fact that Moses' face emitted rays of light on more than one occasion in order that they should not interpret these rays as a residue of Moses' prolonged stay on the Mountain in the Celestial Surroundings. Had they observed the phenomenon only once, the Israelites would have concluded that it would fade away with time, just as time made their own experience during the revelation fade away. This is why they looked at Moses' face from time to time to reasssure themselves that these rays were evidence of Moses' being a superior being. It is also possible that the entire episode reflects a spiritual return by Moses to the time before man had sinned and G'd had provided clothing for him made of skin (leather). According to <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 24, the Torah scroll of Rabbi Meir had the words כתנות עור in Genesis 3,21 spelled אור, light. When G'd turned the skin of Moses' face into a source of light, He demonstrated that the process which had once turned light into skin was reversible and that man could be rehabilitated to the spiritual level he once enjoyed prior to the sin in גן עדן.
  The message of this verse may also be that although Moses was at pains to cover his face with the veil, this did not prevent the Israelites from looking at his face whenever he had removed the veil. It was not forbidden to look at Moses' face seeing that Moses did not object. Moreover, G'd Himself wanted the people to get a glimpse of this אור החיים, the light which represented the idea of "Life" at its best.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויקהל משה את כל עדת כני ישראל, Moses assembled the entire Jewish community, etc. Why would the Torah mention that Moses assembled the people, something that occurred every time he was told by G'd to address the people? I suppose that seeing the people were afraid to face Moses after they had seen how his face emitted rays of light, he had to issue a call for a general assembly so that some people would not stay at home for fear of being blinded or burned by those rays. This may also be the reason that the Torah emphasised that Moses assembled "the entire Jewish community."
  Another reason for the word כל, all, may be similar to what I explained on Exodus 25,2 "from every man, etc." The word included orphans, minors, women, etc. Moses actually used two expressions of amplification, i.e. את כל. The reason Moses used only two amplifying statements here, namely את כל, and not a third one representing the wealthy (see page 756), is simple. There was no reason why the wealthy person would not come even if not especially invited seeing he would be happy to be part of the community.
  We are told in the <i>Zohar</i> volume 3 page 196 that Moses assembled the men separately in order to separate them from the women seeing that Satan was present and Moses wanted to forestall giving Satan a pretext to harm the Israelites during such an assembly. Since women were not normally present when Moses explained Torah legislation to the people except when they brought the donations for the building of the Holy Tabernacle, Moses did not normally have to take measures to counteract the presence of Satan, the seducer. We have proof of what the <i>Zohar</i> wrote in verse 22 where the arrival of the men and of the women is reported separately, i.e. ויבאו האנשים על הנשים, "the men came in addition to the women." This is only emphasised because it was not the norm for women to participate in these assemblies. The best proof that in our instance Moses assembled the men and women separately is in the word בני, the males. If the men and women had been assembled jointly, the Torah should only have written: את כל עדת ישראל, and not את כל עדת בני ישראל.
  אלה הדברים אשר צוה השם, These are the words which G'd has commanded, etc. We need to analyze the need for the unusual introduction: "these are the words." In <i>Shabbat</i> 97 Rabbi deduces from the word אלה that there are 39 basic categories of forbidden activities on the Sabbath. The numerical value of the word אלה is 36, the word דברים (pl) counts as 2, and the letter ה which is superfluous counts as 1 making a total of 39. This is obviously not the plain meaning of the verse. We also need to know why the Torah had to write the extraneous words: לעשות אותם. How can the word אותם, "them", be applied to the performanace of a single commandment, i.e. the Sabbath? 
  Perhaps we may best understand this after reading a comment in <i>Horiot</i> 8 concerning Numbers 15,22 where the Torah speaks about the Israelites committing the sin of idolatry, albeit inadvertently. The Torah writes: "If you err and not observe all of the commandments of the Lord, etc." [The reader of these words must surely wonder how one could inadvertently fail to observe all of G'd's commandments. Ed.] The Talmud concludes that the Torah refers to the violation of a single commandment, that of idolatry. If one violates that commandment it is as if one had violated all the commandments, seeing the violation implies that one denies the authority of G'd and His Torah. In view of the fact that the Israelites had been guilty of precisely this sin, they needed to compensate for all the 613 commandments which they had violated. This is obviously very difficult if not impossible. The Torah therefore offers them an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves by means of the observance of the Sabbath. This is the reason this commandment is repeated here once again. When Moses speaks of לעשות אותם, he refers to the multiple תקוו, rehabilitation, which the observance of the Sabbath in all its details entails. What precisely are "these words?" They are on the one side that we are to work for six days, ששת ימים תעשה מלאכה, and by contrast to treat the seventh day as holy, וביום השביעי יהיה לכם קדש. All of this explains why the Sabbath legislation is mentioned here again seeing it has already been mentioned many times. On the subject of Sabbath observance being an antidote to the sin of idolatry, the Talmud <i>Shabbat</i> 118 quotes Isaiah 56,2 where the prophet praises the person observing the Sabbath. The Talmud says that even if (prior to having become a Sabbath observer) a person had been guilty of the kind of idolatry performed in the days of Enosh G'd will forgive him or her.
  Rabbi Elazar bar Prata provides us with another dimension of this wording לעשות אותם in the <i>Mechilta</i> on <i>Ki Tissa.</i> He queries: "Whence do we know that everyone who observes the Sabbath is accounted as if he had created the Sabbath? He quotes the line in Exodus 31,16 where Moses also spoke of לעשות את השבת, "to make the Sabbath." According to Rabbi Elazar, observing the Sabbath is equivalent to creating it. Moses repeats the same thought in our verse when he speaks of לעשות אותם, "to make them." In my commentary on <i>Parshat Ki Tissa</i> I have offered a variety of explanations as to the meaning of the words לעשות את השבת. The explanation I am about to offer now belongs here rather than in chapter 31, as it relates to the meaning of the words אלה הדברים אשר צוה ה׳ לעשות אותם, "these are the things which you are to make;" by doing these things you make the Sabbath."
  The verse wishes to teach us yet another lesson. Although you might have thought that inasmuch as the Sabbath laws consist primarily of prohibitions and one cannot expect reward for what one has not done, the Torah corrects such an impression by telling us "these are the things (abstention from work) which G'd commanded and for which you will receive a reward." I have explained the reason for this in my commentary on Exodus 31,16. The word אלה is meant to alert us that this שמירה is different from other instances in which the Torah demands שמירה.
  There is a <i>Yalkut Shimoni, 408</i> which understands the reason why the Torah chose the word ויקהל as an allusion to the same word in Deut. 31,12. The message is that on the Sabbath there are to be large assemblies of the people in order to teach them Torah and especially אלה הדברים, the details about the ordinances connected with true Sabbath observance. The words לעשות אותם also had special significance for the generation of the golden calf as it holds out the hope that by "doing them" the people could make atonement for their participation in that sin, as per the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael in that <i>Midrash.</i>
  
