Killing The Egypitan

What right did Moshe have to kill the Egyptian?  There is a machlokes in the Midrash how did Moshe kill the Egypitan man, either by uttering the shem hameforash or his fist or a rake used for cement. What difference does it make how Moshe killed the Egyptian? 

The the Gemarah Sanhedrin (58b) derives from this possuk that a gentile that hits a yisrael is obligated death. In other words, Moshe had the right to kill the gentile since he hit the Jew. However, the Rambam (Melachim 10:6) says that although he is deserving of the death penalty, the death penalty is not actually carried out. Based upon this idea, Rav Moshe Soloveitchik (in Igros HaGrid) and his nephew, Rav Dovid Soloveitchik, suggest that is why there is an opinion that Moshe used the shem hameforash for Moshe did have the right to actively kill the Egyptian man as the death penalty is not meted out but he was able to kill him through a manner that is not considered an act of killing. (They assume that killing through the shem hameforash is not considered a technical act of killing. However, The Halachos Ketanos volume 2 #98 [cited in Steipler Bava Kammah siman 45] says that killing through a shem or sorcery is an act of killing. [Rav Itzeleh Blazer in Nesivos Ohr cites Rav Yisrael Salanter says damaging someone through heavenly aided words is considered a mazik.]) The Briskor Rav says that the Rambam means there is an obligation of death by Heavenly punishment and Moshe used the shem hameforash to fulfill that law. However, it is not clear the Rambam means that there is Heavenly punishment and it is hard to hear that killing someone by evoking the shem mefurash is considered fulfilling the Heavenly death penalty.

However, the other opinions in the Midrash hold there are other reasons that the Egyptian was eligible for the death penalty and therefore Moshe had the right to kill him directly. One possibility raised in the Midrash is that he was a rodaf as his act of hitting the Jew may have led to a deathblow. Another option is that Moshe saw through reach hakodesh that this Egyptian has illicit relations with a married woman as the Midrash says elsewhere. But how can Moshe administer a death penalty based upon ruach hakodesh? Since a gentile does not require a formal Beis Din to rule on the death penalty for a gentile it suffices with a mere ascertaining of the facts which may be obtained through ruach hakodesh as well (Rav Yosef Engel.) Alternatively, Rav Dovid Somevetchik suggests since it was pre Matan Torah, when the dominion of pesak was still in hands of heaven, one may administer death based upon a pesak from heaven. This may explain the Midrash stating that Moshe consulted the angels to determine whether the Egyptian was deserving of death for Moshe was inquiring about a pesak from heaven. [See also Zohar Yisro 78b, וצ"ע.]  Rashi says Moshe knew through ruach hakodesh the episode of the illicit relations but also says that Moshe did not kill the Egyptian outright but through the shem hameforash. Why not kill the Egyptian directly if Moshe was aware of his guilt? Rashi holds that ruach hakodesh does not grant an obligation to adjudicate justice, it merely determines the person is deservant of the death penalty but not a license to kill directly and therefore he used the shem hameforash.

Rashi says that Moshe saw through ruach hakodesh that no righteous descendants would emerge from this Egyptian, and only then did he kill him. The Mizrachi asks, if the Egyptian was already liable to death, why should the merit of potential descendants matter at all? According to the approach that Moshe killed via the shem hameforash, the killing was extrajudicial rather than a formal execution. In such a case, it is reasonable to consider additional factors before acting (Brisker Rav). The Mizrachi, as explained by the Maharal, advances this further, even if Moshe acted because of the Egyptian man’s illicit relations, since this information was obtained only through ruach hakodesh, when acting on Divine revelation rather than judicial process, supplementary considerations such as future descendants may be weighed. The approach of the Mizrachi indicates that a Divine revelation does not create an absolute obligation to execute but rather grants Moshe a  license to act based upon his knowledge.  According to the view that the Egyptian was a rodef, however, the Mizrachi’s question remains difficult.

There is another approach advanced by some Midrashim cited in Torah Shelamah that indicate that there was some element of wrongdoing by Moshe killing the Egyptian. The Torah Shelamah cites the Ariza"l who says that that's why Moshe had to run away since he was obligated golus like one who kills by accident. This seems to be reflected in the Ramban who says that Moshe's may be the intent of the Ramban that indicates it was a spontaneous act of Moshe seeing another Jew in pain he jumped to kill the attacker. However, it is not the mainline approach to assume Moshe did something wrong by killing the Egyptian. 

The halacha aside, what is the message of the different forms of how Moshe possibly killed the Egyptian and what is the debate in the Midrash if he used his fist or a cement rake? Rabbi Y.Y. Jacobson  explains the message of the Midrash is that there are three approaches to dealing with mortal threats to outsiders. One approach is to fight back, that is killing with the fist. Another method is to kill by using the cement rake, a building tool, which represents the approach of building connections with the outside world, which will give importance to the Jew and thereby stave off his enemies. The third method is shem hameforash, by a deep connection to Hashem, the enemy will fall by the wayside. At different times, different methods are needed and sometimes all three methods must be employed. 

Permanence of Yirah

וַתִּירֶ֤אןָ הַֽמְיַלְּדֹת֙ אֶת האלקים וְלֹ֣א עָשׂ֔וּ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר דִּבֶּ֥ר אֲלֵיהֶ֖ן מֶ֣לֶךְ מִצְרָ֑יִם וַתְּחַיֶּ֖יןָ אֶת־הַיְלָדִֽים.  A few pessukim later it says וַיְהִ֕י כִּי־יָֽרְא֥וּ הַֽמְיַלְּדֹ֖ת אֶת האלקים וַיַּ֥עַשׂ לָהֶ֖ם בָּתִּֽים:  Why does the Torah need to repeat that they feared Hashem?  Why does the Torah put the emphasis that the motivation of their actions stemmed from a fear of Hashem and not due to their car for the babies?  What is the middah keneged middah in their reward which Rashi tells us is receiving kehunah and malchus?  

We see that the actions of the midwives were motivated by their fear of heaven.  In the situation where they were in with a threat of the king over their head, it was not their feelings of love that would be enough to put their life in danger.  It is only due to their fear of heaven, of violating the commandments of Hashem, that forced them to do the right thing.  

The Shem MiShmuel (5674) says a house is something of permanence as the Gemarah beginning of Sukkah says.  Yiras Shamayim is the house, the אוצר (see Shabbas 31a,) which keeps everything else going.  Since the midwifes exhibited yirah, an אוצר which gives permanence to all of one's avodas Hashem, in reward they receive houses of permanence in form of the linage of kehuna and malchus. 

What does it mean that yiras shamayim gives permanence?  Yirah is the fall back that that spurns one's avodah in times of difficulty.  Like the midwives that had to make a difficult choice and were guided by their yiras shamayim, so tooone's avodah remains constant only if it is spurred on by yirah.  Feelings of ahavah have peaks and valleys, but yirah is a fallback that allows avodah's Hashem to be a constant. 

Names, Stars And Life Missions

The opening Rashi in Shemos says וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.  אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּנָאָן בְּחַיֵּיהֶם בִּשְׁמוֹתָם, חָזַר וּמְנָאָם בְּמִיתָתָם, לְהוֹדִיעַ חִבָּתָם, שֶׁנִּמְשְׁלוּ לְכוֹכָבִים, שֶׁמּוֹצִיאָם וּמַכְנִיסָם בְּמִסְפַּר וּבִשְׁמוֹתָם (שמות רבה), שֶׁנֶּ' "הַמּוֹצִיא בְמִסְפָּר צְבָאָם לְכֻלָּם בְּשֵׁם יִקְרָא  Why are Klal Yisrael compared to stars?  What does the mashal add, anything can be counted?  How does counting show the precious they are?

