| א. בפירוש "הודיעני נא דרכיך" - שאלות ברש"י |
| A. The Understanding of "Please inform me of Your ways" - Questions in Rashi |
"See, Thou sayest unto me: Bring up this people"
"Now therefore, I pray Thee, if I have found grace in Thy sight, show me now Thy ways, that I may know Thee, to the end that I may find grace in Thy sight; and consider that this nation is Thy people."
ועתה וגו׳ NOW THEREFORE etc. — If it is true that I have found favour in Thy eyes.
הודיעני נא את דרכך LET ME KNOW THY WAY — let me know what is the reward which Thou givest to those who find favour in Thine eyes.
וראה כי עמך הגוי הזה AND CONSIDER THAT THIS NATION IS THY PEOPLE so that You should not say, as You have said, (Exodus 32:10) “And I will make thee a great nation”, whilst these (the whole people) You will abandon! Consider that they are Your nation from of old, and if You reject them, surely I cannot rely upon it that those who are born of me will endure — rather let me know through this people the reward that is to be paid me (by sparing them). Our Rabbis have given a Midrashic explanation of this in Treatise Berakhot but I come (my purpose is) to explain the verses in a manner fitting to them and in their context.
רש"י רומז בזה לדברי הגמרא ברכות ז'
Rashi is hinting here to the words in Berakhot 7a:
ואמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי יוסי שלשה דברים בקש משה מלפני הקדוש ברוך הוא ונתן לו בקש שתשרה שכינה על ישראל ונתן לו שנאמר הלוא בלכתך עמנו בקש שלא תשרה שכינה על אומות העולם ונתן לו שנאמר ונפלינו אני ועמך בקש להודיעו דרכיו של הקדוש ברוך הוא ונתן לו שנאמר הודיעני נא את דרכיך אמר לפניו רבונו של עולם מפני מה יש צדיק וטוב לו ויש צדיק ורע לו יש רשע וטוב לו ויש רשע ורע לו:
And Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yosei regarding Moses’ request that the Divine Presence rest upon Israel as it once had: Moses requested three things from the Holy One, Blessed be He, at that time, all of which were granted him. He requested that the Divine Presence rest upon Israel and not leave, and He granted it to him, as it is stated: “For how can it be known that I have found grace in Your sight, I and Your people? Is it not in that You go with us, so that we are distinguished, I and Your people, from all the people that are on the face of the earth?” (Exodus 33:16). The request: Is it not in that You go with us, refers to the resting of the Divine Presence upon Israel. Moses requested that the Divine Presence not rest upon the nations of the world, and He granted it to him, as it is stated: “So that we are distinguished, I and Your people, from all the people on the face of the earth” (Exodus 33:16). Lastly, Moses requested that the ways in which God conducts the world be revealed to him, and He granted it to him, as it is stated: “Show me Your ways and I will know You” (Exodus 33:13). Moses said before God: Master of the Universe. Why is it that the righteous prosper, the righteous suffer, the wicked prosper, the wicked suffer?
1. Which of the two explanations (R. Yochanan's or Rashi's) fits better with the understanding of the word, "Your ways?"
2. Why did Rashi reject the words of the Sages, may their memory be blessed, that they said about our verse, and explain Moses' question in a totally different way?
ראוי לדקדק לשון זאת השאלה (=מפני מה יש צדיק...) שהיא יותר עמוקה וחזקה משאלת החכמים והנביאים אשר שאלו על צדיק ורע לו רשע וטוב לו.
3. R. Yaakov ben Shlomo Ibn Chaviv (author of Ein Yaakov) comments in his commentary, Chiddushei HaKotev, about the explanation given in the Talmud about Moshe's request, "Please let me know your ways": It is worth noting the exact language of the question (For what reason is there a righteous person...), as it is deeper and stronger than the question of the Sages and the prophets that (simply) asked about when bad happens to the righteous and when good happens to the wicked.
הסבר במה היא "יותר עמוקה וחזקה"?
Explain how it is deeper and stronger?
| ב. בטעם חזרת "אם אין פניך" |
| About the Reason for the Repetition of "If Your presence" |
"And He said: ‘My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest.’"
"And he said unto Him: 'If Thy presence go not with me, carry us not up hence.'"
אברבנאל, מקשה:
במה שחזר משה לומר "אם אין פניך הולכים אל תעלנו מזה"; כי אם כבר הודה לו יתברך ואמר (י"ד) "פני ילכו והניחותי לך", למה ישיבהו משה: "אם אין פניך הולכים" והשתדל לעשות על זה טענות (ט"ז) "ובמה יודע איפא כי מצאתי חן בעיניך אני ועמך, הלא בלכתך עמנו", שהם כולם דברים שכפי הנראה אין בהם צורך לענין מה ששאל??