  Verse 2
  
   ששת ימים תעשה מלאכה, "during six days work shall be performed, etc." The reason the Torah emphasises the work to be performed on the weekdays may simply be a hint that if one observes the seventh day as a holy day, the work required for our maintaining ourselves during the subsequent six days will take care of itself.
  The Torah may also wish to remind us that performance of work on the Sabbath is prohibited regardless of whether it is performed by a Jew or by a Gentile on his behalf. The vocalisation of the word <i>te-asseh</i> (passive form), is intended to convey that whereas it is permissible for a Jew to have his work performed by Gentiles during the week, on the Sabbath it must not be performed at all. This would correspond to the opinion expressed in the Talmud that if one tells a Gentile to perform work for one on the Sabbbath, one violates a biblical prohibition (<i>Mechilta Parshat Bo</i>). The reason the Torah writes ששת instead of בששת, is to remind us that work performance during the six days of the week is a מצוה, a positive commandment.
  There is also a lesson here that the success of the work performed during the six days of the week depends on the observance of the seventh day as a holy day. The reason is that the Sabbath is the soul of the world as we explained in our introduction to Genesis on Genesis 2,2.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   אל כל עדת בני ישראל לאמור, "to the entire community of the children of Israel, to say;" In view of the word לאמור, we are entitled to ask to whom the Israelites were to tell these laws seeing all of them were assembled when they were informed of them?
  We may have to look for the answer in something Rabbi Meir is quoted as saying in the <i>Sifri</i> 131 on Deut. 23,22 that it is better not to make vows at all than to fail to honour them, but that best of all is he who does not make any vows at all. Rabbi Yehudah counters by saying that it is best to vow and to honour one's vow. We are taught in <i>Nedarim</i> 9 that Rabbi Meir may have agreed that certain types of vows called <i>Nedavah</i> as opposed to <i>Neder</i> are welcome to G'd even according to the view of Rabbi Meir. The former is the type of vow which is totally within the control of the donor to fulfil so that there exists no danger of defaulting. The Talmud quotes an example in which Hillel brought the animal he meant to sacrifice to the Temple before sanctifying it as a potential sacrifice. There was therefore no danger that the animal would become disqualified and his (Hillel who vowed to offer it as a sacrifice) being unable to fulfil his vow. On the other hand, the opinion is expressed that when Rabbi Yehudah described the person who fulfils his vow as the most commendable person, he referred to just such a situation, i.e. a נודב, someone who makes a vow at a time and in circumstances when he does not risk inability to honour his undertaking. Rabbi Yehudah would agree that someone who makes his vow in the form of a נדר would be better off if he had not made such a vow at all. According to the above, our verse comes to teach us that seeing that the Torah has told us in verse five קחו מאתכם תרומה לה׳ כל נדיב לבו, "take from among you an offering for G'd, everyone who is of a generous heart, etc.," it is clear that the Torah refers to the kind of vow called נדבה. G'd warned the people זה הדבר…לאמור, to be careful to phrase the commitment in such way that they could not become guilty of not honouring it. Our interpretation is compatible with both the viewpoints expressed in <i>Nedarim</i> as to what Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah had meant.
  
  Verse 5
  
   יביאה את תרומת השם, "let him bring it, i.e. the offering for the Lord." This verse clearly demonstrates that in the building of the Tabernacle we encounter both tangibles, perceptibles, and intangibles, imperceptibles. This is what is meant in <i>Tikkunim</i> 21 where we read that the תרומה, the donations for the Tabernacle, contained an intangible element, i.e. a contribution from the שכינה. The Torah calls this element תרומת השם, "G'd's contribution." It was this intangible contribution that enabled the tangible parts to be joined together and to form a sustainable whole, a tent that would not collapse. The most essential part in the construction was G'd's goodwill, i.e. an intangible. When the Torah writes יביאה, "he (the generously minded donor) is to bring it," this means that the donor is to elevate his gift to such a spiritual level that it may merge with the תרומת השם, G'd's contribution. When the Torah speaks of the כל נדיב לבו, it defines the kind of person whose gift will be of the calibre that can merge with G'd's intangible gift. If the human donor does not possess the spirit the Torah describes as נדיב לב, then the gift of such a person has no chance of merging with the Divine contribution described here as the invisible contribution תרומת השם.
  זהב וכסף, "gold and silver." I have given special attention to the manner in which the various items listed as materials required for the Tabernacle are connected to one another by the conjunctive letter ו. At first glance, the presence of that letter and the absence of that letter seem arbitrary. There are 13 items (verses 5-9) all of which are joined together with the conjunctive letter ו. On the other hand, sometimes three different kinds of materials are lumped together and joined by only a single conjunctive letter ו (compare verse 11). In verse 13 the Torah resumes the method of presenting each item by joining it to the following item with the conjunctive letter ו. What prompted the Torah to be so selective in the use of the conjunctive letter ו?
  In order to comprehend this we have to quote a statement by our sages in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 30,3 that the letter ו indicates an addition to something that was recorded previously whereas the absence of such a letter where one could have expected it suggests that what is introduced at that point has no connection with what had been reported previously. Having learned this, we can proceed to evaluate the respective presence or absence of the letter ו in different parts of this paragraph. The paragraph begins by listing contributions for the construction of the Tabernacle, listing thirteen different materials and joining each one to the other with the conjunctive letter ו to show that each of these materials was of equal importance in the construction of the Tabernacle and was equally indispensable. All of these materials could be subsumed under the heading תרומת השם. The Torah considered someone who had contributed copper as on the same level as someone who had contributed gold, for instance. According to <i>Menachot</i> 110 the Torah describes the person who offered a bird as a total offering as having offered a ריח ניחוח, no less so than a person who offered a four-legged mammal as an עולה, a total offering. The evaluation is based on the principle אחד המרבה ואחד ההמעיט, that the quantity of a contribution does not determine how G'd evaluates it but the intent does. As long as the intent is to please Heaven that is all that matters. In this connection, you may wish to read what I have written on Leviticus 1,17.
  Another reason that these 13 items are joined together in the Torah by the conjunctive letter ו is that all of these materials were indispensable. The Tabernacle could not function if any of these materials had been absent. The aforesaid applied only from the point of view of the materials which had to be contributed; it did not mean that furnishings or other parts of the Tabernacle constructed out of, say gold, were of the same significance as parts made of copper, for instance. Different parts of the Tabernacle each represented different levels of sanctity.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   את המשכן, את אהלו, וגו׳. The Tabernacle, its tent, etc. The Tabernacle, i.e. the different materials used to provide its roofing, represented different degrees of sanctity. The materials forming the inner, or lower parts of the roofing were of a higher degree of sanctity than the outer coverings made of hides seeing they faced directly on to the Holy Ark, etc. The Torah indicates this by the absence of the conjunctive letter ו between the words משכן and אהל. The Torah does use the conjunctive letter ו when referring to מכסהו, to indicate that the various hides used as outer layers were of similar degrees of sanctity. The Torah informs us by the use of the letter ו that the difference in sanctity between the different hides was so insignificant that they were not separated from one another by omission of the conjunctive letter ו. The reason the Torah goes on to say את קרסיו instead of ואת קרסיו, is to inform us that the respective sanctity of these clasps was not of the same level as that of the coverings. The Torah goes on to mention the boards by using the letter ו i.e. ואת קרשיו. This indicates that these materials ranked equally with the clasps. On the other hand, the Torah omits the conjunctive letter ו when mentioning the בריחים, the bolts which held together the boards to tell us that they were not of the same level of sanctity as the boards which they hold together. The pillars also were of a lower degree of sanctity compared to the bolts and that is why they do not appear with the conjunctive letter ו. The אדנים, the sockets which held the boards were of the same level of sanctity as the pillars and that is why we have the letter ו i.e. ואת אדניו.
  