Rashi quotes the possuk in Yishayeh (40:26) המוציא במספר צבאם לכלם בשם יקרא.  There is another, similar possuk in Tehillim (147:4) מונה מספר לכוכבים לכולם שמות יקרא.  Why the switch from singular, בשם to שמות, plural?  The Midrash in Vakhal (48:2) says כיצד יתקיימו שני כתובים אלו אלא כשהקב"ה מבקש לקרותם כאחד הוא קורא לכלם שם אחד וכשהוא קורא לכל אחד ואחד בשמו הוא קורא אותו מיכאל גבריאל לכך נאמר לכלם שמות יקרא.  The meaing of this Midrash is elaborated on by Rav Tzaddok in Sichas Malachay Hasharas and by Rav Kook in Midbar Shor #14.  They explain it a bit differently but the germane of the idea is the same.  The idea is that the name of a subject is an identification of its true identity, its purpose and importance.  The possuk which says בשם is talking about the grandeur of all of nature having one unified purpose and how inspiring that is.  There the focus is on the unified goal.  בשם יקרא, there is one unified goal and purpose to everything.  The possuk in Tehillim is focused on the individual goal of every individual star.  The possuk is focusing on the individual importance of everything.  That is בשמות, every one has their own mission to fulfill, their are various missions for individual souls.  

The counting of the shevatim is compared to the names an counting of the stars.  Just as a name indicates the mission and importance of the individual, so too the act of counting.  Counting means that there is something to be counted for, there is a purpose, a mission.      

As the golus of Mitzraim was starting it would seem that in the darkness of the golus the importance of Klal Yisrael would be lost.  They would cease to have an independent existence and would be subsumed under the mission of the Egyptians.  That is what the mashal of stars comes to tell us.  Just as stars are very far off from the earth and their impact is not felt very much, nonetheless they give off light.  The Gemarah Pesachim (2a) discusses if the light of stars is considered light and the conclusion is that it is.  What is the debate?  Since the light of stars does not illuminate like the moon and suns, one may say that is not defined as light.  However, the conclusion is that since stars have their own innate light that is called light.  Similarly, even in a dark golus where the power of Klal Yisrael to illuminate is diminished, they still retain a glimmer of light.  The connection to Hashem still exists and that light is what allows Klal Yisrael to survive (from Rav Moshe Shapira.)   

The Rebbe adds (Likutay Sichos volume 6) מנאן בשמותם, in their names, referring to the neshama of a person in a bodily form that is called a name, one has to awaken the מנין, the unifying count, the holy source, that unites all souls.  It is that connection to one's source that gives one the ability to overcome the boundaries of one's body,  Egypt, and the golus.  The ability to be light, to feel one's neshama, to be part of a collective mission, is what turns golus into geulah.  

Two Dimensions To The Leader

Moshe Rabbenu is told, של נעליך מעל רגליך כי המקום אשר אתה עומד עליו אדמת קדש הוא.  Yehoshua is told something similar (5:15) שַׁל נַעַלְךָ מֵעַל רַגְלֶךָ כִּי הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה עֹמֵד עָלָיו קֹדֶשׁ הוּא.  The Kli Yakar here notes two differences, Moshe is told נעליך, both shoes while Yehoshua is told נַעַלְךָ, one shoe.  Moshe is told אדמת קדש, it is holy land while Yehoshua is told  קֹדֶשׁ הוּא, the place is holy, but not the land.  A third difference is noted by the Shla, that at the end of the possuk in Yehoshua it says וַיַּעַשׂ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, כֵּן, which it does not say here.  Why are there differences in what would seem to be the same message?  The Shla says that the level of rising above gashmi was a whole other level for Moshe than for Yehoshua.  He says there are two types of garments one ears ,the physical body and the actual clothing on a person.  The command to Moshe was to elevate his body that his עור became אור, his whole being became spiritual.  Those are the two levels he is taking off, his shoes and his body.  That is why Moshe's presence creates greater kedusha to the land that he was on.  That is why Yehoshua was able to fulfill the commandment on his own, וַיַּעַשׂ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, כֵּן but Moshe did not have the capability to fulfill the commandment of removing his body on his own, he required the infusion of kedusha and hence he was not able to do it on his own.  

The Kedushat Levi explain נעל is like the word מנעל, a lock.  Moshe's great kedusha locked him from being able to connect with the land, with the people of the earth, that he had to connect to in order to be able to lead them out of Egypt.  That is remove נעלך, the lock which is your רגל, your custom, to be attached to heavenly thoughts, and attach to the regular people.  

So, we have a dichotomy in the introduction to Moshe as the leader.  On the one hand, his greatness is demonstrated but on the other hand his need to connect to the people to lead them.

In The Right Place At The Right Time

Midrash Rabbah כָּךְ אָמְרוּ בְּנוֹת יִתְרוֹ לְמשֶׁה, יִישַׁר כֹּחֲךָ שֶׁהִצַּלְתָּנוּ מִיַּד הָרוֹעִים, אָמַר לָהֶם משֶׁה אוֹתוֹ מִצְרִי שֶׁהָרַגְתִּי הוּא הִצִּיל אֶתְכֶם, וּלְכָךְ אָמְרוּ לַאֲבִיהֶן אִישׁ מִצְרִי, כְּלוֹמַר מִי גָרַם לָזֶה שֶׁיָּבוֹא אֶצְלֵנוּ, אִישׁ מִצְרִי שֶׁהָרַג.

Rav Chayim Walkin z"l says we see that Moshe realized the chain of events put him where he was standing that day.  He attributed the help he gave to the daughters of Yisro and being orchestrated by G-d to put him in the right place at the right time.  Wherever one goes, it is because they belong there.  The idea he cites from Rav Bloch was referenced in the past by my father in a hesped by Rav Michoel Sorotzkin for Rav Moshe Shapiro. 

Bad Voices And Which Lad Is It

וַתִּפְתַּח֙ וַתִּרְאֵ֣הוּ אֶת־הַיֶּ֔לֶד וְהִנֵּה־נַ֖עַר בֹּכֶ֑ה וַתַּחְמֹ֣ל עָלָ֔יו וַתֹּ֕אמֶר מִיַּלְדֵ֥י הָֽעִבְרִ֖ים זֶֽה

Rashi says why is he called a נער if he is a yeled?  Rashi says והנה נער בכה. קוֹלוֹ כְּנַעַר.  The Ramban objects, וכבר דחו זה ואמרו אם כן עשית למשה רבינו בעל מום (סוטה יב: שמו''ר א' כ''ח). ועוד, מה טעם שיזכיר הכתוב עובי קולו.

The source of this debate is the Gemarah Sotah (12b) וְהִנֵּה נַעַר בֹּכֶה קָרֵי לֵיהּ יֶלֶד וְקָרֵי לֵיהּ נַעַר תָּנָא הוּא יֶלֶד וְקוֹלוֹ כְּנַעַר דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אִם כֵּן עֲשִׂיתוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ בַּעַל מוּם אֶלָּא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁעָשְׂתָה לוֹ אִמּוֹ חוּפַּת נְעוּרִים בַּתֵּיבָה אָמְרָה שֶׁמָּא לֹא אֶזְכֶּה לְחוּפָּתוֹ.  

Rashi on the Gemarah says בעל מום - והוא לוי ונפסל בקול לעבודת השיר.  The source of this din is Chullin (24.)  What kind of voice is a blemish for a Levi?  Rashi Chullin (24b) says קול אחד - שצריכין לבשם את קולם שיהא נראה כקול אחד.  Rashi in Megillah (24b) says דעבי קלך - ותניא בהכל שוחטין (חולין דף כד.) בשילה ובבית עולמים הלוים נפסלין בקול.  This means any oddity in the voice of the Levi that makes him stand out will make him pasul.  However, the Rambam Kli Mikdash (3:8) says לְדוֹרוֹת אֵין הַלֵּוִי נִפְסָל בְּשָׁנִים וְלֹא בְּמוּמִין אֶלָּא בְּקוֹל שֶׁיִּתְקַלְקֵל קוֹלוֹ מֵרֹב הַזִּקְנָה יִפָּסֵל לַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ.  The Briskor Rav says we see from the Rambam that only if the voice becomes damaged from old age does the Levi become pasul.  (It is noteworthy that the Chafetz Chayim in Likutay Halachot does not learn the Rambam means only if the voice changes from old age is the Levi pasul.  The Rambam says old age to contrast from the time of the Mikdash where just age made a Levi pasul.)  How does this fit with the Gemarah here for Moshe's voice was not different due to old age?  

