The central takeaways
Moische is of unique stature; he
remained exactly the same even after the King of the World made him a king.
HaSchem is an independent entity and
speaks to Moische and Yisroel from outside, and in normal daily consciousness.
HE is therefore not an "inner phenomenon" nor an "ecstatically
experienced subtle entity," nor anything of that sort.
Humans have no ability to influence, manipulate, or connect with HaSchem, G0d,
out of their own initiative unless G0d wills and causes it. HE connects with
humans and humanity out of HIS free will, and this from outside the human
physical and mental sphere.
ויקרא א':א'
(א) {פרשת ויקרא} וַיִּקְרָ֖א אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֑ה וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר יְהֹוָה֙ אֵלָ֔יו מֵאֹ֥הֶל
מוֹעֵ֖ד לֵאמֹֽר׃
And HE called to Moische, and
HaSchem spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting, saying:
HaSchem is an
independent, separate entity,
and HE speaks with
Moische and Yisroel as such, out of HIS own free will, like one human with
another.
Rav Schimshon Rafael Hirsch:
https://www.sefaria.org/Leviticus.1.1?lang=bi&with=Rav%20Hirsch&lang2=en
In brief: HaSchem’s address to Moische is linguistically very clearly
defined by the "Vayikra – And HE called" as an event brought to him
from outside Moische’s body and personality, in no way controlled or
controllable by him.
This is in contrast to the many idolaters who, in so-called ecstasy, hear some
kind of “inner voices” from “holy forces speaking through them.”
There are many other passages that clearly show that Moische speaks with
HaSchem as one human with another, precisely NOT in ecstasy, but in normal
conversation!
In exactly this way—and precisely for this reason—HaSchem spoke to the entire
people of Yisroel at Mount Sinai from the mountain, out of the fiery cloud. No
one was in ecstasy; all were in full daily consciousness!
And therefore: HaSchem is an entity clearly distinguishable and distinct from
nature and humans, one that shapes and governs this nature, and that, out of
free, independent will, reveals itself to those it wishes to reveal itself to
and hides from those it wishes to hide from.
Hirsch in the original text:
Kap. 1. V. 1. ויקרא אל משה וגו׳. If it said: ויקרא ה׳ אל משה וידבר אליו,
then the calling would appear as an independent act, separate from the
speaking, perhaps as a calling to him in order to speak with him. But as it is,
it appears as an act belonging to and further defining the speaking: it called
and spoke, God to Moische; the communicated word was introduced by a call to
Moische. This likely secures the fact of God’s speech to Moische precisely as
the word of God to Moische against any abusive misinterpretation that would
gladly turn the Mosaic revelation of God to Moische into a revelation in
Moische and from Moische, conflating it with all that mantic delusion of
so-called ecstasy, or simply with an enthusiasm arising within the human
interior and emanating from the human, thus reducing "Judaism," the
"Jewish religion," like all other religious phenomena on earth, to
merely a "temporal phase in the history of the development of the human
spirit." Not so. כאשר ידבר איש אל רעהו (Schmot 33, 11), as the word of
one human comes to another, as speech passing from human to human arises purely
from the interior and the willful act of the speaker and does not sprout with a
single fiber from the mind of the listener, and nothing within the listener
produces the word to be heard or contributes even minimally to its
production—so too was the word of God to Moische purely God’s speech alone. Not
from within Moische; from outside it came to Moische, calling him out of the
thought-life of his own spirit at that moment, to listen to what God wanted to
say to him. This call preceding the divine speech eliminates any notion of some
process within Moische preceding the divine speech, characterizing God alone as
the speaker and Moische purely as the listener. The word of God to Moische was
in no way provoked by him or even anticipated by him; it approached him as a
completely historical event. Perhaps this is also the meaning of the statement
by the Sages (Sifri to Devarim 34, 10) that, among other things, marks the
characteristic difference between the prophecy of Moische and Bileam: משה לא היה יודע מתי מדבר עמו עד שנדבר עמו ובלעם היה יודע אימתי מדבר עמו "Moische did not know when
God would speak with him until the moment He spoke with him; but Bileam knew
beforehand when God would speak with him." It is not impossible that this
implies Bileam’s prophecy presupposed a preceding ecstasy within him, of which
there is no trace in Moische. Perhaps this is also why Bileam’s prophecy is
expressed through וַיִקָר ד׳ אל בלעם, thus portraying the becoming of
God’s word to Bileam as something almost passive, provoked by Bileam, perhaps
conditioned by a prior self-induced elevation of his spiritual state—Bileam
indeed "sought" the word of God. But to Moische, the word of God came
without any preparation or foreknowledge of it. Perhaps this is also why the א׳ in ויקרא is
small, זעירא, to hint at this completely "unprepared" nature that
characterizes Moische’s prophecy. Of the word of God to Moische, one could say:
קל) וַיִקָר אל משה), it approached him as an entirely unforeseen event. This
"call to hear" that characterizes the divine speech to Moische,
preceding it, is therefore designated in the Sifra at this point as an
introductory event to every address from God to Moische, and it is specifically
noted only here at the first word from the אהל מועד, as well as at the very first
word to Moische from the burning bush (Schmot 3, 4) and the first word from
Sinai (Schmot 19, 3), to tell us precisely that, despite all the differences in
circumstances and locations—from the solitary burning bush, from the Sinai
flaming with thunder before the people, in the stillness of the Tent of
Meeting—the word of God to Moische always came in the same way.