  Verse 12
  
   את הארון ואת בדיו, The Holy Ark and its staves, etc. The Torah lists the most sacred of the furnishings of the Tabernacle first just as it started by mentioning the most sacred of the various covers of the Tabernacle, the ones made of twisted linen first in 36,8. The reason that the staves are mentioned next with the conjunctive letter ו is that they formed an integral part of the Holy Ark and were not allowed to become detached from it as we have been told in 25,16. The Torah next mentions the lid of the Holy Ark, omitting the conjunctive letter ו, seeing that it was not as sacred as the Holy Ark itself. The fact that it was not attached permanently to the Holy Ark also suggests that it was not as sacred as the Ark itself. On the other hand, the dividing curtain, פרוכת המסך is introduced by the Torah with the conjunctive letter ו, indicating that it was of the same level of sanctity as the lid on the Ark.
  
  Verse 13
  
   את השלחן ואת בדיו, The table and its staves, etc. The level of sanctity of the table was lower than the sanctity of the furnishings listed previously. This is the reason the Torah introduces it with the word את, suggesting it is auxiliary. The same is the case with all the other items listed from here to the end of verse 19. All the items up to the end of verse 15 are joined by the conjunctive letter ו to emphasize that all were of comparable degrees of sanctity. The Torah introduces the candlestick with the conjunctive letter ו, i.e. ואת מנורת המאור ואת כליה, to make plain that all the parts of the candlestick were of the same level of sanctity as the candlestick itself. The Torah goes on to say ואת מזבח הקטורת, and the golden altar, to indicate by the letter ו that its sanctity was equivalent to that of the candlestick and the table. The same applies to the curtain at the entrance of the Tabernacle. The copper altar (verse 16) is introduced without the conjunctive letter ו to indicate it was not of the same level of sanctity as the furnishings listed previously. Its very position outside the Sanctuary makes this clear already. The copper grating is introduced with the letter ו indicating it was of the same degree of sanctity as the altar itself. The staves by which the altar was carried were not of the same degree of sanctity as the altar itself and that is why the Torah omits the letter ו when mentioning it. Other appurtenances of the altar were of the same category as its staves. The basin from which the priests washed their hands and feet is introduced without the letter ו as its sanctity was of a lower order, serving priests who had to sanctify themselves. Its stand was of the same order as the basin itself, seeing the Torah uses the letter ו when introducing it. The hangings of the courtyard, i.e. "walls," are introduced in verse 17 without the letter ו, as of a still lesser degree of sanctity, followed by mention of the pillars supporting those hangings, again without the letter ו. The sockets for these pillars are introduced with the letter ו to indicate that they were of the same degree of sanctity as the pillars which they supported. The same applied to the curtain at the entrance of the courtyard. The pegs (verse 18) fastening the various hangings or coverings of the Tabernacle itself to the ground are introduced without the letter ו as, understandably, they were of a lower order of sanctity. The various cords shared the same degree of sanctity as the pegs which were attached to them. Finally, in verse 19, the Torah lists the בגדי השרד, the plaited covers for the holy furnishings to be used when they were transported. If you will read what I have written on Exodus 25,7 you will find that someone who made profane use of the priestly garments was not subject to a penalty whereas if one did so with any of the holy vessels one was liable to a penalty. When the Torah mentions the priestly garments of Aaron and those of his sons, they are connected by the use of the conjunctive letter ו to show they were both of equal levels of sanctity.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויצאו כל עדת בני ישראל מלפני משה. The whole congregation of Israelites departed from the presence of Moses. The Torah emphasises that they all left simultaneously, eager to bring their contributions for this sacred project.
  מלפני משה. From the presence of Moses. This is mentioned to indicate that contrary to general practice, the Israelites did not wait for Moses to formally give them permission to leave this assembly. This was in contrast to a halachic ruling recorded in <i>Yuma</i> 53 according to which a disciple must not leave the presence of his teacher without first obtaining permission to do so. The Israelites reasoned that seeing Moses had said: "take from yourselves a gift, etc." the fact that he stopped addressing them was equivalent to his having dismissed them. Alternatively, the Israelites' love to contribute to the sacred project made them forget their good manners. They may have been anxious to contribute what they could before Moses himself would anticipate them. Moses personally was very wealthy and certainly sufficiently motivated to contribute so much of his own that little would be left for the average Israelite to contribute.
  
  Verse 21
  
   ויבאו כל איש ישראל אשר נשאו לבו, Every Israelite whose heart had elevated him came, brought, etc. The Torah alludes to two different categories of donors. 1) A person who donates as a result of an urge to do so in accordance with his means, both physically and financially. The Torah describes such a person as נדבה רוחו, to stress that such a donor does not feel that he deprives himself of something by giving it away. 2) The second type of donor is one who loses his sense of proportion because of his enthusiasm for the project for which he donates. As a result he contributes more than he can afford. The Torah describes this second type of person as נשאו לבו, "he is carried away by his heart." At the time he donates, such a person considers himself as possessing far more economic resources than he actually does. The Torah spoke of both of these types in our verse to show that there were both of these kinds of donors among the Israelites. The Torah first mentions the overly enthusiastic donor, i.e. אשר נשאו לבו, describing such individuals as איש, as people of distinction. Next the Torah mentions the וכל אשר נדבה רוחו, anyone moved to donate by his spirit. In this instance, the Torah avoids describing these individuals as איש, an honorary title. Although such people are to be commended for their noble gestures, they do not compare to the first category. We know that there are far inferior reasons for donating to charity or to public causes, such as social pressures, etc. The fact that the Torah speaks of only these two categories mentioned is a great compliment to the Israelites, something the Torah underlines when repeating הביאו את תרומת השם, they brought the Lord's offering. By writing these words the Torah testifies that all the donors were sufficiently highly motivated to enable G'd's contribution to attach itself, את, to their own, as we have described in our commentary on verse 5.
  ולכל עבודתו, and for all the service thereof. The Torah reveals with this verse that all the 13 types of materials which were indispensable for making the Tabernacle were in fact donated. Moses did not have to take money, even donated money, to go out and acquire any of the materials because they had not been contributed in sufficient quantity or not at all.
  