The Maharsha seems to learn the Gemarah is not a halachik issue of baal mum rather just that it would not be apropos for Moshe to be a baal mum.  In light of that interpretation, there is no difficulty in the Rambam. 

The Chasam Sofer (Orech Chayim #12) takes a different approach.  He suggests that the issue of Moshe being a baal mum is that he was part of the Sanhedrin and a baal mum is pasul to be part of Sanhedrin as the Gemarah Sanhedrin (36b) says.  The C.S .wants to say that even a mum for a Levi disqualifies one from being a member of the Sanhedrin. The Or Samech Sanhedrin (2:6) suggests the same chiddush that a pesul of Levi would also be disqualified from Sanhedrin.  However, the O.S. does not learn that is peshat in the Gemarah Sotah itself but only since the Gemarah says that Moshe was not a baal mum to be disqualified Levi do we say that even a pesul for a Levi disqualifies one from the Sanhedrin.  Why is that? 

The Gemarah Sanhedrin learns that a baal mum is pasul to be a member of the Sanhedrin from כולך יפה רעיתי ומום אין בך.  The Gemarah has a different limud from (שמות יח, כב) ונשאו אתך אתך בדומין לך ליהוי that to be a member one has to be מיוחס like Moshe.  Tosfos asks if there is a limud to be a valid member of Sanhedrin one has to be like Moshe, then why do we need a separate passuk to disqualify a baal mum, just have the same limud that they are not like Moshe, who did not have a mum?  Tosfos answers without the passuk of ומום אין בך we would have not said a baal mum is pasul.  The Briskor Rav (Vaerah) explains the answer is that we would have said only regarding yichus where the passuk spells out the yichus of Moshe in Vayerah, do we know that is important for a Sanhedrin member to have proper yichus but having a mum we would have said doesn't matter vis-a-vis being a member of Sanhedrin.  Therefore we need another passuk to tell us that being a baal mum also disqualifies one from being part of Sanhedrin.  Says the O.S., now that we know Moshe was not a baal mum even regarding a mum of Leviem, therefore to be a member of Sanhedrin one cannot even have that pesul for otherwise it is not simliar to Moshe, not אתך.  (There is room to disagree for if it is not included in the possuk of מום אין בך, then it doesn't create a pesul to be part of Sanhedrin for אתך is just to be מגלה that being a baal mum is an issue but what is a mum follows the normal standard like for Kohanim.) 

The Briskors have chakirah in this din that the Levi can no longer sing well, he becomes pasul.  Is that merely a din in the avodah of the shir or is it a chalos pesul in the Levi if his voice is unfit.   The Rambam (ibid) says וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִפְסָל אֶלָּא לוֹמַר שִׁירָה אֲבָל יִהְיֶה מִן הַשּׁוֹעֲרִים.  They say why does the Rambam say this a chiddush, יראה לי, of course the Levi can do other things if his voice is no longer good, it is only the chirah that is disqualified?  We see from the Rambam that it creates a pesul in the Levi and therefore one would have that the Levi can't do anything, קמ"ל he can still be from the שוערים just like in the Midbar after the Levi became disqualified due to age, they were still able to be from the שוערים (see Smah mitzvah 170.)  That maybe why the Rambam holds it is only when the voice is off due to old age does it disqualify the Levi for only then is the person unfit but if the person just doesn't have a nice voice that doesn't mean there is a pesul in the Levi.

(Post based upon ideas in Pninim Mibey Midrasha, Chemda Yekarah, Avodas Dovid on Sotah, Gevuros Yitzchak on Sotah and Chumash.) 

According to the Rogatchover we have a different answer for the Rambam.  The pessukim in Behaloscha (8:25-26) וּמִבֶּן֙ חֲמִשִּׁ֣ים שָׁנָ֔ה יָשׁ֖וּב מִצְּבָ֣א הָעֲבֹדָ֑ה וְלֹ֥א יַעֲבֹ֖ד עֽוֹד׃ וְשֵׁרֵ֨ת אֶת־אֶחָ֜יו בְּאֹ֤הֶל מוֹעֵד֙ לִשְׁמֹ֣ר מִשְׁמֶ֔רֶת וַעֲבֹדָ֖ה לֹ֣א יַעֲבֹ֑ד כָּ֛כָה תַּעֲשֶׂ֥ה לַלְוִיִּ֖ם בְּמִשְׁמְרֹתָֽם.  The first passuk Rashi says ולא יעבד עוד. עֲבוֹדַת מַשָּׂא בַּכָּתֵף, אֲבָל חוֹזֵר הוּא לִנְעִילַת שְׁעָרִים וְלָשִׁיר וְלִטְעֹן עֲגָלוֹת.  The Levi is disqualified only from carrying the aron but can do other things.  That is like the case of the Rambam where one's voice becomes bad due to old age.  The Levi in that case can do other things.  However, says the Rogatchover, the second passuk ועבודה לא יעבד means he does not serve at all.  That is says is talking about one who is born with a pesul such as with a bad voice.  That Levi will be disqualified from everything.  The issue is if this difference was agreed upon by the Rambam and being born with a bad voice is an even greater pesul why does he not say it in the halachot, וצ"ע. 

The Baal Haturim however, says a whole different peshat in the possuk.  He says the נער is not Moshe, it is Aharon, והנה נער בוכה – זה אהרן שהניחתו אצל התיבה. נער בכה. בגי׳. זה אהרן הכהן.  The Hadar Zekanim says the same interpretation and says that is how she knew he was Jewish for if Aharon who was Jewish (he has a Jewish nose,) was crying about him obviously the child is Jewish as well.  We see from here that even as a young boy Aharon's midah was to care about others, to care for his brother and that is why he merits to care for Klal Yisrael in the avodah of the Mikdash. 

The Sichos Mussar asks why is Moshe called Moshe, the name given to him by an Egyptian woman if the Midrash says he had 10 names?  He explains, אלא הן הדברים, מכוח מסירות נפשה של בתיה בת פרעה, שהמרתה פי אביה, והצילה את משה נגד גזירת פרעה, ומכוח גמילות החסד שגמלה עמו בגדלה אותה בהקרבה ובמסירות, קיבל משה רבינו אל תוך נפשו ובשרו את הכוחות הללו, ועל ידם נתעלה והוכשר להיות גואלן ומושיען של ישראל, כי בהקרבה ובמסירות נפש ניהל את צאן יתרו בתחילה, ובהקרבה ובמסירות נפש הושיע אח”כ את ישראל, בין בעמדו לפני פרעה ובין בעלייתו למרום, וכל ארבעים שנה במדבר היו חייו רצופים הפקרת נפשו עבור ישראל, מסירות נפש תמידית עבור כל אחד ואחד מישראל עד לאמירת ואם אין מחני נא מספרך אשר כתבת.

כל זאת היה טבוע בנפשו והתפתח בו מן הגרעין של המסירות נפש שהשקיעה בו בתיה בת פרעה במשותה אותו מן המים, על כן נקבע בו השם משה יותר מכל עשר שמות שהיו לו, כי שם זה ממצה את גדולת משה רבינו יותר מכל השמות, וזהו שכרן של גומלי חסדים, שהחסד שעושים, עושה פירות, ומי שגמלו עמו חסד, על שם החסד הוא נקרא ושמו חי וקיים לעד, כשמו של משה רבינו גואלן של ישראל.  

The leaders, Moshe and Aharon, were the leaders of Klal Yisrael because they were willing to give up of themselves to help others.  The golus was due to the דלטורין.  The geulah had to come about by people who went to the opposite extreme.  Those who were willing to sacrifice themselves, their own gain, for another. 