מאהל מועד לאמר. The
אהל מועד embodied the uptake
and acceptance of the divine law as the central soul of the nation, the
material and spiritual welfare of the nation as granted through the law and
consecrated in the intimate realization of the law, and, as a result of this
national life ordered by and guided through the law: the presence of divine glory
within the people. All this the אהל מועד expressed as the ideal to be achieved by the
people. The paths to realizing this ideal form the content of the laws revealed
in this book of the אהל מועד. They not only originate locally from the תורת כהנים; conceptually,
they are nothing but its consequences: they result from it.
End Hirsch.
Raschi
רש"י ויקרא א':א'
ויקרא אל משה
– The voice went and reached his ears, and all of Yisroel did not hear it.
Could it be that there was a call even for the pauses? Scripture teaches us,
saying וידבר – the call was for the speech, not for the pauses. And what
purpose did the pauses serve? To give Moische space to reflect between one
section and another, between one topic and another. How much more so, by a
fortiori reasoning, for an ordinary person learning from another ordinary
person.
Perhaps the small Aleph is there to indicate this interruption, the
deliberate singling out (aleph = 1) of the voice to Moische. Only he could hear
it, no one else. Only within the Mishkan, and not outside.
Why is the call necessary? Sifra, then
Ramban:
Sifra
From the fact that the
call followed by the address occurs at the burning bush, at Mount Sinai, and
now in the Tent of Meeting, one might conclude that Scripture is telling us:
Behold, these three are deeply connected and similar to one another, and the Mishkan
is essentially a portable "Mount Sinai."
Sifra teaches us otherwise: It is exactly the opposite: The Vayikra here
seems entirely superfluous and thus incomprehensible. All the more so since it
stands without an adverb and also without an object. Whom did HE call? Why? For
what purpose?
To this, Sifra responds with a long and thorough analysis of the three
instances, proving that the V LIFECALL here is not only not superfluous but
precisely necessary to teach us that from now on, every address to Moische by
G0d was preceded by a call.
Sifra:
[א]
"וַיִּקְרָא... וַיְדַבֵּר" – He preceded the call to
the speech. Is this not logical? It says here 'spoke,' and it says 'spoke' at
the bush (Shemot 3:4-5): just as the 'spoke' mentioned at the bush was preceded
by a call to the speech, so too the 'spoke' mentioned here should be preceded
by a call to the speech.
[ב]
No! If you say regarding the speech at the bush that it was the beginning of
the speeches, would you say the same about the speech at the Tent of Meeting,
which is not the beginning of the speeches? Let the speech at Mount Sinai prove
it, which is not the beginning of the speeches, and yet it was preceded by a
call to the speech (Shemot 19:3).
[ג]
No! If you say regarding the speech at Mount Sinai that it was to all of
Yisroel, would you say the same about the speech at the Tent of Meeting, which
is not to all of Yisroel? Behold, you are reasoning from a paradigm: not the
speech at the bush, which is the beginning of the speeches, for behold, the
speech at Mount Sinai is not the beginning of the speeches; nor the speech at
Mount Sinai, which is to all of Yisroel, for behold, the speech at the bush is
not to all of Yisroel.
[ד]
The common factor between them is „ speech“, and from the mouth of the Holy One
to Moische, a call preceded the speech in them; so too, for every instance that
is speech and from the mouth of the Holy One to Moische, a call should precede
the speech.
[ה]
Or what is the common factor between them? That they are speech, and in fire,
and from the mouth of the Holy One to Moische, and a call preceded the speech
in them; so too, for every instance that is speech and in fire and from the
mouth of the Holy One to Moische, a call should precede the speech. This would
exclude the speech at the Tent of Meeting, which is not in fire. Scripture
teaches, saying "וַיִּקְרָא... וַיְדַבֵּר" – a call preceded the
speech.