  Verse 22
  
   ויבאו האנשים על הנשים; They came, both men and women. The expression על הנשים needs further analysis. Besides, why does the Torah repeat once more that the people who brought the materials were כל נדיב לבו, "all motivated by a generous heart?" Perhaps the Torah wanted to describe the nature of the generosity of these men, i.e. the אנשי החיל, the men of valour. People are attached to their earthly possessions in different degrees. We may perceive of this attachment in a descending order. 1) One is attached most strongly to possessions that serve one in the home, jewelry, household utensils, furniture, etc. This attachment is based on sentimental rather than monetary considerations. 2) One is attached to one's gold, seeing it represents the most enduring of one's possessions and does not require expense for its upkeep. 3) One is attached to possessions which are one's exclusive property, no one else in the world possessing anything like it, such as a rare painting by a painter already deceased. 4) One is attached to all the other kinds of possessions one owns. 
  In our verse the Torah describes how the men brought the kind of possessions normally worn by women, i.e. their most cherished possessions. The donors' generosity was such that they donated the most precious jewelry of their wives, nose-rings, ear-rings, signet-rings, etc.. The Torah distinguished between a נדיב לב, and between a נשאו לבו, as we have already explained. When the Torah speaks about people donating כל כלי זהב, it is to tell us that the people did not donate the golden utensils they had duplicates of which they could use instead. The word כל is a reminder that they did not retain a duplicate or substitute golden vessel for the ones they donated for the Tabernacle. It is also possible that the expression על הנשים means that this jewelry was still being worn by the wives of the men when they came to Moses to hand over their donations. They took off the jewelry only after Moses could see that this jewelry represented something very dear to them.
  Then there was the kind of gold which had not served as jewelry. When describing people who donated that kind of gold the Torah wrote: וכל איש אשר הניף תנופת זהב לשם, and any man who brought an offering of gold for G'd. The third category of possessions donated by people, i.e. the items which a person knew was one of a kind seeing these things were unobtainable in the desert, is described by the Torah with the words וכל איש אשר נמצא אתו תכלת וארגמן, וגו and any man who had in his possession blue wool, purple wool, etc. Finally, the the fourth category of donors, the people who donated silver and other valuable possession are described as כל מרים תרומת כסף ונחושת, any man donating silver or copper.
  When the Torah continues and describes people who possessed and brought acacia wood, the term נדבה, a donation, is omitted seeing that according to <i>Tanchuma Parshat Terumah</i> Jacob had foreseen the need for such wood and had planted such trees for use in the Tabernacle when required. The people with whom these trees or planks were found and who now brought them to Moses had only been trustees. These trees had only been "on deposit" with their keepers. They did not give up something that was theirs. Their contribution then could not qualify for the description "donation." לכל מלאכת עבודת הביאו, they brought it to be used for any work connected to the service (in the Tabernacle). The fact that the Torah stresses לכל מלאכת עבודה, is proof that the people bringing these trees or planks had kept them only for that purpose, otherwise these words are quite superfluous seeing that all the donations were brought for the same purpose. When you consider our explanation about the different types of possessions a person owns and what he feels for his various possessions, you will understand why the Torah repeated the word הביאו separately for each of the items listed.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   והנשיאים הביאו את אבני השהם, and the princes brought the onyx stones, etc. The reason that these precious stones are listed only after such relatively inexpensive contributions as the spun goats' hair by the women is, that the princes tarried and were the last ones to make their contributions.
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   הביאו בני ישראל נדבה לה׳. The children of Israel brought a free-will offering unto the the Lord. The Torah sums up all the donations previously listed as in the category of a "free-will offering."
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
   ולהורות נתן בלבו, and He equipped his heart with the ability to teach, etc. There are many great scholars whose wisdom is locked up in their hearts due to their inability to transmit it successfully to outsiders. The ability to teach is a great gift, and this is why the Torah testifies that G'd granted this gift to Betzalel. There is also a moral lesson contained in this verse not to act like certain members of the family of <i>Bet Gormu</i> who wanted to preserve their monoply on the intricacies of preparing the show breads by not teaching their craft to any non-family member. The Talmud severely critised their behaviour (Yuma 38). People who do teach their crafts qualify for the blessing expressed by Solomon in Proverbs 10,7: "The memory of a righteous person is a source of blessing."
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ועשה בצלאל, and Betzalel carried out all the work, etc. How could the Torah report Betzalel as performing the work when it had not yet informed us that Moses had handed over to him all the donations, and (until verse six in this chapter) the people were still in the process of bringing their various gifts? We are forced to conclude that what the Torah tells us in this verse is that Betzalel and his helpers made all the preparations necessary to carry out the work as soon as the materials would be at hand. He prepared the proper tools. The meaning of the words את כל מלאכת is that they made the tools needed for the work. Different tools are required to perform work on metal, wood, stones and fabrics respectively. We are told in <i>Shabbat</i> 49 that all the 39 categories of work which are prohibited on the Sabbath were performed in connection with the construction of the Holy Tabernacle. It appears from the wording of the Torah that all these tools were prepared on the same day.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   והם הביאו אליו עוד נדבה בבוקר בבוקר, and they kept bringing further donations to him morning after morning. This refers to the materials used in the Tabernacle such as fabrics which had been woven or spun out of blue wool, goats' hair, etc. All the items which could not be used in their original form were delivered in a condition that enabled them to be used forthwith. This is why it took several days for such donations to have been completed. Donations such as gold, silver, etc., were all delivered on the very first day.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   מרבים העם להביא; the people were bringing too much. Why would it be such a bad thing for the Temple treasury to possess a good supply? We should not understand the artisans' comments as a complaint that too much raw material had been contributed; they complained that too much material such as fabrics already woven or embroidered had been brought. They were neither required nor likely to be safe against deterioration. This sentiment was expresseed in the words מרבים…מדי העבודה, more than could be put to use immediately. Further proof that our interpretation is correct may be seen in the proclamation to the people not to perform any more work designed to be used in the construction of the Sanctuary. Moses did not discourage donations of raw materials. When the Torah states that the people were prevented from bringing more materials and not from performing more work such as weaving fabrics, the reason is that Betzalel had no control over what people did within their tents.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   דים…והותר, sufficient and too much. How could there be "too much" and "sufficient" at the same time? There seems to be something contradictory here. Why did the Torah have to mention that "the work was sufficient" at all? The Torah only needed to inform us that the requirements for the Holy Tabernacle were oversubscribed! Besides, the entire verse seems superfluous as we have already been told in verse five that the people brought more than was required and had to be restrained. Obviously, such a statement had to be based on the quantities having already been either counted, weighed or measured!
  Perhaps the Torah wished to tell us that G'd's fondness for the Jewish people increased as a result of the oversubscription of the materials needed for G'd's Sanctuary. As an act of recognition, G'd miraculously absorbed all these donations and they were used in the Tabernacle, i.e. דים, they were sufficient, none was rejected, i.e. remained unused. The word דים refers to המלאכה, the finished work was all used, though והותר, the raw material contained therein seemed quite excessive. There was a miracle which reconciled the paradox which the report of the Torah implies. Alternatively, the Torah means that the ready-made work which the people contributed appeared to be adequate, whereas in terms of the raw materials used it was actually excessive. It required a miracle for nothing to remain as "left-over."