Two Steps Into Golut

Why does the Torah repeat at the beginning of the parsha the descent of Klal Yisroel into Egypt?  Why does the possuk say הבאים מצרימה in the present tense but end איש וביתו באו in the past tense?  Why does it repeat that Yosef died if that was recorded in last parsha?  There were two stages of the golut hinted to in the possuk יָרֹד יָרַדְנוּ (Mekatz 43:20.)  In the beginning the influence of Egypt is felt for Klal Yisroel was not under the open hashgacha present in Eretz Yisroel.  After this the matzarim of Eypt grew stronger and Klal Yisroel sunk into the abyss that was the tumah of Egypt.  The servitude that starts after the generation of the shevatim dies is a siman that the spiritual golus grew stronger.  The physical hardships were an indicator of the spiritual problems.  In Berashis we learn about the first descent.  The removal from Eretz Yisroel, from open hashgacha to Egypt.  In Shemos we are introduced to a second level of the golut.  That is why it uses the present tense, הבאים for even though they were in golut already, it was a new descent into the abyss of the golut (see Midrash 1:4.)  That is why it repeats the death of Yosef for although the event happened, the Torah is stressing it is at that point that the golut noose drew tighter.  That is why we repeat the parsha of those coming into Egypt for it is a new "coming" into Egypt, it is entering a new stage (based upon Likutay Sichos volume 6.)

The Nesivos Shalom says that the present tense הבאים is used for the golut of Egypt is the paradigm for all future stages of golut.  Going into Egypt was not a one time event but it is ever constantly happening.  There is golut and more golut and all of that is a continuum of the golut Mitzraim.  Altohugh there was a redemption from Egypt, the geulah was incomplete.  The second stage of the golut was never fully rectified and for that there must be another geulah, the geulah atidah, may it come forth speedily in our days.

Propaganda

Chazal say (see Rashi Yithro (18:9)) that no one was able to escape from Egypt.  The Or Gedalyahu cites from the Ishbitzer that it wasn't just the security system and large walls that keep people in Egypt, it was the propaganda that they were living in Paradise.  While for many this will ring a bell with the message of the Soviet Union, which is true of course, it also can take form in more "minor" forms.  The very fact that I walk peacefully in the street and am yelled at by old people, wearing yarmulkes of course, to wear a mask is part of the stupid propaganda they have swallowed hook, line and sinker.  I will end the rant here and just add what is a true fact, a maamer chazal. Bava Bathra (8a) Rebbe says אין פורענות בא לעולם אלא בשביל עמי הארץ. 

Now I will resume my rant.  Of course, everyone on the sides "of the debate" has their own proofs lined up leading from statements of Chazal to doctors' studies.  They are removing people's right to breathe in order to protect others etc.  All the garbage that they spew.  However, the contradictions, picking and choosing when to be careful, the complete disregard for another person's feelings display what these "tzaddikim" really are, animals spewing propaganda!  

How To See It

The midrash (1:28) says on the possuk (2:11) ויהי בימים ההם ויגדל משה ויצא אל אחיו וירא בסבלותם that Moshe told Pharaoh that the slaves need a day of rest and asked for Shabbos to be the day off.  How does the midrash see a hint to Shabbos in the possuk?  After the days of creation it says וירא אלקים כי טוב, does Hashem need to see it to know that it is good, obviously he created it?  Rav Tzaddok (Pri Tzaddok on Shemos #3) explains that it is because וירא אלקים that it was טוב.  It is the power of Hashem "seeing" that made it good.  At the end of the 6th day of creation it says הִנֵּה טוֹב מְאֹד which Chazal say refer to the evil things because even the bad things were able to be perfected.  It is Shabbos that brings out that eving what appers to be evil has a good and proper purpose in thee world.  Tzaddikim also have this power to bring good to the evil through their gaze.  That is how Chazal derived that וירא means that Moshe brought out this power of Shabbos into the golus.  The day of rest was not just to rest their weary bodies but to reinvigorate the hopes and spirits of Klal Yisroel to realize the geulah would come as the midrash continues that Klal Yisroel studied on Shabbos the promises of the geulah. 

Of course Rav Tzaddok is talking about the levels of great tzaddikim who's minds are so pure that their mere gaze has a physical effect (see Chazon Eish's explanation of עין הרע in likkutim to Bava Bathra #21.)  However, there is a lesson for the regular layman as well.  Sometimes the definition of good and bad is not absolute but rather based upon the vision one has, how one looks at it.  If one looks for problems, there are always problems to be found.  However, one who has the Shabbos perspective will be able to see the geulah from within the golus, the טוב מאד  inside the yetzer harah.  

How To Give Over The Message

In the previous post, I wrote about holding on to the ways of the avos in order to survive through the golus.  This is of course true.  We do not believe in the Reform movement that holds the Torah has to be modernized to fit our current state of living.  However, it is noteworthy, that although this is the case, the delivery of the message of the avos may [need] to be changed depending on the generation.  Although, the dinim of the Torah are the same, the way it is communicated may be different in 1621, 1821, and 2021.  Rav Hirsch points out that these two methods of the delivery of G-d's message are split between Moshe and Aharon.  In his words, "נראה שכבר מההתחלה היה תפקיד כפול למילים הנאמרות, בשירותה של תורה: א. ניסוח מדוייק, מושלם ונאמן של תוכן הדברים; ב. הצגת תוכן זה אל העם, בדרך בה יקשיבו אליו, יבינו אותו ויקבלוהו."  It was the job of Moshe to deliver the exact law, to carry on the Torah of the avos.   However, it was the job of Aharon to make the message palpable to the nation.  This division from the onset of the leadership of Klal Yisroel set the mandate for the future.  "חלוקה זו של תפקידי הדיבור, חשובה מאד למען המסירה הטהורה והנאמנה של תורת ה׳. כדי לרכוש את לב העם לאמת שבתורה, אין די במה שעורכים ומסדרים גרידא את התוכן אותו ילמדו, יש לקחת בחשבון את רמת השכלתם של אלה שאת לבם רוצים לרכוש ולעורר. צריך להתחיל מהדעות, הרעיונות, ההשקפות, הרצונות והשאיפות המצויים עתה ביניהם, ומנקודת התחלה זו לעבוד בהדרגה לקראת התכלית הנכספת."  The message remains the same, but the way it is communicated does change. 

Connected To The Previous Generations

The sefer starts ואלה שמות, the vov means it is a continuation from beforehand, what is the continuation?  

The Sforno says (1:7) פרו וישרצו – ואחר שמתו כל שבעים נפש נטו לדרכי שרצים, שרצים לבאר שחת.  The Sforno is pointing out that the start of the golus was when there was a disconnect from the previous generation, when the leaders passed on and there was no one to carry on the torch from the alte haim, that is when the golus started.  The physical hardship is an outgrowth of the spiritual weakening.  From the problem, we can derive the solution.  By remaining connected to the previous generations, by treading in the worn paths of the avos, then there is no problem of golus.  That is the vov, the continuation.  It is by being connected to the parshios of the avos, the previous sefer, that we can stay above the golus.  (Based upon Alexender Rebbe and Rav Chayim Kamil.)  It is also noteworthy that the slavery began with a מלך חדש.  It was the change from the previous regime that brought about the evils of slavery.  It was the deviation from the events until then that brought evil, ודו"ק. 

Double Redemption

In parshas Vagisash we are told of Yaakov and his family's descent into Egypt.  Why is it repeated again in the beginning of Shemos?  The secret message of redemption handed down by Yosef it פקד פקדתי, why the need for the repetitive terminology?