Abarbanel raises the difficulty: About that which Moses repeated, "If Your presence does not go, do not take us up from here," after [God], may He be blessed, had already conceded to him and said (in verse 14), "My presence shall go with you, and I will give you rest" - why did Moses answer Him and say, "If Your presence does not go," and make efforts to find arguments about this (in verse 16), "For how shall it be known that I and Your people have gained favor in Your eyes, unless You go with us," which are all words that are apparently unnecessary for the matter about which he asked??
... As even though Moses did not need to say this, since He already promised that He, Himself, would go with them; he nonetheless wanted to make known Israel's love of His going with them. So he said that if, God forbid, He had not agreed to go with them, they would not have gone up from there until they died - them, their wives, their children, their infants and all that they had. And the wonder is about Ramban, who argued and said, "God forbid that Moses should say, 'If Your presence does not go,' once He promised, 'My presence will go!'
אע"ג שכבר הבטיחו ה' (י"ד) מכל מקום לא אמר לו שמיד ילך עמהם, והיה אפשר לשמוע (מדבריו) שלא ילך עמהם אלא לאחר זמן כשיתכפר עונם וכשיהיו סמוך לגבול ארץ ישראל, אז דוקא ילך עמהם להורישם את הארץ. משום הכא חזר משה ואמר: בזו אני חפץ: ש"אם אין פניך הולכים אל תעלנו מזה" – כלומר: מאד אני חפץ שתלך עמנו. ובזה מתורצת קושית הרמב"ן...
R. David Pardo, Maskil LeDavid: Even though God already promised him (verse 14), nevertheless He did not tell him that He would go with them immediately. So it was possible to understand (from His words) that He would only go with them later after their sin had been atoned and when they were close to the border of the Land of Israel. He would go with them specifically then to have them inherit the land. For this reason, Moses repeated and said, "This is what I want, that 'if Your presence does not go, do not bring us up from here'" - meaning to say, I very much want You to go with us. And with this, Ramban's difficulty is resolved...
הרמב"ן כתב על זה: "חלילה שיאמר: 'אם אין פניך הולכים' אחר שהבטיחו 'פני ילכו'". ונראה לי לפרש, דהשם יתברך אמר 'והניחותי לך', דמשמע שאין עושה כן אלא בשביל נחת רוח למשה, לא בשביל ישראל, ונפקא מינה מזה, כשימות משה יחזור לשליחות מלאך. על זה אמר משה: "אמת שבזו אני חפץ, אבל לא מטעמך אלא "אם אין פניך הולכים אל תעלנו מזה" דהיינו: כלל ישראל תלויים בזה. ועוד נראה דרך אחר קרוב יותר לפשוטו, דבמאמרו יתברך משמע, שאין מניעת המלאך דבר הכרחי לקיום ישראל אלא נחת רוח בלבד כמשמעות לשון "והניחותי" שאינו אלא נחת רוח. על זה השיב משה: "רבונו של עולם, לא נחת רוח בלבד יש בזה אלא קיום המון ישראל, והוא הכרחי, על כן אמר: אני חפץ בזה מצד ההכרח, כי על ידי מלאך אל תעלנו מזה כלל, בשום אופן.
R. David HaLevi (author of Taz), Divrei David: Ramban wrote about this, "God forbid that [Moses] should say, "If Your presence does not go," once He promised, "My presence will go!"
And it appears to me that the explanation is that God, may He be blessed, said, "and I will give you rest" - which implies that he was only doing this for the emotional satisfaction of Moses, and not for Israel. The practical difference from this is that when Moses would die, He would go back to [using] the agency of an angel. About this Moses said, "It is true that this is what I want, but not because of Your reason; but rather, 'if Your presence does not go, do not bring us up from here" - meaning, all of Israel is dependent upon this.
And there is another way that appears correct that is closer to its simple meaning: That God's statement, may He be blessed, implies that the removal of the angel is not essential to the existence of Israel, but rather just [a source of] emotional satisfaction - as per the implication of the wording, "and I will give you rest," which is only [a matter of] emotional satisfaction. To this, Moses answered, "Master of the world, this is not just a matter of emotional satisfaction, but a matter of the existence of the masses of Israel; and it is essential - as You will not bring us up out of here at all with an angel in any way."
תיקן רש"י ז"ל את לשון הכתוב, שאין ענין המאמר הזה כמסתפק בהבטחתו יתברך, רק ענינו "בזו אני חפץ".
Yitzchak Horowitz, Beer Yitzchak:
Rashi, may his memory be blessed, refined the wording of the verse. For the content of this statement is not like that of one who is doubting His promise, may He be blessed. Rather its content is [to say], "This is what I want."
