Answers to Shemot

Shemot 5723
Alef. 

              מקור:                                      "אהי'"            "אשר אהי'"                "אהי' שלחני"

תגיד להם רק אהי' (משמע חלק א' דהיינו הייתי עמהם בשעבוד זה	אהי' אתם בשעבוד מלכיות	הייתי עמהם בשעבוד זה	ברכות ט'
הדין נגד רשעים אבל לא לגמרי לפי המעשים הרחמים	מעשי:   1) מדת             2) מלחמה             3) מעניש             4) מדת	אני נקרא לפי	ש"ר ר' אבא בר ממל
אני עתיד להיות	אני עכשיו	הייתי	ש"ר ר' יצחק
תגיד להם רק אהי' (משמע חלק א' דהיינו הייתי עמהם בשעבוד זה	אהי' אתם בשעבוד מלכיות	הייתי עמהם בשעבוד זה	ש"ר ר' יעקב בר' אבינא בשם ר' הונא
"אהי'" בלי להזכיר שעבוד בכלל	בעתיד באותו מצב שעבוד גופני עוד פעם	מצב שעבוד גופני	ש"ר ר' יצחק בשם ר' אמי
לגבי מרובים, מדת הדין	הרחמים	לגבי יחידים, מדת	ש"ר ר' יוחנו
תגיד להם רק אהי' (משמע חלק א' דהיינו הייתי עמהם בשעבוד זה	אהי' אתם בשעבוד מלכיות	הייתי עמהם בשעבוד זה	רש"י

1. The three approaches to Shemot 3:14 found in the Midrash are:

1. A conversation between HaShem and Moshe to the effect that first, God States that just as He is Supporting the Jews during their travails in Egypt, He will Be there for them during future persecutions and enslavements.

Moshe responds that that is all well and good; however the people will be demoralized if they learn that this type of terrible experience is destined to repeat itself.

HaShem “Accepts” Moshe’s concern and Instructs him to deal exclusively with the present rather than making any comments about negative possibilities in the future.

( R. Yaakov Be’Rav Avina in the name of R. Huna; R. Yitzchak in the name of R. Ami.)

2. An indication that HaShem Approaches people and situations from different perspectives. (R. Aba bar Memel; R. Yochanan.)
3. HaShem Transcends the time continuum. (R. Yitzchak.)

2. R. Yitzchak suggests that  HaShem’s original “intent” was to convey that not only will there be affliction in the future, but it will be identical to the suffering and servitude in Egypt. When Moshe expresses concern that this will be deeply demoralizing, HaShem’s final position is not to mention affliction at all, but to simply reassure the people that He is with them.
3. R. Yochanan appears to be suggesting that HaShem Intends to deal with the people in terms of “tough love”, i.e., that in order for the masses to be held in check, their teeth have to be “broken” hopefully figuratively rather than literally. (See the answer given to the evil son in the Haggadda, as well as Bava Kamma 27b-28a.)
4. It is possible that RaShI felt that the approach reflected in a) above explains the extra usage of the word “אהי'” at the end of the verse. Both b) and c) could have been conveyed in the phrase “אהי' אשר אהי'” alone.

Beit.

1. RaMBaN contends that the proper interpretation of the verse is the giving of a Name for HaShem that would serve as a sign to the people who would ask for such a Name, that Moshe indeed is representing HaShem. (The Midrash dealing with Serach bat Asher being able to identify Moshe as a true prophet due to his invoking the phrase used by Yosef [Beraishit 50:25] “פקד יפקוד” also assumes that there would be a special code that would help the people determine the legitimacy of the individual coming to them, so that they should not put their trust in a false prophet. See Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer, Chapt. 47)

Approaches   cited by many commentators but rejected by RaMBaN, contend  that the Name was a means for describing God’s Attributes or convincing the people of God’s Existence. RaMBaN is skeptical whether someone’s mind could be changed with regard to his faith by simply providing a Name, however holy. On the other hand, if the people already possessed a strong belief, but needed confirmation that the time had come for the redemption, a special Name could accomplish such a purpose.

2. In both verses (Yeshayahu 52:6¹ and Yirmiyahu 16:21²)³ emphasis is placed upon the identity between knowing God and knowing His Name. Consequently, when people come to recognize God’s Presence, it is tantamount to their becoming aware of His Name, not in a cognitive sense—they could have always had that piece of information—but rather in an existential sense, i.e., the experience of God is being articulated as “knowing His Name.”
3. Although these two Midrashic approaches emphasize different things, i.e., the first stresses how God will not Abandon His People no matter what their situation, while the second states that HaShem Responds in accordance with the principle of מדה כנגד מדה to however the people conduct themselves (a wonderfully poetic expression of this concept is the following verse: Tehillim 121:5 ה' שֹׁמְרֶךָ ה' צִלְּךָ עַל יַד יְמִינֶךָ. in the sense that HaShem Acts as your shadow, i.e., whatever you do, HaShem will Respond in kind,) the common denominator that RaMBaN sees in both of these interpretations is that the phrase אהי' אשר אהי' is intended to reflect something about God’s Nature, when RaMBaN feels that what is being communicated by Moshe to the people by means of this phrase is that Moshe is a true representative of HaShem.
4. Although RaMBaN uses the plural “חכמים", it would seem that he is directing his comments specifically to RaMBaM—in the עלון הדרכה the passage to which RaMBaN refers in passing, is presented more fully—as he does in other places over the course of his commentary. Perhaps his intention is to include not only RaMBaM, but also all those who follow his lead, although RaMBaN has not referred to them by name during the course of his own commentary. I don’t think that he disagrees with RaMBaM with regard to whether demonstrating God’s Existence is intrinsically something that RaMBaN deems as objectionable; rather he does not believe that this is the connotation of  אהי' אשר אהיregardless of how important such an undertaking might be.

Gimel.

1. Yehuda HaLevi interprets אהי' אשר אהי as connoting the unknowability of HaShem. Essentially HaShem Gives Moshe an evasive answer. “Don’t bother trying to attach a specific Name to Me, since I am unknowable to you. Suffice it to say that I will Be with you. You need to know nothing more.

R. Yosef Albo, on the other hand, while not going as far as RaMBaM in terms of asserting that HaShem was Giving Moshe a means by which he could convince the Jews of God’s Existence, nevertheless understands אהי' אשר אהי as reflecting a profound aspect of God, i.e., His utter Independence from all other aspects of existence. Whereas other things owe their existence to something outside of themselves, this is not the case for God. And this quality is reflected in אהי' אשר אהי, in the sense that whereas other entities can never say that they alone determine what they are and the qualities they possess, God can Make such a claim about Himself.

2.    It would appear that R. Yosef Albo parallels R. Yitzchak in Shemot Rabba in the sense that the reason why God is Unchanging and above the vagaries of time, which is a means by which change is measured, is because His Existence is not dependent upon anything but Himself.