The Midrash Rabbah (3:9) says that the double message proved that the redeemer was true.  This is further elaborated on in Yalkut Shemoni Lech Lecha (64) that all the geulot come through the "doubled letters": רבי אליעזר אומר חמש אותיות נכפלו וכולן לשון גאולה. ך"ך שבו נגאל אבינו אברהם מאור כשדים שנאמר לך לך מארצך. ם"ם בו נגאל אבינו יצחק מיד פלשתים שנאמר לך מעמנו כי עצמת ממנו מאד. ן"ן בו נגאל אבינו יעקב מיד עשו שנאמר הצילני נא. ף"ף בו נגאלו ישראל ממצרים פקד פקדתי. ץ"ץ בו עתיד הקב"ה לגאול לישראל בסוף מלכות רביעית שנאמר איש צמח שמו ותחתיו יצמח וכולן נמסרו לאברהם. אברהם מסרן ליצחק ויצחק ליעקב ויעקב ליוסף ויוסף לאחיו שאמר להם פקד יפקד אלהים אתכם. ואשר בן יעקב מסר סוד גאולה לסרח בתו וכשבאו משה ואהרן אל זקני ישראל ועשו אותות לעיניהם הלכו זקני ישראל אצל סרח בת אשר אמרו לה בא אדם אחד ועשה אותות לעינינו כך וכך א"ל אין באותות הללו ממש א"ל והלא אמר פקד פקדתי א"ל הוא האיש לגאול את ישראל בא שכך שמעתי מאבא ף"ף מיד ויאמן העם.  Why are these letters of מנצפך responsible for the redemption?

The Midrash Tehillim (92) points out that Shabbos has a dual aspect: אמר רבי יצחק כל עיסקא דשבתא כפול. עומר כפול (שם כב) שני העומר לאחד. קרבנו כפול (במדבר כח ט) וביום השבת שני כבשים. עונשה כפול (שמות לא יד) מחלליה מות יומת. שכרה כפול (ישעיה נח יג) וקראת לשבת עונג ולקדוש ה' מכובד. אזהרותיה כפולות זכור ושמור. מזמורו כפול מזמור שיר ליום השבת.  What is the reason for the emphasis of the double aspects of Shabbos?

Galus and Geulah are not two independent states of existence.  It's not that there is golus and then a magical light comes, everything goes poof and we enter the stage of geulah.  Golus is a process of building the geulah.  The geulah comes when it has been prepared for through the golus.  The geulah isn't a new revelation, it is the  completion, the end, finale of the golus process.  That is why the letters of geulah are the ending letters for it is the culmination of an ongoing process.

The Gemorah Megillah (2b) says that  מנצפ"ך צופים אמרום.  It requires one to have foresight, to see into the future to appreciate what the golus is building toward.  In the words of Rav Kook in Resh Milin, הצופים אחרית דבר מראשיתו, הנביאים שרואים את הסוף של הדבר כבר מההתחלה. הם אשר חזרו וייסדו אותיות מנצפ"ך הכפולות, בסוף תיבה, אחרי שנשתכחו. בחתימתו של כל חזון גדול מתגלה כוחו היסודי, עומק טעמו ומהותו הנצחי.  That is the message of the "double letters."  The geulah isn't just happening now, it was a process throughout the whole golus era. It will be obvious at that point that its not just a present geulah but the entire golus was building toward the geulah.  That is the פקד פקדתי.  The midrash (3:8) says מַהוּ פָּקֹד פָּקַדְתִּי, פָּקֹד בְּמִצְרַיִם, פָּקַדְתִּי עַל הַיָּם. פָּקֹד לְהַבָּא, פָּקַדְתִּי לְשֶׁעָבַר.  Based upon this we can explain פָּקֹד בְּמִצְרַיִם, means being in mitzraim itself is part of the פקד.  פָּקֹד לְהַבָּא, פָּקַדְתִּי לְשֶׁעָבַר, in retrospect one can appreciate how the golus is necessary to lead to the geulah.

That is the double nechama of נחמו נחמו עמי.  And that is why the Chachamam said to Rebbe Akiva, עקיבא ניחמתנו twice for now they appreciated that the destruction is part of building toward a greater future (see Likutay Sichos volume 19 Shabbos Nachamu.)

Shabbos is a מעין הגאולה, it carries the "doubled" aspect as well.  during the week one struggles to balance the חומר וצורה, הגשמי ורוחני.  On Shabbos there is no contradiction; everything is woven together into the perfect tapestry.

Possibly that is why the saga of Yaakov and his family going down to Egypt is repeated.  In Vayigash we learn of a descent into golus.  In Shemos we are introduced to a descent into golus which is part of the process of geulah.  It is a golus necessary to lead to Mattan Torah.

Moshe The Leader

The Midrash (beginning of Vayikra and other places) says that Moshe Rabbenu had 10 names.  Yet, the name that he is referred to by in the Torah is the name given to him by Batyeh, the daughter of Pharaoh, why?  Many interpretations are given.  The Sforno says: ותקרא שמו משה – ממלט ומושה את אחרים מצרה. ותאמר כי מן המים משיתהו – הטעם שקראתיו ׳משה׳ להורות שימלט את אחרים הוא, כי אמנם משיתיהו מן המים אחר שהיה מוטל בתוכם. וזה לא היה כי אם בגזרת עירין (ע״פ דניאל ד׳:י״ד), כדי שימלט הוא את אחרים.  In other words, Moshe is defined as one who redeems others.  That is the job of Moshe, to lead Klal Yisroel though the process of redemption and therefore that is the name that defines him.
This blog mentioned in the past the Alter Rebbe's peshat in איכה, that Hashem asked Adam, where is he holding in life and so too Hashem asks this of every individual.  Rabbi Herbert Weiner in 9 1/2 Mystics recounts that in a private audience with the Rebbe he asked if the Rebbe ever asks איכה of himself.  The Rebbe responded that his answer to that question would depend upon Weiner himself.  For as a leader of people the answer to his own איכה is how his followers are doing.
Some people are meant to perfect themselves and are defined by their own accomplishments but others are defined as leaders and defined by the accomplishments of their followers.  This is the meaning of Rashi (based upon Berachot 32a) in Ke Sesa (32:7) לך רד – מגדולתך, לא נתתי לך גדולה אלא בשבילם.
Based upon this we can explain the Gemorah in Berachot (28b) that רבי יוחנן בן זכאי was unsure if he was going to heaven or hell.  Everyone asks how could the great רבי יוחנן בן זכאי be unsure which way he was going to take?  Possibly רבי יוחנן בן זכאי of course knew he was a great tzaddik however what he wasn't sure about was where the nation who's leadership he assumed was holding.  Living through the dark and turbulent times of the churban haBais it wasn't clear if the nation was heading on a path of destruction or rebuilding.  This would be the judgement of רבי יוחנן בן זכאי, not of his accomplishments, rather if his leadership was successful.

Women Doing Milah

The Gemorah Avodah Zarah (27a) brings a machlokes why a gentile can't do the act of milah for a Jew: איתמר מנין למילה בעובד כוכבים שהיא פסולה דרו בר פפא משמיה דרב אמר ואתה את בריתי תשמור ורבי יוחנן המול ימול.  The Gemorah goes on to say the differeence between the reasons would be if a woman gave do milah, אלא איכא בינייהו אשה למ"ד ואתה את בריתי תשמור ליכא דאשה לאו בת מילה היא ולמ"ד המול ימול איכא דאשה כמאן דמהילא דמיא.  The Gemorah asks that Tzipporah performed milah, so we see a woman can do the milah?  The Gemorah answers that the possuk means that she told someone else to do it or she started the job and Moshe finished.  ומי איכא למאן דאמר אשה לא והכתיב (שמות ד, כה) ותקח צפורה צר קרי ביה ותקח והכתיב ותכרות קרי ביה ותכרת דאמרה לאיניש אחרינא ועבד ואיבעית אימא אתיא איהי ואתחלה ואתא משה ואגמרה.
The idea of כמאן דמהילא דמיא, Rav Yosef Engel explains is that milah is representative of the kedusha that Klal Yisroel has; hence a woman has that kedusha so she is considered מהול.  He understands that is the intent of the Rif at the end of ר"א דמילה that explains a woman is included in המול ימול since she is part of Klal Yisroel.
The Rambam Milah (2:1) says הכל כשרין למול ואפילו ערל ועבד ואשה וקטן מלין במקום שאין שם איש.  It's clear that he rules a woman can do the milah but לכתחילה it should be performed by a man.  Why, if the woman can do the milah, why is she worse off than the man?  Rav Sternbruch (Hilchot HaGra #193) says 

in the name of Rav Baruch Ber that a woman is considered to be נימול, nonetheless, she is lacking a מעשה מילה.  Since a man has that aspect of milah as well, it is preferable for a man to do the mitzvah.