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויעשו כל חכם לב, Every wise-hearted man (employed for that task) made the Tabernacle, etc. The reason that the word עשה "he made" is used at the end of the verse though many artisans were involved in the construction, indicates that the work was performed as if only a single individual had made it all. The miraculous feature was that the normal minor discrepancies between how different artisans perform the same type of work could not be noticed in the completed product though that product was a composite to which many people had contributed their skills. This is how we can explain the repeated use by the Torah of the singular when speaking of a number of people who performed work. The singular used by the Torah again and again cannot refer to Betzalel as he obviously did not perform all this work himself. The fact that the Torah mentioned in 37,1 that Betzalel made the Holy Ark is proof that he did not make everything else. The reason the completed Tabernacle appeared as the work of a single artisan was that G'd inspired the various artisans in the manner in which they carried out their assignments. They did not strive to display the artist's normal individuality but strove to be part of a team.
  חכם לב בעשי המלאכה, of wise heart when performing the work. Perhaps the reason the Torah appears to repeat itself is that it wishes to teach us that the artisans became "wise-hearted" thanks to their being engaged in their sacred task.
  ויעשו, They constructed, etc. The reason that the Torah troubled itself to repeat all these details instead of summarising them by saying: "he did in accordance with all that G'd had commanded him," may be explained in the same way as <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> explained that the Torah repeated the story of Eliezer at the well (Genesis chapter 24) as an expression of appreciation of how Abraham's servant carried out his mission. The same reasoning may be applied to the way Betzalel carried out his task in our portion.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   על צלעות הארון, on the sides of the Ark. The three times the word "the Ark" is mentioned in this paragraph corresponds to the three "Arks" i.e. the golden outer Ark, the one made of acacia wood, and the golden inner Ark, as we are taught in <i>Yuma</i> 72.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   משני קצותיו, at the two ends thereof. Perhaps the verse wants to inform us that Betzalel did not make the lid of equal thickness throughout before pounding it with a hammer. He may have flattened it with hammer blows to correspond to the size required to fit as a lid over the Ark. He had added additional amounts of gold at either end so that he could fashion the cherubs out of that excess. This is why the Torah had to specify that the cherubs were made from the respective extremities of the lid.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ויעש את המנורה, He constructed the candlestick, etc. You will find that the Torah refers to the various furnishings of the Tabernacle by the same description both when we are told about what was required and when the execution is reported. Why, in this instance, did the Torah depart from this rule and instead of describing the candlestick as "the candlestick for illumination" or as "the golden candlestick," it is simply described as "the candlestick?"
  Perhaps the answer may be found in the rule (<i>Menachot</i> 28) that under certain conditions the candlestick could be made from other metals, as hinted in the word תיעשה, (25,31). The Torah mentioned in chapter 25 that the candlestick had to be made of gold in order to remind us that the rule that it could be made of cheaper metals did not apply under the conditions prevailing then. It could also be that the meaning of the words "the golden candlestick" simply means that it was to be made of gold and not of any other metal although such a candlestick is acceptable in principle. In our context the Torah simply emphasised that Betzalel conformed to the instruction and made the candlestick out of gold as ordered.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   ויעש את מזבח הקטורת, he constructed the altar for incense. The reason that the construction of the golden altar is mentioned here is because it was situated inside the Sanctuary as opposed to the copper altar mentioned afterwards. I have explained the reason why its construction had been commanded after G'd commanded the construction of the copper altar (compare 27,1 and 30,1 respectively) in my commentary on וכן תעשו.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   אלה פקודי המשכן, These are the accounts of the Tabernacle, etc. The Torah uses the word אלה to emphasise that the only true accounts are those following. Whatever man counts when he wants to determine the total of his possessions on earth are only apparent possessions; their count therefore is also only apparent, deceptive. The only true count on earth was of the components which comprised the Holy Tabernacle because it was something containing divine input תרומת השם, and because G'd had His residence within it. [The author implies that the very word מנה, to count, testifies to its being misleading, deceptive. Perhaps we can support this with Bileam's outcry (Numbers 23,10) מי מנה עפר יעקב, "who can count the dust of Jacob?" He referred to the deceptive nature of any "count." Ed.]
  The Torah may also have used the word פקודים in preference to such words as ספור or מנוי as we have been told in <i>Baba Metzia</i> 42 that matters which have been "counted" do not enjoy lasting blessing. The Torah wished to emphasis that all the materials contributed for the construction of the Holy Tabernacle enjoyed lasting blessing. Normally, G'd objects to headcount; in this instance G'd did not object to a count. On the contrary, every single component contributed and accounted for increased the amount of blessings G'd bestowed on the Holy Tabernacle.
  We may also be able to understand the word אלה as reflecting an advice given to us in <i>Vayikra Rabbah</i> 21,5. We are told there that the remedy for someone who has committed a string of sins is to engage in the performance of a string of מצות, good deeds. The only proper way to rehabilitate oneself from sin is through demonstrating this by deed. The string of מצות one performs serve as a demonstration to G'd that one has truly reformed oneself. The Torah enumerates all the components of the Tabernacle, i.e. אלה, thereby pointing at the string of good deeds performed by the Israelites who had previously been guilty of the sin of the golden calf. The reason that the Tabernacle is called משכן העדות, the Tabernacle of testimony, is that it testified to the fact that G'd had forgiven the sin of the golden calf. If you will examine the details of the sin of the golden calf, you will find that the Israelites performed מצות corresponding to each of the parts of that sin when they contributed to and helped erect the Tabernacle. They had expressed the wish for a god to walk ahead of them (32,1) and they now had erected a Tabernacle which would be evidence that the true G'd was in their midst and that His presence would precede them. They had built an altar (32,6) for the golden calf and offered total offferings on that altar; they had now erected a copper altar for the offering of total offerings; they had contributed their gold to enable the golden calf to be made; they had now contributed their gold and precious possessions to help build the Tabernacle. They had removed their nose-rings at the time in order for those to serve as raw material for the golden calf; they now not only contributed the nose-rings but all kinds of other personal jewelry as well for the building of the Holy Tabernacle. We have already explained on 35,22 that during the episode of the golden calf the Israelites appointed themselves to make the golden calf; in this instance they were content to entrust Betzalel with the construction of the Tabernacle. At that time they had said: אלה אלוהיך ישראל; now the Torah describes the completion of the Tabernacle by using the parallel term אלה פקודי המשכן.
  The use of the word אלה may reflect yet another consideration. Seeing that Moses (alone) had made the count of the materials contributed for the Tabernacle, the Torah testifies that his count was indeed accurate. The Torah goes out of its way by stating that it accepted Moses' count by using the words על פי משה, "according to what Moses said;" the reason the Torah did not write אשר פקד משה, was to demonstrate that Moses needed no witnesses to confirm the accuracy of his count. We encounter something of a similar nature in Leviticus 23,2 where G'd employs the word אלה מועדי השם calling the dates fixed by the <i>Sanhedrin</i> for certain festivals to occur "My festivals." G'd does not doublecheck the calculations of the <i>Sanhedrin.</i> We live by the Torah Moses has handed down to us orally. It would have been an insult to send in "auditors" to check his calculations. The Torah has made it clear in 36,3 that Moses alone accepted all the donations.