1. What is the difficult in our verse?
2. Why are the words of Rashi difficult, to the the point that the commentators on Rashi disagree about their meaning?
3. There are five different explanation to the words of Rashi above. In what way are the explanations of Maskil LeDavid and Divrei David different than the explanations of R. E. Mizrachi and the author of Beer Yitzchak?
4. Why did the author of the Divrei David prefer his second explanation to his first one (as it "is closer to its simple meaning") - in what way does it appear to him to be closer to the simple meaning of Rashi's words?
| ג. פירוש המילה "פני" |
| C. Understanding of the Word, Panai (literally, My Face) |
"And He said: ‘My presence (Panai) shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest.’"
"And he said unto Him: 'If Thy presence (Panecha) go not with me, carry us not up hence.'"
The Gaon (R. Saadia Gaon) said, "Panai is My anger; as in (I Samuel 1:18), 'and she no longer had paneah.'" But behold, what shall he do with the words, "If Panecha does not go with me?" And according to my opinion, the understanding of Panai is Me, Myself, as in (II Samuel 17:11), "and panecha go into battle."
ראב"ע, (בפירושו הקצר):
וטעם "פני ילכו" – כבודי ילך עמך, "והניחותי לך" – ולא להם. והשיב משה "אם אין פניך הולכים" – עם ישראל, "אל תעלנו" בלשון רבים, והפסוק הבא לאחריו לעד : "אני ועמך";
R. Ibn Ezra (in his short commentary):
And the explanation of "Panai shall go," is that My glory shall go with you; "and I will give you rest," but not to them. And Moses answered, "If Panecha does not go" with Israel, "do not bring us up" - in the plural. And the verse that comes after it is the testimony - "me and Your people."
A. What is the difference between the explanation of R. Saadia Gaon and the explanation of R. Ibn Ezra about the understanding of the word, Panai?
B. What is R. Ibn Ezra's proof against the understanding of R. Saadia Gaon, that he brings form verse 15, "If Panecha does not go?"
ד"ה וטעם פני ילכו: על דעת כל המפרשים אני בעצמי אלך, והביאו לו דומה (שמואל ב' י"ז) "ופניך הולכים בקרב"; והטעם "אם אין פניך הולכים" על דעת רש"י: בזה אני חפץ, כי ע"י מלאך אל תעלנו מזה. וחלילה, שיאמר משה "אם אין פניך הולכים" אחרי שהבטיחו ה': "פני ילכו", ור' אברהם פירש, כי ה' אמר למשה: "אני בעצמי אלך והניחותי לך לבדך, כי עמך לבדך אלך" ומשה השיב: "אם אין פניך הולכים עם הגוי כולו – אל תעלנו מזה". ולכך אמר "תעלנו" בלשון רבים. גם זה איננו מתוקן, כי משה אמר תחילה (פסוק י"ב) "לא הודעתני את אשר תשלח עמי" בלשון יחיד. והנה גם בעת הרצון קודם החטא אמר (שמות כ"ג כ') "הנה אנוכי שולח מלאך לפניך לשמרך בדרך ולהביאך..." ואם ידבר עם ישראל – גם זה בעבורם יאמר כן. אבל הפרשה הזאת אי אפשר להולמה למי שלא שמע בסתרי תורה...
S.v. And the explanation of "Panai shall go": According to the opinion of all the commentators, [it means] Me, Myself. And they found a [usage] similar to it in (II Samuel 17:11), "and panecha go into battle." And the explanation of "If Your presence does not go," according to Rashi, is: This is what I want. For if it would be with an angel, do not bring us up from here. And God forbid that Moses should say, "If your presence does not go," once He promised, "My presence will go!" And (R. Ibn Ezra) explained that God said to Moses, "'I, Myself, shall go with you, and I will give you rest,' as I shall only go with you." And Moses answered, "If Panecha does not go with the whole nation, 'do not bring us up.'" And that is why he said, "Bring us up," in the plural. [But] this is also not precise, as Moses said at first (in verse 12), "You have not made known to me whom You will send with me" - in the singular. And behold, even at at time of goodwill, before the sin, [God] said (Exodus 23:20), "I am sending an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you" (you, being singular there). And if He was speaking with Israel (as opposed to Moses), this too, [which] is for their sake, would be said like this. Rather, this section is impossible to align for one who has not heard the secrets of the Torah...
A. What are his arguments against R. Ibn Ezra?
B. What did he want to prove with the help of Exodus 23:20?
C. Explain the underlined words.
ד. מדוע לדעתו אי אפשר להבין פרשה זו שלא בדרך חכמת הקבלה?
D. Why, according to his opinion, is it impossible to understand this section without the approach of Kabbalistic wisdom?