You Know Inside

Believing Is Seeing

The verse in Shemos (4:31) says וַיַּֽאֲמֵ֖ן הָעָ֑ם וַיִּשְׁמְע֡וּ.  The Sfas Emes asks the order seems backward for in order to believe, one must first hear what’s said.  He explains that Klal Yisroel always have belief in whatever Hashem says even before they hear the message.  The most obvious example of this is נעשה ונשמע.  The midrash (cited in Baal Haturim,) says when Moshe married Tzziporah, Yitro stipulated the first son that Moshe has should serve avodah zarah.  Besides the question of how can Moshe agree to his son serving avodah zarah (see Sichos Mussar,) the other question arises is why would Yitro, who recognized Hashem, make such a stipulation? The Chidushai Harim explains that Yitro wanted that his grandson should come to recognize Hashem in the manner which he did, to try out all the types of religion and realize the truth on his own accord.  However, the Rim said that for us this isn’t the path, for we have natural emunah implanted within us.  We don’t need to discover Hashem, inside we know Hashem already, we just need to remove that which blocks our natural emunah. 

This natural emunah implanted within us is an inheritance from the avos. Rashi tells us at the beginning of the parsha that the avos didn’t question when they didn’t see the promises made to them by God being fulfilled?  Why didn’t they question Hashem? The level of emunah of the avos wasn’t just that they trusted that what Hashem said will happen, rather they viewed it as if it already happened.  For the avos, believing is seeing.  Rashi in parshas Noach says Noach was mekatnay emunah, maamen ve’ano maamen.  What does it mean that Noach believed, but didn’t believe? It was the level of emunah of the avos, to view the words of Hashem as it happened that Noach was lacking. Even though he believed that a flood would come, he couldn’t picture it happening (Birchas Peretz.)

This is the explanation of the Or Hachaim in Vayechi (49:15) about Yissocher, וירא מנוחה  refers to olam habah. How could Yissocher see Olam Habah if it wasn’t in front of him?  Yissocher had such a clarity of the reality; it was as if he saw it.  This was the level of emunah that the women in Egypt had, and therefore they stored away instruments to sing when they got out of Egypt (See Rashi 15:20).  They saw the prophecy of redemption as a reality, not an abstract idea.   

This idea is expressed in halacha as well. The Gemorah in Babba Bathra (119a) says that Eretz Yisroel was considered owned by Klal Yisroel even before they conquered the land because it’s promised to us from Hashem.  The words and promises of Hashem create the reality, at that time, even if it didn’t actually happen yet (see also Raavad in Laws of Zechia 3:8).    

Rashi says (6:12) Moshe made a kol vachomer: if Bnei Yisroel won’t listen to me for sure Pharaoh won’t.  The reason that Bnei Yisroel didn’t listen was because they were overworked and didn’t have the energy to listen to his words, as the verse says explicitly.  How can Moshe make a kal vachomer that Pharaoh, who isn’t overworked won’t listen?  The Baalai Mussar explain that Klal Yisroel naturally believes Hashem (and his prophets.)  If Klal Yisroel, the natural beleivers, don't believe, they don't take to heart what Moshe is saying, for sure Pharaoh won't listen (See Or Yahel, Lev Eliyahu.)  Rav Yeruchem in Daas Chachma U'Mussar volume 3 #1 points out based upon the Sforno that a lack of internalizing the message, for whatever reason, will cause a lack of belief in the message .

Towards the end of the parsha there is a description of how the Egyptians who feared the word of Hashem brought their animals inside before the hail came.  However, the animals of those who didn’t fear the word of Hashem were killed.  How can this be this called fearing God if they already had been stricken six times?  What fool would have left his animals outside?  The yiras shamaim described here isn’t a level of fear of heaven, rather it’s a description of the ability to accept the word of Hashem. It wasn’t a question of lack of understanding in the minds of the Egyptians, but rather a lack of a desire to believe.  The first step in emunah is to accept that what Hashem says will happen. That was the difference between the Egyptians who left their animals outside versus those that brought them inside.  The verse doesn’t say those who left their animals outside were lacking a fear of heaven, but they didn’t pay attention to what was said.  It was a lack of simas lev-the desire to accept the message (Birchos Peretz and Alter of Novardok). 

This idea can also be used to explain why the brothers didn’t recognize Yosef until he revealed himself.  Why didn’t they figure it out if there were so many hints?  It wasn’t that the brothers couldn’t understand the hints, but rather that they didn’t want to accept the reality.  The brothers refused to concede that indeed the viceroy was Yosef for then they would have to admit that they were wrong. It wasn’t a lack of knowledge, but rather a lack of a desire to accept the truth that withheld the brothers from recognizing Yosef (Degel Hamussar.)

The Great Debate

See this article of Rabbi Y.Y. Jacobson here.  It is a shame that the article parvesizes (yes, I made up a word) the issue.  But to his credit the last footnote does point you to the edition involving the machlokes.  Thanks to Chabad.org the Sichos of the Frierdiker Rebbe are translated from the original Yiddush into English and available online for free, so I have just copied the whole thing here.  It is sicha 3 from Parshas Shemos 5704 (1942.)

Enjoy!! 

When the Alter Rebbe was in Mezritch, he heard not only the teachings that the Maggid delivered in public or shared with his disciples, the members of the Holy Brotherhood, but also teachings that the Maggid transmitted to him personally at certain fixed times. Most of those were teachings that he had heard from the Baal Shem Tov.

The erudite chassid, R. Yitzchak Aizik of Vitebsk, gave my grandfather a detailed description of the major disputation that took place in Minsk in 5543 (1783), between the Alter Rebbe and the towering Talmudic scholars of Vilna, Shklov, Brisk, Minsk and Slutzk. The two most fundamental objections of his opponents to the approach of the Baal Shem Tov and his disciples are outlined here.

Firstly: The approach of the Baal Shem Tov obligates even unlettered folk to give careful attention to their davenen and to their reading of Tehillim, even though they do not know what the words mean. Hence, the Alter Rebbe’s opponents argued with passion, this attitude no doubt elevates the self-esteem of those ignoramuses and cheapens the respect that is due to Torah scholars – and everyone knows that dire punishments are brought down to the world only because of ignoramuses.

Secondly: The Baal Shem Tov’s school of thought teaches that even a gaon and a tzaddik must do teshuvah. Surely, they protested, this attitude undermines the honor of the Torah and of its prominent scholars. After all, they argued, both the Written Torah and the Oral Torah teach throughout that Torah sages are the foundation of the world. They increase peace in the world, and they are its true builders – whereas the Baal Shem Tov’s teachings would have them regarded as the kind of people who have to do teshuvah!

R. Yitzchak Aizik of Vitebsk related further that the disputation in Minsk was conducted in two sessions. The first was an examination in lomdus, Talmudic scholarship, because the misnagdim stipulated that they would not conduct any disputation with chassidim until they were assured that their leader was a lamdan, an outstanding scholar. Only thereafter would they state their complaints, in the second session. The Alter Rebbe agreed to be examined by the geonim – provided only that the chassidim would have the reciprocal right, and to this the misnagdim agreed.

(By the way an additional source gives a detailed account of the discussions of the first session. There, the Alter Rebbe provided answers to all the questions he was asked, whereas a significant number of his questions remained unanswered.)

Both in his answers and in his questions, the Alter Rebbe’s words were clear, concise and distinct. This style of speech, notwithstanding the profundity of the subjects being analyzed, made a favorable impression on all his listeners, from the most outstanding scholars to the ordinary Gemara-learners.

