JTF.ORG Forum
Torah and Jewish Idea => Torah and Jewish Idea => Topic started by: edu on December 16, 2013, 02:17:34 AM
-
There is a difference of opinion among our sages by which method did Moshe kill the Egyptian.
Some say by physical means while others say by mentioning one of the secret names of G-d he killed him by supernatural means. Rashi agrees with this second viewpoint.
Rashi adds that Moshe looked into the future and saw this Egyptian would not father any future converts, therefore Moshe killed the Egyptian with one of the secret names of G-d.
If the Egyptian was guilty of the death penalty. For example, because he was a rapist and a Rodef and he was a member of the enemy nation, why was Moshe concerned about the possibility that a future convert might descend from that Egyptian. Usually when someone deserves to be killed, his potential future good offspring is not taken into account.
So far I thought of 2 possible answers.
Answer 1 is based on the first of 2 answers given by Tosafot to Brachot 7a. This view implies that even though someone is liable to the death penalty and it would be okay to kill him by physical means, if you are trying to use at least certain supernatural means, then the standards to kill someone are tougher. So in the case of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi, the situation did not warrant killing the wicked man by supernatural means, however, in the case of Moshe since no descendant of the Egyptian would convert, even the tougher standards needed to kill by supernatural means were met.
Answer 2. According to some poskim, there is a certain gray area in halacha, where one might not be obligated to risk his life to save someone else, however, it is permitted to take a certain amount of risk to save others. Moshe felt he fell in that category and so the factor that no future converts would descend from the Egyptian was one of the key factors that led Moshe to decide to take the risk.
-
I heard that Moshe was the gilgul of Abel, and that Egyptian was the gilgul of Cain, so it was a measure for measure thing.
-
I have only heard of Jethro Moshe's father-in-law being a gilgul of Cain
http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/379844/jewish/Reincarnation-and-Reconciliation.htm
-
I have only heard of Jethro Moshe's father-in-law being a gilgul of Cain
http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/379844/jewish/Reincarnation-and-Reconciliation.htm
He was too. There can be more than one gilgul, it's a soul, so like a fire, it doesn't cut in half when it spreads.
-
That incident happened before Moshe was called by God via the burning bush vision. I think Moshe acted on his own conscience and not on prophetic insight. It is not likely Moshe could use one of the secrete names of god or his angels of destruction since he was not a prophet at that stage and had no way to learn these secrete as he was brought up as Egyptian.
-
That incident happened before Moshe was called by God via the burning bush vision. I think Moshe acted on his own conscience and not on prophetic insight. It is not likely Moshe could use one of the secret names of god or his angels of destruction since he was not a prophet at that stage and had no way to learn these secrets as he was brought up as Egyptian.
Then why would Rashi say it?
-
Then why would Rashi say it?
I am not qualified to speak in his name. I am usually looking for the simplest explanation (Rashi mostly go in that way, the pshat).
-
Zelhar is correct in that Moshe wasn't a Prophet yet. And about Rashi, its believed that he often goes by Pshat but in actuality its not very true. Often he goes by Remez and especially Derash.
This is only 1 opinion by Rashi, actually it could have been from the Talmudh itself, but its not the Pshat because in the verses we clearly see that all Moshe did was look right, look left and then striked the evil Egyptian who was beating the Jew. He was simply looking to see if anyone else was around and would snitch on him (of which actually happened), or actually the Egyptian authorities who would kill him.
But the question is WHY would they say this opinion to begin with, why not just stick to the Pshat of what happened? I believe its because at that time (after the time of Bar Kochba) it was very much dangerous for Jews to get inspired to rebel again. The Hachamim had to deter Jews from making a rebellion again after witnessing failed rebellions. Soo if a Jew would be reading this and at that time (after the Churban and the failed revolts) would be seeing a Roman striking a Jew he would be inspired by this verse to strike him, soo instead they told him not to because Moshe didn't just strike at seeing a Jew hit but saw past and future generations of that wicked Egyptian.
-
By the way we also see this here in this discussion as well- people talk about Moshe (supposedly) being a gilgul of this guy and him being a gilgul of some other guy. W/E if e realize all this is a cover up to the simple meaning and message. In many ways Rabbi Kahane ZTL HYD stood for that simple message and tried to REVITALIZE or revive from the dead that real Jewish message in this case being that when an evil goy strikes a Jew, it is moral to kill him.
http://meir-kahane.angelfire.com/shemot.html/
This is a Jewish response – not to let the Gentile smite with impunity, for every single blow desecrates the Children of Israel and is blasphemy against G-d’s Name. Anyone who smites a Jew must be smitten in return. More than this: Moses’ smiting the Egyptian was the Children of Israel’s first response ever to the blows they had received, and foreshadowed all the blows, all the plagues, that G-d would yet inflict upon Egypt.
-
Tag Mehir, wouldn't it be easier if our sages simply included a warning: "Don't try this yourselves, you are not Moshe !". I want to think that if they came up with this midrash they found meaning to it that is beyond any specific time or historical circumstances.