  The reason that Moses gave a detailed account of what he had received was so that he would not be suspected of dishonesty; actually, it was quite inconceivable that a man with whom G'd spoke constantly could be dishonest. Surely G'd would not speak with him if he was even slightly dishonest. Moses may have reasoned that although G'd had commanded him to receive all these donations alone (see our commentary on Exodus 25,2), "G'd's ways are straight, and the honest people can walk them although the wicked will stumble even on straight roads."
  Yet another reason for the peculiarly worded sentence: אלה פקודי המשכן משכן העדות, is that the last words are a confirmation of the first words. The meter of the verse is this: "How do we know that the amounts reported by Moses as the total contributions for this project are accurate and have not been understated? Answer: The Tabernacle itself is called the "Tent of Testimony." In this connection it is worthwile to recall a statement in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 52,4 on 39,33 ויביאו את המשכן אל משה, they brought the Tabernacle to Moses. We are told there that all the scholars were unable to devise a way to erect the Tabernacle. In the end they took all its components and brought them to Moses. Moses was ovecome by the Holy Spirit and immediately put up the Tabernacle. Thus far the <i>Midrash.</i> Here we have proof of Moses' integrity seeing we have a principle that G'd does not perform miracles for dishonest people. [The author has made the same claim in <i>Parshat Vayechi</i> see our translation on page 433. Ed.]
  We may ask: "what kind of proof is it to claim that Moses' ability to erect the Tabernacle proved his integrity? Was he not an exceptionally powerful individual, stronger than any other Israelite?" The Torah therefore added in our verse: עבודת הלוים ביד איתמר. We know that it was the task of the Levites to transport the planks for the Tabernacle under the supervision of Ittamar (Numbers 1,51); they were the ones who had to dismantle these planks and to put them up again (each one was 20 feet tall and had a circumference of over 12 feet plus its golden overlay). We note therefore that the people's and their leaders' inability to erect the Tabernacle was not due to lack of physical prowess; otherwise how could the Levites have managed such a task?" Moreover, if physical prowess was the reason Moses managed to erect the Tabernacle, why did the Torah have to mention Ittamar altogether in this context? Why did the Torah not mention also Eleazar, Ittamar's brother? When you adopt my explanation that Moses' ability to do what no one else had been able to do was proof of his integrity, the words עבודת הלוים ביד איתמר make sense as it disabuses us of the premise that only a Moses was strong enough physically to erect the Tabernacle.
  What we have said so far still does not exclude the possibility that Moses' ability to erect the Tabernacle was not due to supernatural help but that his intellectual powers were equal to the challenge to put together and erect the Tabernacle. The Torah therefore adds in the next verse that Betzalel son of Uri made everything G'd had commanded Moses to do. Our sages deduce from this verse that Betzalel even carried out details which Moses had not told him about and that Moses subsequently expressed his approval. The Torah goes on to say that Betzalel's assistant Oholiov also contributed to his knowledge; our sages in the above quoted <i>Midrash Shemot Rabbah</i> 52 stated that even all the combined wisdom of these two architects of the projects did not suffice to enable them to erect the Tabernacle. There really had been no need to tell us once more of Betzalel's contribution to the project. If the Torah nonetheless mentioned it again it may have been to exclude the assumption by the reader that in the end the Tabernacle was erected without supernatural assistance, i.e. to remind us that Moses had a divine assist. Once the erection of the Tabernacle by Moses is accepted as demonstrating divine assistance, his accounting may certainly be considered as approved by G'd.
  <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 51 explained that the erection of the Tabernacle represented the atonement for the sin of the golden calf. We have also been told in <i>Chulin</i> 5 that being guilty of the sin of idolatry is tantamount to one's having violated all the commandments of the Torah. The words אלה פקודי should be translated the same way as does Onkelos who renders the words in Leviticus 27,34: "These are the commandments" as: אלין פקדיא. If we were to apply this translation to our verse, we would have to understand the words אלה פקודי in the sense of: "these are the instructions, read commandments, i.e. the Tabernacle represented all of G'd's commandments and thereby compensated for the sin of the golden calf. [In modern Hebrew the word פקודה means "a military order" as most of you are aware. Ed.] We may find an allusion to this when we look at the numerical value of the letters in the words פקודי המשכן which total 615, i.e. the 613 commandments plus 2 for the two Tablets they were recorded on. The meaning of the words then is: אלה, "these" will help G'd forget the 613 commandments which Israel violated when it served the golden calf.
  The reason the Torah adds: עבודת הלוים, "the service by the Levites" is, that we are to remember what happened for all times. We are not to think that seeing that G'd had forgiven the sin of the golden calf, the privilege of performing the service in the Tabernacle would revert to the firstborn from whom it had been taken away because of their involvement in that sin. In our verse the entire tribe of the Levites is included in the description "priests," seeing that the priests too are referred to as Levites on occasion such as in Deut.27,9.
  The Torah continues: ביד איתמר, to make it clear that the exclusion of the firstborn from their erstwhile position as priests affected not only their right to offer sacrifices or to carry the Holy Ark, etc., but even the right to perform the tasks over which Ittamar presided. These comprised duties involving materials of a relatively minor degree of sanctity such as the beams of the Tabernacle and all that belonged to them (Numbers 4,29-33). All of this was a reminder that the sin of the golden calf had not been erased in such a way that no trace of it could be detected. The best proof of this is what G'd said in Exodus 32,34 that whenever He has occasion to punish the Jewish people He will add an extra measure of punishment as part of what they have not yet received.
  The words פקודי המשכן also allude to the expression "appointment" such as in Numbers 4,16 where Torah describes Eleazar as being "in charge of" i.e. "appointed" over the oil for lighting, incense, etc. The Torah in our verse hints that all the appointees for the Tabernacle were "in charge" of the respective parts of the Tabernacle or its appurtenances assigned to them. They had to ensure that the Tabernacle continued to exist and take the necessary precautions to prevent any part of it from deteriorating or disintegrating. Inasmuch as the Tabernacle represented the Torah, the task of the first of its appointees was to maintain משכן העדות, the Torah proper. As long as the Israelites would study the Torah and live by its precepts the continued existence of the Tabernacle was assured. Failing that, there would be no Tabernacle. This is what the sages in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> meant when they commented on Psalms 78,60: "He forsook the Tabernacle of Shiloh, the Tent He had set up amongst men." The <i>Midrash</i> observes that we must understand the wording as: "G'd had set up a Tent by means of man." If people prepare themselves spiritually to study Torah and to observe it, not only the commandments engraved on the Tablets and the written Torah, but אשר פקד על פי משה, the oral Torah Moses taught the people, then we are assured of G'd setting His Tent amongst men. This is the second group of "appointees" then that we are told about in our verse. The third group of "appointees," were the people performing the service involving the Tabernacle, i.e. the Levites; the fourth group of appointees were Aaron and his sons. The Torah mentions "Aaron's son" rather than Aaron himself and even the word בן אהרון may refer to Eleazar (seeing everybody knew that Ittamar was Aaron's son). This was because Aaron's share in the sin of the golden calf affair had not yet been completely atoned for. This occurred only after the seven days of the inaugural offerings and the death of his two older sons on the eighth day when Aaron offered sin-offerings. The Torah therefore mentions the fact that he too was an appointee only obliquely, by mentioning who was the father of his son. The fifth appointee was Betzalel who had performed the work for the Tabernacle and Oholiov his assistant. You therefore find that there were a total of five appointees to ensure the permanence of the Tabernacle. 1) The Torah itself; 2) Moses who was entrusted with teaching; 3) The Levites who had to erect and dismantle the Tabernacle every time the Israelites journeyed; 4) the priests who had to perform the sacrificial service and who were counted with the Levites of the houses of Kehot and Gershom whose duties were also considered עבודה; 5) Betzalel and Oholiov who were in charge of construction. This then is the meanig of אלה פקודי המשכן, "these are the appointees of the Tabernacle."