Three of the most esteemed scholars then asked the Alter Rebbe to answer the unanswered questions that he had posed. Those three scholars were: the hoary rosh yeshivah, R. Aharon Yaakov of Slutzk; R. Zemele Stutzker; and the eldest rosh yeshivahin Yeshivas HaRaavad, the renowned R. Menachem Shlomo. The Alter Rebbe obliged, leaving just two problematic queries unresolved.

As to the two fundamental objections to the teachings of the Baal Shem Tov that were mentioned above, the Alter Rebbe answered:

“The underlying principle of the approach of the Baal Shem Tov and of the teachings of the Rebbe, the Maggid of Mezritch – the principle that illumines the paths of the Maggid’s disciples in their avodah – is based on the first Divine revelation to Moshe Rabbeinu. The following teaching on that subject was relayed to me by the Rebbe, the Maggid of Mezritch, who had heard it from the Baal Shem Tov.”

Concerning the revelation to Moshe Rabbeinu it is written: “An angel of G‑d appeared to him in a blazing fire from within a bush. He looked, and saw that the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not being consumed. Moshe said: ‘Let me now turn aside and look at this remarkable sight.’ “Now, the first verb in the quotation (וַיֵּרָא) means “appeared” or, more literally, “was seen,” yet it is translated in the Aramaic Targum as וְאִתְגְּלִי, which means “was revealed.” Revelation implies that something is made accessible to every individual according to his level, including even people of modest spiritual attainment. That explains likewise why in the verse that says that “G‑d descended upon Mount Sinai,” the Targumuses the same verb (וְאִתְגְּלִי), which means “was revealed,” whereas the expected translation of “descended” would be וּנְחַת, as in the verse that tells us that “Yehudah descended.” So, too, the Targum uses a verb of the same root (וְיֵחוֹת) in the verse that says that “the border [of the Holy Land] shall go down” [as far as a certain place]. In contrast, in a verse [preceding the destruction of Sodom], the phrase אֵרֲדָה נָּא, literally meaning “I will now go down,” is translated in the Targum as אִתְגְּלִי כְעַן, “I will now reveal Myself,” using the same verb as appears with regard to the Giving of the Torah – the verb that speaks of revelation. Revelation, as we have seen, implies that that which is being shown can be perceived even by those of very lowly spiritual stature. This was the case at the Giving of the Torah, which was received by everyone, from the stature of Moshe Rabbeinu, down to the lowliest of the Jewish people.

That is why, when relating that the angel of G‑d appeared to Moshe Rabbeinu from within the burning bush, the Aramaic Targum uses the word meaning revelation.

That revelation took place “in a blazing fire.” Rashi comments: “in a flame of fire, in the heart of the fire.” (In the Holy Tongue, the spelling of the latter phrase, belabas esh (בְּלַבַּת אֵשׁ) recalls the word lev (לֵב), meaning “heart.”) Where does G‑d’s emissary reveal himself? – In the heart of the fire. This signifies a man’s innermost kavanah [in his service of G‑d], the earnest and artless exuberance that is alluded to [in the verse in Shir HaShirim that says], “Its coals are coals of fire, an intense blaze.”

And where is the heart of the fire to be found? – In a [lowly] bush. Rashi notes: “And not in some other tree, in the spirit of G‑d’s assurance, ‘I am with him in distress.’ ” The word for “distress” (צָרָה) echoes the word צָר (“narrow”), and hence alludes to This World. In the higher, spiritual worlds, the Divine light is diffused far and wide. This World, by contrast, is described as narrow, because here the Divine light is restricted to the finite parameters of the laws of nature. And [underlying this restriction,] the Divine intent is that by means of avodah in studying Torah and performing mitzvos, this distress (צָרָה) should be transformed into a source of light (צֹהַר) that illuminates the world with the light of Torah and mitzvos.

Man is likened to “a tree of the field.” There are fruit-bearing trees which, as R. Yochanan teaches, represent talmidei chachamim, the Torah scholars, and there is the sneh, the [barren] bush. That is where the blazing fire is to be found. The talmidei chachamim are fiery because the Torah is likened to fire. However, of their fire it cannot be said that it is “not consumed,” because they quiet their fiery fervor by producing innovative Torah teachings. This is not the case with the unlettered folk represented by the sneh, because the blazing fire is their heart. True, they do not know the meaning of the words they are reading. Nevertheless, because their earnest, unsophisticated davenen and Tehillim spring from simple faith, the blazing fire within them is not consumed. It is never quieted, and they constantly experience an intense yearning for G‑dliness and the Torah and the mitzvos.

[Having beheld the burning bush,] Moshe said: “Let me now turn aside [and look at this remarkable sight].” Rashi comments: “I will turn aside from here and come closer to there.” Moshe Rabbeinu now comprehended the Heavenly sight: he had been shown how such ordinary folk possess a lofty quality in which they are superior to the Torah scholars. Now that he had been shown that the blazing fire is to be found only in the humble bush, he reached the rung of teshuvah. However, Moshe Rabbeinu was a consummate tzaddik, and for a person at this level, teshuvah is utterly different from ordinary teshuvah. In fact the Torah relates that when he was born, “[his mother] saw him, that he was good,” for “the entire house was suffused with light.” For him, teshuvah meant that he would now “turn aside from here and come closer to there.” This means that one should never be satisfied with his current spiritual rung. Even a tzaddik like Moshe Rabbeinu must engage in this avodah – to “turn aside from here and come closer to there.” This is the dynamic of teshuvah.

In that teaching, the [Alter] Rebbe said, the Baal Shem Tov spells out his approach to a Jew’s service of the Creator. The blazing heart of fire is to be found among the artless, commonplace Jews. Moreover, the fire of the Torah that burns within talmidei chachamimin general and within geonim in particular is quieted by the pleasure they experience at having produced chiddushei Torah, whereas the burning bush within the ordinary, unlettered Jews is never consumed. Indeed, their heartfelt davenen and their simple reading of Tehillim actually intensify the blazing fire within them, making them yearn even more ardently for G‑dliness. The Baal Shem Tov also states clearly that the avodah of tzaddikim demands constant ascent. Their [avodah] today should serve them to strive to attain a higher level in the service of the Creator than yesterday’s level, and tomorrow’s level should be higher than today’s – all of which adds up to teshuvah. Moreover, [the Alter Rebbe added,] the above approach of the Baal Shem Tov is learned from the first Divine revelation to Moshe Rabbeinu, whom G‑d chose to be “the first redeemer and the ultimate redeemer.”

The Divine revelation to Moshe Rabbeinu was different from the revelation to No’ach, and even to the revelation to Avraham Avinu.

The revelation to No’ach was beamed specifically to No’ach and resulted from G‑d’s love towards him as an individual. Whether G‑d’s love and closeness towards No’ach sprang only from the favor that he found in the eyes of G‑d, (as it is written, “And No’ach found favor…,”) or whether it came as a response to his righteousness, (as it is written, “For I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation,”) G‑d revealed Himself to him as an individual.

The revelation to Avraham Avinu was utterly different. It included specific directives on the manner of his Divine service and entailed serious tests. True, this revelation was far loftier than the revelation to No’ach. Nevertheless, after all, the love and closeness shown to Avraham Avinu was addressed to him mainly as an individual, and with the future in mind. Thus it is written, “For I have known him, so that he should command his children and his household after him to observe the path of G‑d and practice righteousness and justice.” Rashi explains that here, the word yedaativ (here translated “I have known him”) really means “I have loved him” – because he will teach and command his children and his household to observe and to follow the ways of G‑d.

The Divine revelation to Avraham Avinu was thus addressed to him mainly as an individual, though at a higher level than the revelation to No’ach, because Avraham Avinu was superior to him as a servant of G‑d. In addition, of Avraham Avinu it is written, “For I have known him, so that he should command…” By virtue of that, the revelation to him was loftier, and he is called “the man whom the King loves.”