-
Moshe was chosen from birth to be the redeemer of Israel. We see this from various things the sages say about Baby Moses...
First Baby Moses face shone from birth, he would not nurse from a non-Jewish woman, there is the midrash about how in Pharoahs home the necromancers had suggested that baby Moses was the predicted (by their astrology) redeemer of the Jewish people and Pharoah placed Moses before a lump of hot coals and a pile of gold coins, the angels redirected baby Moses who was reaching for the gold to grasp the coals and place them against his lips (causing him to have the speech impediment he struggled with).
Maybe he was not a 'prophet' before the incident of the burning bush... But he surely was a chosen one long before that incident.
-
Tag Mehir, wouldn't it be easier if our sages simply included a warning: "Don't try this yourselves, you are not Moshe !". I want to think that if they came up with this midrash they found meaning to it that is beyond any specific time or historical circumstances.
As Edu said in the beginning not everyone agreed to it to begin with. I don't know for certain but perhaps their was a need at the time to do soo. + as now as well I did and do hear some people who bring this Perush and they use it to then say about how we should be careful in making judgment and to see the generations to come from that person and how they can get affected.
-
Moshe was chosen from birth to be the redeemer of Israel. We see this from various things the sages say about Baby Moses...
First Baby Moses face shone from birth, he would not nurse from a non-Jewish woman, there is the midrash about how in Pharoahs home the necromancers had suggested that baby Moses was the predicted (by their astrology) redeemer of the Jewish people and Pharoah placed Moses before a lump of hot coals and a pile of gold coins, the angels redirected baby Moses who was reaching for the gold to grasp the coals and place them against his lips (causing him to have the speech impediment he struggled with).
Maybe he was not a 'prophet' before the incident of the burning bush... But he surely was a chosen one long before that incident.
Either way he wasn't a Prophet yet. In fact even at the burning Bush the Prophecy he reached was on a lower level (through an Angel) then what he eventually reached later on where it was directly from G-D. Soo for certain at this stage he didn't receive a Prophet revelation yet. therefore this cannot be the Pshat of the incident.
-
Here is some background on the birth of Moses brought from the medrashim...
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/111874/jewish/The-Birth-of-Moses.htm
THE LITTLE PROPHETESS
Life had become very difficult for the children of Israel in Egypt. Every day brought with it a new and more cruel decree from King Pharaoh, making life very miserable for the poor and, enslaved Hebrews. But there was at least one family which kept up its spirit and brought hope and courage to the others. That was the family of Amram, the son of Kehot great grandson of Jacob. He and his wife Jocheved, had two small children called Miriam, and Aaron.
One day Miriam went around in the house clapping her hands and saying, "I am going to have a little brother who will save our people from the hands of the Egyptians!"
And Miriam's words soon came true.
On the seventh day of Adar a baby boy was born to Amram and Jocheved, and immediately, the house became full of light. The clouds cleared and the sun shone more brightly than ever before. Amram came to his little daughter and kissed her, saying, "My darling daughter, I see now that you were right. Your new brother is not an ordinary baby. He will be the salvation of us all."
For three months the happy parents hid the newly-born baby from Pharaoh's officers who were going around from house to house, searching for Jewish babies, in order to throw them into the river, on orders from the king. At the end of three months, the officers began to search Amram's house very carefully, and Amram and Jocheved knew that they could not hide the little baby any longer. And so, Jocheved said, "I cannot protect my baby any longer, only G-d can. I will entrust my baby into His hands."
Saying this, Jocheved made a little basket of light weed, and covered it with pitch from without to make it watertight. "Let my baby not suffer from the smell of the pitch," she said, and that is why she did not pitch the basket from within. She then placed the baby into the water-tight basket, and took it down to the River Nile. She hid the basket among the papyrus reeds growing on the bank of the river.
II.
THE FATEFUL DAY
With tears in her eyes, she came back home. But little Miriam remained by the river's brink to see what would happen to her little brother.
At that very time, the Angels assembled before G-d and pleaded for the little baby. "Oh G-d," they said, "Thou hast promised that the day would come when the children of Israel would be delivered from Egypt and given Thy sacred Torah on the sixth day of Sivan. Today is the sixth of Sivan, wilt Thou let this child succumb to starvation and exposure in the waters of the Nile?"
Immediately, G-d ordered the sun to blaze away with might and main and cause all the Egyptian women and children to flock to the river to bathe and refresh themselves in the cool waters of the Nile.
Princess Bithiah, King Pharoah's daughter, called her maids and also went down to bathe in the river.
Suddenly, the princess noticed a little basket in the reeds by the river's brink. She sent one of her maids to fetch it, but her wicked maid said, "Why bother, princess, with a little basket where surely a Hebrew baby is hidden? Has not our mighty king ordered all the children to be thrown into the river without pity?"
Now the princess had lost the use of her arms through illness, and thought: "If only I could use my hands, I would fetch the little basket myself." No sooner did that kind thought flash through her mind than a wonderful thing happened to her. She suddenly felt that her hands were well and strong again. The princess went down among the reeds and picked up the little basket with her own hands.