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   כל הזהב העשוי למלאכה, All the gold used in the construction, etc. The words ויהי זהב התנופה in this verse seem superfluous or at least not in their proper place. The words כל הזהב העשוי do not seem to fit at all. Perhaps the Torah wishes to underline that of all the gold handed over to the various artisans not an ounce remained unaccounted for; it was all used up in the construction of the vessels which were to be made of gold. The whole verse then is testimony to the integrity of the artisans employed in fashioning all the parts made of gold. The words בכל מלאכת הקודש mean that all the gold was used up in the construction of the sacred vessels.
  The Torah may also allude to miracles which occurred to the gold used for the vessels of the Tabernacle. We all know that when one constructs vessels out of any metal including gold, the fact that it has to be melted down, etc., results in some diminution of the original amount of metal one started with. The more the original lump of gold had to be divided in order to construct all the various smaller parts made of gold, the greater the percentage lost in the process. The Torah testifies here that there was absolutely no wastage; all the original material was used up fully to become part of the sacred work בכל מלאכת הקודש. The word העשוי may be translated as "fit to be used to make something of." If something that the Israelites contributed was fit to be used in the construction of the Tabernacle, it was fully made use of. The word בכל means that all of the original amount contributed was immediately put to use in the construction. If this had not been the case, the miracle that nothing was left over would not have been noticeable. One could have added materials from the pool of raw materials whenever one ran short of something. This was not the case, however. The miracle was noticeable only because there was neither excess nor shortage during any stage of the construction of the many items required for the project.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   ואת האלף ושבע מאות, and of the one thousand and seven hundred, etc. This refers to the silver not described as having been used to make the sockets. Our sages in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 51,5 claim that while Moses was busy enumerating what had been made out of all the gold and silver, etc., he sat down for a moment and forgot what had been made out of these 1775 shekels of silver. When he remembered, the Torah added the letter ו in the word ואת. 
  According to commentators such as Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra (compare his comments on Exodus 25,3) who hold that the only silver which was contributed for the Tabernacle consisted of the half-shekel every male over twenty had to contribute (Exodus 30,13-14), the words ואת האלף ושבע מאות וחמשה ושבעים have to be explained differently. We know that the male Israelites had to contribute a half shekel each, and that the total number of males counted were 603.550 (compare Numbers 1,46). Since a "kikar" silver consists of 3.000 shekels, the figure given in our verse (as the left-over silver) corresponds exactly to that which had not been used for the 100 sockets which were each one kikar in weight. We do not find that G'd had commanded that anything other than the sockets, the hooks and the fillets had to be made of silver. The Torah did not, however, specify the size of the hooks or the fillets. Betzalel considered the number of hooks and fillets required and constructed them in sizes which used up the 1775 shekels silver remaining, making sure there was no overage. The words עשה ווים mean that he made the total remaining silver into hooks dividing them as required. He was quite certain that the remaining silver was to be used for this purpose as the fact that G'd had told him how much silver to use for the socket had made it plain to start with that there would be an overage of silver worth 1775 shekels. If G'd had told Betzalel about the size of each of these hooks beforehand, the execution of that command should have been reported as ויעש ווים. The fact that the Torah writes instead: עשה ווים is proof that he used his own initiative as to the size of these hooks.
  I do not subscribe to the theory that there was no other silver except that contributed from the count of the males above the age of twenty. How else are we to explain 35,24: "Everyone who set apart an offering of silver and copper?" That verse cannot be reconciled with Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra's comment on 25,3: "and this is the offering, etc." Every serious student will appreciate what I mean. I believe we can explain our verse in accordance with what we have written on verse 24 on the words כל הזהב, that even when such small items as hooks were made nothing went to waste, nor did the material used fail to be used up completely. The meaning of עשה ווים is that Betzalel used up everything in the making of these hooks.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה; as G'd had commanded Moses. The Torah emphasises this to tell us that the Tabernacle corresponded to G'd's instructions in all its details as we already explained in connection with 27,20 that G'd considered that Moses had a personal share, i.e. merit, in every detail of the construction of the Tabernacle although he personally had not been commanded to perform the work.
  Another meaning of the verse is simply that when the artisans were about to commence any part of the work, they would first say "as per G'd's instructions to Moses."
  Another reason the Torah had to write this verse is that there is no commandment which does not contain elements over and beyond its performance with one's hands or other parts of one's body. The Torah never revealed more than a fraction of the totality of a commandment as we know from a statement of Rabbi Yochanan in <i>Gittin</i> 60. There were then intellectual dimensions to the commandments G'd had given to Moses which are not recorded in the written text. The Torah here testified that all these dimensions were complied with and that the artisans deserved credit for this. Whereas some of these hidden dimensions of a מצוה are alluded to by the way the legislation in question is recorded in the Torah such as the "crowns" on the letters, others are not, though most of the hidden aspects of each מצוה were revealed to Moses while he was on Mount Sinai. We have Rabbi Akiva telling us in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 106 that one could deduce 300 <i>halachot</i> from the shape of the uppper part of the letter ל alone. At any rate, the message of the Torah here is that all the hidden aspects connected with construction of the Holy Tabernacle were carried out by those concerned with constructing it.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   על שולי המעיל, on the hem of the robe, etc. The wording makes clear that the sages who hold that the pomegranates were next to the bells as opposed to the bells being inside the pomegranates were correct. Why else would the Torah first report that the pomegranates were attached to the hem of the robe and then report the making of the bells as a separate item in a separate verse? Later the Torah reports that these bells were placed in between the pomegranates "on the hem of the robe." The repetition of the words "on the hem of the robe" makes no sense if these bells were inside the pomegranates, i.e. surrounded by them. I am very surprised at Nachmanides who has rejected this approach. As to Nachmanides' answer to the above argument that the pomegranates were not actually suspended at the hem of the robe until after the bells had been placed inside them, it seems to me that the text says exactly the opposite. Nachmanides' using the fact that the Torah repeated the statement that the bells were inside the pomegranates as proof for his contention is not tenable. He does not explain why the Torah should have given the command to place the pomegranates from the hem of the robe at that point (compare 28,33). I believe that in this instance Nachmanides did not examine the text with his customary care.
  