In contrast, the revelation to Moshe Rabbeinu was not only a revelation to an individual because he was a servant of G‑d. Rather, that Divine revelation was comprehensive, and was granted only to an individual whom G‑d had chosen to be a leader and redeemer of the Jewish people. What constituted this revelation? He was shown that a leader of the Jewish people who is destined to be the emissary for their redemption must discover the blazing fire in a mere bush, in an ordinary Jew. His entire spiritual life-taskmust be to reveal that blazing fire and to make it surface – and that can be accomplished only by the above-mentioned avodah which is implied by the words, “I will turn aside from here and come closer to there.”

R. Yitzchak Aizik of Vitebsk added that the [Alter] Rebbe repeated the above teaching of the Baal Shem Tov with passion, and concluded by stating its practical implication, namely: The greater scholar a man is, the more is he required to toil in this avodah. If he does not do so, he is (Heaven forfend!) a rebel against the supernal King; as it is taught, “Those who sin against Me” means that they are sinning (as it were) “against the King’s person.” Such an individual really needs to do teshuvah from the depths of his heart, in order to uproot from within himself the Amalek that freezes the ardor of his progress along the path of G‑d and along the paths of His service.

Those few words of the Alter Rebbe were delivered with such heartfelt ardor that their awe and love of Heaven struck a deep chord in the hearts of all his listeners. The aged R. Aharon Yaakov was the first of the assembled geonim to approach him and wish him, “May you be blessed!” And indeed, R. Yitzchak Aizik of Vitebsk reported that at that time, some four hundred reputed Talmudic scholars, both old and young, from Minsk, Vilna, Brisk, Shklov and Slutzk, joined the chassidic community.

This, then, is the narrative that I wanted to convey to you. I abbreviated it somewhat and retained only its inner content, in which the approach of the Baal Shem Tov is lit up by the beacon of Chabad Chassidus. That narrative is a seminal statement on the teachings of Chassidus and on the paths in avodah that characterize chassidim. By publicizing this teaching and by explaining its role in the teachings of the Baal Shem Tov, the [Alter] Rebbe opened up for chassidim entire chambers of Divine service.

Thorny Soul

There are many interpretations given for the message of the burning bush.  I wish to share the interpretation of the Degel Machene Efraim with elucidation based upon lectures of Rabbi Y.Y. Jacobson.
At times people reach states of great spiritual heights, they are inspired to learn and daven with tremendous passion.   Their souls have truly been lit with a tremendous fire, they feel a tremendous yearning to cleave to God.  This is prevalent very much in bochurim that have maintained great spiritual heights throughout a zman.   Especially those that may have been attracted to the holy books and learnt words about great spiritual heights and levels.  It would lead one to think that his inside has been cleansed by the great fire, he will now be free from all the inner pressures of the yetzer harah.   However, inside the fire they still feel the prickly thorns of the yetzer harah.  The feelings of קנאה, תואה וכבוד are still intact in his soul.  And the person is left confused.  What happened, is the fire not as strong as he thought, why is he not spiritually fee from the bondage's of the yetzer harah.  The answer is that most people will never reach this level of spiritual freedom, it is out of reach.  What Hashem wants from is is to remain with the thorns inside the fire!  Hashem wants to have the problems, the issues of maintaining kedusha and a passion for avodas Hashem and still serve Him.  In short this is the nekuda merchazis of the Sefer Tanya.  The avodah of the benoni is that he doesn't reach a plateau where he can let down his guard, where he has slain the enemy.  It is a lifelong struggle! Yes, there are a few tzaddikim that become freed of their yetzer harah, the fire has put out the thorns, but they are few and far between. It is everyone's dream to have a rosy, relaxed life.  This desire is not only in regard to one's מצב הגשמי, but in regard to ruchnious as well.  We wish to be free of the קנאה, תואה וכבוד that bog us down.  However, that may not be what Hashem desires.
How can we be ready for geulah if we have so many internal issues, our insides aren't pure?  Hashem tells Moshe that isn't a problem.  Yes, we have a strong, prickly yetzer harah but our job is just to light the fire.

Jewish Suffering

There is a very enigmatic conversation that takes place in the first “meeting” between Hashem and Moshe.  Moshe says he can’t go back to Klal Yisroel because they will ask him what is the name of God? Hashem responds אהיה אשר אהיה and His name is אהיה.  Then Hashem adds that Moshe should say that the God of the forefathers spoke to him, זה שמי לעולם וזה זכרי לדר דר.  Why is there a need to know God’s name, and Klal Yisroel already knows who Hashem is?  Furthermore, what is the response?  And why does Hashem first say one thing and then another?  The whole episode is very difficult, and the commentaries offer different interpretations. 

I will share an interpretation based upon Rashi and the elucidation of his words in Likutay Sichos volume 26 sicha 3.   

Moshe saw firsthand the horrific suffering Klal Yisroel was going through in Egypt.  He was greatly troubled if indeed we are the chosen nation, if God loves us so much why is he making us endure such suffering?  If God loves us so much how can he have let millions of Jews die in pogroms, a holocaust, terrorist bombings etc.  It is the question that haunted so many Jews after the Holocaust.  It is a question asked from great feelings of pain.  There is no answer that can be given to a question asked from such deep feelings of pain.  And indeed, Hashem doesn’t answer the question.  He says I feel you’re pain, I too have tremendous pain over the great tragedies that befall our people.  אהיה אשר אהיה, I to suffer you're pain.  Full stop, the answer to such questions is that there is no answer that will justify you’re pain.  Only after this message seeps in, does Hashem continue.

If that is the case, the question looms even larger, if Hashem Himself is in pain why does the suffering persist?  Hashem says it is out of mercy, I am (שם הו') the God of your forefathers, you are indeed my children.  It is out of mercy that the suffering must occur.  However, there isn’t an explanation that will satisfy you.  The answer is hidden, זה שמי לעלם (חסר), it for now is a mystery, זה זכרי לדר דר, in the end of time the answer will be clarified.  

We can't explain human, especially Jewish suffering, but we must have emunah that in the totality of the greater picture it makes sense.

Learning Rashi

I saw in a blog this week a great question on Rashi.  For those who don't click on the link or can't read Hebrew, I will repeat the question in short.  Rashi explains the possuk (15:20)  calls Miriam "the prophet, the sister of Aharon" and not the sister of Moshe for she received prophecy even before Moshe was born that he would save Klal Yisroel.  Rashi cites his source is from Tractate Sotah.  The question is why is Rashi telling us his source (which isn't his common practice,) and why cite Sotah, when the same teaching appears in Tractate Megillah, which is first?  This question is asked among a slew of others in Likutay Sichos volume 16 Beshalach sicha 2 and the explanation (in regard to this question) given is that one might be bothered how could Miriam have received prophesy at such a young, immature age?  That's why Rashi points us to Sotah for in the Gemorah a couple of lines before explains that Miriam is called (2:8) a עלמה, meaning a girl that's mature because she ran with the quickness of a עלמה.  We see from there that Miriam was much further matured than her age and therefore it is possible that she received prophesy. 
 As an aside, many synagogues and battei middrash that carry a far share of the Chassidic literature such as Kedushas Levi, R' Tzaddok, Degel, Bear Mayim Chayim, Sfas Emes, Teferes Shlomo etc. even books of avodah not on the parsha like Likutay Moharan, Tanya etc. don't have a set of Likutay Sichos.  And while the other books are Chassidic teachings, Likutay Sichos is mostly analytical analysis of Rashi.  It is quite obvious that its not hisnagdus l'chassidus that bars Likutay Sichos from entering the door, it is a hatred of Chabad and the Rebbe and his followers specifically.  I am not here to condemn such hate, people are free to hate on whatever they want, but it is quite a shame that a work which is such a treasure chest of serious learning and an unparalleled commentary on Rashi will not be opened by so many people all because of hatred for the author.  A friend of mine once said, if only there was a different name on the title page, the olam hayeshivos would love the work.  Alas, it is a pity.