Answers to Kitisa

Ki Tissa 5729

שמות פרק לג

(יב) ויאמר משה אל יקוק ראה אתה אמר אלי העל את העם הזה ואתה לא הודעתני את אשר תשלח עמי ואתה אמרת ידעתיך בשם וגם מצאת חן בעיני:

(יג) ועתה אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניך הודעני נא את דרכך ואדעך למען אמצא חן בעיניך וראה כי עמך הגוי הזה:

(יד) ויאמר פני ילכו והנחתי לך:

(טו) ויאמר אליו אם אין פניך הלכים אל תעלנו מזה:

(טז) ובמה יודע אפוא כי מצאתי חן בעיניך אני ועמך הלוא בלכתך עמנו ונפלינו אני ועמך מכל העם אשר על פני האדמה: פ

Alef.

1. If the purpose of learning about the ways of God is in order to find favor in His Eyes, then it is more important to understand about theodicy, which reflects God’s Approach to His Creation than it is to be aware of the rewards that might be granted when one complies with God’s Will. Rewards are not necessarily intrinsically connected to God’s Ways which is clearly not the case with respect to the manner in which He Treats the righteous and the sinful respectively.

2. RaShI wants to account for the final phrase in v. 13, i.e., “and consider that this is Your People” as opposed to starting again and deriving the people entirely from Moshe himself, as implied in Shemot 32:10. Consequently, rather than coming to understand the issue of theodicy, Moshe wishes to be reassured that HaShem is Committed to Preserving the Jewish people as they are presently constituted.

3. R. Yaakov Ibn Chaviv thinks that the Gemora’s formulation is more difficult because by setting theodicy in contrast to a more quid pro quo system, i.e., Rasha VeRa Lo, it eliminates the possibility that what seems to us Ra is in fact Tov and vice versa, if not in this world, then in the World to Come. The Gemora’s formulation admits that sometimes, a Tzaddik is treated objectively in a Ra fashion and this begs the question of fairness.

Beit.

1. The difficulty is that once HaShem has Stated to Moshe that He, rather than an angel, will be Accompanying the Jewish people on their journey, why does Moshe seem to harp on this as if HaShem had Said that He wasn’t Going to Personally do so? Does this suggest that Moshe did not have confidence that HaShem would Fulfill His Promise in this regard?

2. Why is it important to be told according to RaShI that Moshe Agrees to the arrangement of God Personally Accompanying the Jewish people? It would seem to make more sense that Moshe is negotiating some aspect of the arrangement, rather than simply supplying his ratification of God’s Plan.

3. RE”M: Moshe is indicating that had HaShem not Agreed to Personally Accompany the people, because of their love for HaShem thereby being unrequited in their eyes, they would never have journeyed away from Sinai, but rather remained there until their deaths.

     Be’er Yitzchak: RaShI is simply pointing out that rather than assuming that Moshe is doubting that God Intends to actually Accompany the people and thereby Make good on His Promise, Moshe is simply emphasizing how much HaShem’s Decision is appreciated.

     Maskil LeDavid: Moshe was seeking to close what he saw as a potential loophole in God’s Assurance that He would Personally Accompany the people. HaShem did not State when He would begin to Accompany the people, and Moshe was afraid that instead of this taking place immediately, it might start at some far-off future time.

     Divrei David: a) Moshe was concerned that HaShem had Promised to Be with the people only as long as Moshe was alive, but that as soon as Moshe would die, HaShem would Suspend His Staying close to the people.

      b) Moshe was emphasizing that God’s Accompanying the people should not be considered something that merely would make everyone feel better, but that in fact it was something intrinsic and vitally important to the well-being of the people.  

      The first two commentaries on RaShI assume that Moshe is not finding anything possibly amiss in God’s Assurance, and that Moshe, rather than doubting God’s Promise, is merely expressing how appreciative both he and the Jewish people are for God’s Promise. The second two commentaries understand RaShI as reflecting  a concern that God’s Promise does not go as far as it optimally might, and therefore Moshe is seeking additional assurances that this will all play out in the manner that he thinks would be best for the interests of the Jewish people.  

4. Perhaps Divrei David prefers b) to a) because verse 15, containing Moshe’s response to HaShem’s Assurance, includes the term “תעלנו” in which Moshe includes himself together with everyone else in the Jewish people. Consequently, this is not about Moshe’s worry that God is only doing this for him, but rather his concern about how HaShem Views His Agreement to Accompany the people in general. “והניחותי” is not a description of how only Moshe feels, but rather the entire Jewish people. And because HaShem Suggests that His Decision is a means for the Jews to feel better about themselves, Moshe counters with this is not about feeling good, but rather what is in the best interests of the continued growth and success of the people.  

Gimel.  

1. א)  R. Saadia Gaon in his interpretation of “פני” is incorporating the reason why perhaps it was not a good idea to have HaShem in such close proximity to the Jewish people, i.e., HaShem’s Tolerance level for bad behavior is not high and it is possible that this will result in Divine Punishments being meted out that otherwise would not have been given. Ibn Ezra, on the other hand, believes that potential Anger and Punishments are not at issue; the statement by HaShem simply states His Intention to Personally Accompany the people on their journey, without implying that this might prove dangerous for them.

      ב) In 33:15, if the interpretation was in accordance with R. Saadia’s view, why would Moshe plead that HaShem’s Anger absolutely must Accompany the people if they are to journey from Sinai? Wouldn’t they be very well off without the presence of such a threat? However, if the meaning is that it is important that HaShem Himself be with the Jewish people, regardless of the danger and the consequences, this is a more understandable plea on the part of Moshe.  

2.  א)  Ibn Ezra based his interpretation upon the usage by Moshe of the plural “תעל-נו”. However RaMBaN points out that in 33:12 Moshe himself uses singular language in this context and that in 23:20, HaShem Does so. Therefore it begs the question why we should start to infer from the plural language that Moshe is concerned that perhaps HaShem only Intends to accompany him, Moshe, when at earlier points in the narrative, such a conclusion was apparently not being drawn.

      ב) RaMBaN wishes to demonstrate via 23:20 that although HaShem is speaking to Moshe in the singular, he is representing the entire Jewish people, and what is to apply to him will similarly apply to everyone. Consequently to claim that Moshe read between the lines of HaShem’s Assurance that the Accompaniment would only be for him was unfounded.

      ג)  If earlier on in 23:20, when HaShem was Using the singular, He did not Intend to only Describe Moshe’s situation, but rather that of the entire people, so too at this juncture in 33:14, the use of the singular does not relate to Moshe alone, but rather to the entire Jewish people.

     ד)  RaMBaN feels that all of the explanations that have been offered by classical commentators are flawed. And if no one has been able to come up with a reasonable explanation on a Peshat level, then one had no recourse other than applying the Sod approach to understanding the relationship between 33:14 and 15. (RaMBaN could have simply said he did not understand these verses, as RaShI does on a number of occasions—e.g., Beraishit 10:21; 28:5. To insist that the only way to read these verses is mystically, to my mind deprives the text of a non-aesoteric meaning, which is difficult. Not everyone will be an initiate to mysticism. Does that mean that the Tora has to be considered closed, at least in certain sections, to such individuals? Shivim Panim LaTora suggests that there are multiple interpretations possible. But only a single mystical one? This begs credulity for me personally.)