  Verse 25
  
   בתוך הרמונים, amongst the pomegranates. The reason the Torah has repeated this instruction is to ensure that these bells should alternate and be on the same level as the pomegranates along the hem of the robe. The bells should not either protrude below the level of the pomegranates or be closer to the hem. We could not have deduced this if the Torah had written the line: "a bell and a pomegranate, a bell and a pomegranate on the hem of the robe," only once. We would then have thought that the reason the Torah gave these instructions was that the row should commence with a bell followed by a pomegranate, followed by another bell. As it is, the row should begin with the suspension of a pomegranate followed by a bell, followed again by a pomegranate so that the bells were "within," i.e. flanked each by two pomegranates. These instructions were necessary as the hem of the robe was not round (as was the upper part described in verse 23) but slit in such a way that there were two rows of material which between them made up the "hem." This is also the reason why in the Baraitha giving details about the robe, it does not say that the number of bells corresponded to the number of pomegranates. There had to be more pomegranates than bells. <i>Zevachim</i> 88 lists only the number of bells not the number of pomegranates.
  
  Verse 26
  
   פעמון ורמון, פעמון ורמון, a bell and a pomegranate, a bell and a pomegranate (alternating). The Torah had to write this as otherwise one could have hung two or three bells between each pomegranate or vice versa and this would still have corresponded to the definition "between the pomegranates." The first statement teaches that one pomegranate and one bell should alternate, i.e. there should not be two bells between a set of pomegranates. The second statement is to prohibit the reverse, i.e. two pomegranates between each set of bells.
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   ותכל כל עבודת משכן האהל, All the work of the Tabernacle, the Tent was complete, etc. The word ותכל indicates that the completion was not the result of the Israelites not continuing; as far as they were concerned they would gladly have continued to work on that project. The word ותכל refers to the end of the verse, i.e. "what G'd had commanded." The project was terminated in accordance with G'd's instructions.
  It also indicates that some of the tasks were completed on their own and not by the B’nei Yisrael, such as the menorah (see Rashi on 25:31).
  The word may also be understood in the sense of Psalms 84,3: נכספה וגם כלתה נפשי לחצרות השם. "I long, I yearn for the courtyards of the Lord." Our verse describes the enthusiasm with which the work was performed from start to finish.
  ויעשו בני ישראל, the children of Israel did, etc. The Torah teaches that a person's delegate is accounted as like the person who has delegated him. The Torah here credits all of the Israelites with having constructed the Holy Tabernacle although it was only Betzalel (and his helpers) who had actually performed all the work. While it is true that Betzalel had received his instructions from G'd and not from the Israelites, the fact that the Israelites had given their silent consent to Betzalel's appointment meant that he acted as their delegate.
  It appears that the Torah teaches us a general rule about the way Torah can be observed successfully by showing how the Israelites conferred merits one upon the other. The Torah (in its entirety) is only capable of fulfilment by means of the entire Jewish nation. Every individual Jew is charged with the duty to perform those commandments which he is able to fulfil, keeping in mind his individual status [an Israelite cannot perform service in the Temple, for instance, Ed.] This is the true meaning of Leviticus 19,18: "you shall love your fellow Jew as he is part of yourself." Without the fellow Jew, no individual Jew would be able to function as a total Jew. Each Jew has a task to help another Jew to become a whole Jew by means of his fulfilling commandments which the second Jew is unable to fulfil either at that moment or ever. As a result, the fellow Jew is not אחר "someone else," but is part of "oneself," כמוך.
  This is the only way in which we can reconcile ourselves to G'd's commanding us to fulfil 613 commandments without which our body and soul are not really truly "healthy." The Torah has actually denied us a chance to fulfil a substantial part of all these 613 commandments. Are we to be permanent physical and spiritual cripples? Clearly, Torah and its observance then is not only a project for the individual but for the community. The Torah drove home this point by legislating laws which can be performed only by women, only by Levites, only by priests, and, in some instances, only by sinners, i.e. sinners who are anxious to rehabilitate them selves. Our verse describing the whole nation as performing what G'd had commanded Moses that they do, teaches this lesson. The reason that this was an appropriate time to teach us this lesson is that the 13 basic raw materials needed for the Tabernacle were as interdependent one upon the other as Jews are dependent upon each other in order to achieve the harmonious personality G'd desires for each Jew to develop into by means of his מצוה performance. It makes perfect sense therefore, that the Torah considers every Jew as having contributed all 13 kinds of raw materials needed for the Tabernacle.
  ככל אשר צוה השם, in accordance with all that G'd had commanded, etc. The Torah emphasises this point to prevent people from drawing the wrong conclusion when they would observe the whole Tabernacle being dismantled two months and twenty days later (when the Israelites started their journey away from Mount Sinai compare Numbers 10,11 and <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 52,2). One should not interpret the dismantling as proof that there had been structural defects or defects in the design of the Tabernacle and that this was the reason it was being dismantled. The Torah therefore testified that every detail of the execution of G'd's instruction of how to make the Tabernacle had been strictly adhered to. Another reason some Israelites might think that there were imperfections in the Tabernacle was the fact that it had been completed already on the 25th of Kislev though it is reported as having been erected only on the first of Nissan (40,2). G'd waited with having the Tabernacle erected until that date as the month of Nissan ushers in the period of the redemption from Egypt and the tyranny the Israelites had experienced there. According to another interpretation also mentioned in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 52, it was the anniversary of the birthday of Isaac, or the anniversary of the day G'd had first told Abraham that Isaac would be born.
  אשר צוה השם, which G'd had commanded, etc. The reason the Torah added the words: כן עשו, "so they did," and did not content itself by simply writing ויעשו, they did is, that the Torah wished to credit the Israelites not only with construction of the Tabernacle but with carrying out all the commandments G'd had given to Moses, i.e. ככל, in accordance with everything G'd had commanded Moses, i.e. the entire Torah. With these words G'd "burned and scattered the ashes of the sin of the golden calf," i.e. finally disposed of any visible remnants of that sin.
  
  Verse 33
  
   ויביאו את המשכן, They brought the Tabernacle, etc. This means that they presented all the parts of the Tabernacle to Moses.
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
   ככל אשר צוה השם; in accordance with all that G'd had commanded Moses, etc. We find this statement altogether three times. Perhaps the Torah wanted us to understand that rehabilitation from the vestiges of the sin of the golden calf had to comprise three levels: 1) idolatrous thought; 2) idolatrous speech; 3) idolatrous actions. I have mentioned this aspect in its place in <i>Parshat Ki Tissa.</i>
  
  Verse 43
  
   והנה עשו…כן עשו, and behold they had done it…so they had done. The additional word והנה in this verse alludes to the speed with which the Tabernacle was built, something that was very pleasing to Moses when he looked at the components the people presented him with.
  The addition of the word אותה in the line עשו אותה, testifies to the quality of the work. The artisans had put to use all their intelligence in constructing these parts and the result had proved successful.
  If we follow the approach of the Talmud <i>Zevachim</i> 62 that every commandment contains details which are not mandatory but which are desirable, the Torah tells us that the artisans performed even all those details which were not mandatory. This explains why the Torah repeated the word עשו, they did, i.e. the artisans did both what was mandatory and what was in effect optional.
  ויברך אותם משה, Moses blessed them. The reason the Torah wrote the name Moses instead of simply "he blessed them," (seeing that his name was mentioned at the beginning of our verse) is to teach us not to take this blessing lightly. It is something very special to be blessed by a man of G'd such as Moses. If the people had been blessed by someone of lesser stature the Torah would not have recorded this as something we have to know so many thousands of years later. Normally, the Torah could have written משה ברך אותם, or: הוא ברך אותם. By placing the name Moses at the end of the line the Torah taught us the significance of being blessed by someone of Moses' standing.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ביום החודש הראשון באחד לחודש, on the first day of the first month, etc. The erection of the Tabernacle took place after the seven days of the inaugural sacrifices [as opposed to Jerusalem Talmud <i>Yuma</i> 1,5 according to which Moses erected and dismantled the Tabernacle on each of those seven days, whereas now he erected it permanently. Ed.] A careful perusal of the text both here and in <i>Parshat Tzav</i> reveals that erection of the Tabernacle prior to the offering of the inaugural sacrifices is not mentioned anywhere. It would follow that any sacrificial service Moses performed during those days he did not perform inside the Sanctuary but only on the altar in the courtyard. The Tabernacle was sanctified only on the first day of Nissan of the second year after the Exodus. Even if we were to accept the opinion of those who claim that Moses experimented with putting together and dismantling the Tabernacle on each of the seven days of the inaugural sacrifices, this would refer only to the Tabernacle itself, not its furnishings. Why else would the Torah report that Moses was instructed only on that day to place the various furnishings inside the Tabernacle? Clearly, the משכן became a "going concern" only on the first day of Nissan.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה, as G'd had commanded Moses. Why did the Torah have to add the words את משה? Did we not know whom G'd had commanded to erect the Tabernacle? The Torah merely wanted to inform us that when it came to executing G'd's command there was no deviation. If the Torah had omitted mention of Moses' name, I might have understood the words "as G'd commanded him," as referring to the respective person who had made the various parts of the Tabernacle. The reason we find that the Torah repeats itself when writing "as G'd had commanded Moses," is to teach us that the putting in its place of every single part of the Tabernacle was considered as a commandment by itself and the Torah could have testified separately concerning each part that it had been placed where it was in accordance with G'd's instructions.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   ולא יכול משה לכא אל אהל מועד, and Moses was unable to enter the Tent of Testimony, etc. It seems strange that the "cloud" prevented Moses from entering the Tent seeing that the Torah had told us in Exodus 24,18 that "Moses went inside the cloud, etc." The difference is clear. In <i>Parshat Mishpatim</i> Moses entered the cloud after G'd had summoned him. In this instance no summons from G'd had been forthcoming.
  Another reason why Moses could not enter the Tent may have been indicated by the words כי שכן עליו הענן, that the cloud was stationary above the Tent and the glory of G'd filled the entire Tent. In <i>Mishpatim</i> we were told (24,17) that G'd's appearance on the top of the Mountain was like that of fire which consumes, and immediately afterwards we were told that Moses entered the cloud prior to ascending the Mountain. This means that the place Moses ascended was not the place where G'd's glory reposed at that time. In our situation, Moses could not enter an area in which G'd's glory reposed.