[ו]
Could it be that the call was only for this speech alone? And from where
do we know it applies to all the instances „speech” in the Torah? Scripture teaches, saying "מֵאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד"
– everything henceforth from the Tent of Meeting, a call should precede the
speech.
[ז]
Could it be that the call was only for the speeches alone? From where do we
know it applies even to sayings, even to commandments? Rabbi Shimon said:
Scripture teaches, saying 'spoke,' "וַיְדַבֵּר" – to include even sayings,
even commandments.
[ח]
Could it also apply to the pauses? Scripture teaches, saying "וַיְדַבֵּר" –
the call was for the speech; there was no call for the pauses.
[ט]
And what purpose did the pauses serve? To give Moische time to reflect
between one section and another and between one topic and another. And behold, this is a matter of a fortiori
reasoning: if someone who hears from the mouth of the Holy One and speaks
through the holy spirit needs to reflect between one section and another and
between one topic and another, how much more so an ordinary person learning
from an ordinary person.
[י]
And from where do we know that all the calls were "Moische, Moische"?
Scripture teaches, saying: "וַיִּקְרָא אֵלָיו
אֱלֹהִים מִתּוֹךְ הַסְּנֶה וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה מֹשֶׁה" (Shemot 3:4), for it does not say "וַיֹּאמֶר: מֹשֶׁה מֹשֶׁה,"
teaching that all the calls were "Moische, Moische!"
[יא]
And from where do we know that for every call he said "Here I am"?
Scripture teaches, saying: "וַיִּקְרָא אֵלָיו
אֱלֹהִים מִתּוֹךְ הַסְּנֶה וַיֹּאמֶר: מֹשֶׁה מֹשֶׁה! וַיֹּאמֶר: הִנֵּנִי!" (Shemot 3:4), for it does
not say "וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּנִי," teaching that for every
call he said "Here I am."
[יב]
"Moishe,
Moishe!" (Shemot 3:4)
"Avrohom,
Avorohom!" (Bereishit
22:11) "Yaakoiv, Yaakoiv!"
(Bereishit 46:2) "Shmuel, Shmuel!" (Shmuel I 3:10) – a language of affection and a language of
urgency.
Another interpretation:
"Moische,
Moische!" (Shemot 3:4). He was "Moische" before he was spoken to,
and he was "Moische" after he was spoken to.
He was still the same Moische, even after the King of the World spoke with him
personally!!
Ramban
Ramban adds: The Mishkan was so filled with the presence of the
Shechinah that Moische could not or would not enter it. Ramban compares it to Mount Sinai, where Moische
also waited seven days for the inviting call to enter the cloud. So too here:
Moische feared entering the Mishkan as long as the cloud of the Shechinah was
present and he had not received an explicit invitation. This came precisely
through the call – Vayikra.
Additionally, Ramban emphasizes again here that Aharon was not permitted to
enter, but Moische certainly was.
This is also in accordance with Bamidbar 12:7:
במדבר י"ב:ז': לֹא כֵן עַבְדִּי מֹשֶׁה בְּכׇל
בֵּיתִי נֶאֱמָן הוּא.
"Not so with My servant Moische; he is trusted in all My house."
Ramban translated:
רמב"ן ויקרא א':א'
(א)
The Scripture says here: And HE called to Moische and HaSchem spoke to him –
and not so in other places, because Moische could not come to the Tent of
Meeting (Shemot 40:35), being able to approach the place where G0d was only
through a call that summoned him,
for it had already been said to Moische: "And I will speak with you from
above the cover" (Shemot 25:22), "where I will meet with you
there" (Shemot 29:42). And since Moische knew that HaSchem dwelt among the
cherubim there, he feared entering the tent at all until HE called to him, just
as at Mount Sinai, where it says: "And HE called to Moische on the seventh
day from within the cloud" (Shemot 24:16).
Or perhaps Moische did not know that the glory was in the tent and that the
speech would come to him from there, for the cloud did not cover it until the
eighth day, according to the opinion of our Sages (Sifra Vayikra 9:1, second
version), and after the call, Moische came into the tent, into the innermost
part, as they expounded (Sifra Vayikra 16:1): Aharon was not to come at all
times, but Moische was not so restricted. And this is the straightforward
meaning of this text, and I have already explained it above (Ramban Shemot
40:34).
No comments:
Post a Comment