When she opened the basket, she found there a little baby with a bright face that shone like the sun. The princess took pity on the baby and said, "Surely this is one of the unfortunate Hebrew babies. I will not be as cruel as my father; I will save him."
III.
IN HIS MOTHER'S ARMS
The princess ordered one of her Egyptian maids to feed the child. But as soon as the woman took the baby in her arms, he began to cry pitifully, and refused to be fed. The princess ordered another maid to feed the baby, but again with no success.
All this time, Miriam was standing only a little distance away, watching closely all that was happening to her little brother, but saying nothing. When she heard her little brother cry, she came forth and said to the princess: "Shall I call someone to feed the child?"
"Please do," said the princess, "and I will reward you amply."
Miriam hastened home to her mother, and told her all that had happened on the river's brink. "Hurry, mother," she said, "the princess is waiting, and the baby is hungry! "
Jocheved, rushed to the river and no sooner did she take the little baby in her arms, than it stopped crying and began to smile happily. The princess could not help smiling too, and she said to Jocheved, "I will pay you two shekels each day if you will nurse the baby for me."
"I shall be most happy to do so," Jocheved said.
"Good. I will entrust you with the baby for two years," the princess said, "but remember, that at the end of two years, you must bring the child to me at the palace safe and sound!"
"He will be the apple of my eye," Jocheved said, and carried the baby away to her home.
IV.
THE, SEVEN NAMES
Jocheved kept her promise, and at the end of two years, she brought the baby to the princess. Bithiah was delighted to see the baby. She had never seen such a beautiful and adorable child in all her life.
"What name do you call this child by?" Bithiah asked.
"We gave him six names," the mother said. "Jered, Chaver, Jekuthiel, Avigdor, Avi-Socho, and Avi-Zonoach!"
"I will give him a seventh name," Bithiah said. "I will call him Moshe (Moses), because I drew him out of the water."
And G-d said, "Because Bithiah was so kind and merciful, the child will be called by the name that she gave him."
From that day on, Moses remained in the palace and the princess loved him dearly, as though he were her own son. Everyone who came to the palace and saw Moses, admired the unusual beauty and good manners of the child. Even the cruel King Pharaoh and Queen Alpharaohnith loved him and played with him.
I am not suggesting he had 'face-to-face' prophecy before the incident of the burning bush... I am just suggesting that Moses was, from birth, destined to be the redeemer...
-
Some of the Talmudic sources regarding Moses...
http://www.webshas.org/torah/bichtav/tanach/mitzraim.htm
Moses's Family and his Birth
Amram, Moshe's father, was the leader of his generation: Sotah 12a
Yocheved, Moshe's mother, was born when the Jews entered Egypt: Sotah 12a
Amram returned to his wife, Yocheved, on the advice of his daughter, Miriam: Sotah 12a
Amram's rationale in separating from Yocheved, and Miriam's response: Sotah 12a
When Amram and Yocheved separated, so did everyone else: Sotah 12a
When Amram reunited with Yocheved, he did so with great fanfare: Sotah 12a
When Amram reunited with Yocheved, her youth was restored to her even though she was 130 years old: Sotah 12a
Yocheved was pregnant with Moses from before she and Amram had separated, and so the Egyptians, counting from their reunion, were off by three months. As such, Yocheved was able to hide Moses for three months: Sotah 12a
The birth of Moses was painless for Yocheved, due to her righteousness: Sotah 12a
Date of Moses's Birth: Megillah 13b; Kiddushin 38a; Sotah 12b
Moses was born in a leap year: Sotah 12b
When Moses was born, the house was filled with light: Megillah 14a; Sotah 12a, 13a
When Moses was born and the house filled with light, Amram kissed Miriam's head and said, "Your prophecy is fulfilled!" Then when Moses was thrown into the sea, Amram slapped her and said, "Daughter, where is your prophecy now?!": Sotah 13a
Miriam's prophecy on the birth of Moses, and its fulfillment: Megillah 14a; Sotah 11b, 12b-13a
Moses was fit for prophecy at birth: Sotah 12a
Moses was born circumcised: Sotah 12a
They used reeds, rather than wood, for Moses's ark either because the righteous are very careful with their money, so that they won't come to theft, or because soft material would withstand harsh and soft forces: Sotah 12a
The lining of the ark was arranged so that Moses wouldn't smell the foul-smelling materials: Sotah 12a
Moses was either placed in Yam Suf, or just in a reedy area: Sotah 12a-b
Moses was termed a "youth [adolescent]" in the ark either because of his deep voice or because of a wedding canopy his mother made for him in the ark, fearing she would never see him get married: Sotah 12b
Miriam waited for an hour to see whether her brother Moses would be all right (in his ark on the river), and so the Jewish people waited seven days for her while she had tzaraat, and did not travel without her: Sotah 9b, 11a
When the Torah describes how Miriam waited to guard Moshe on the water, the verse also refers to Gd's Manifestation [Shechinah] being there, too: Sotah 11a
When Moses was put into the sea, Pharaoh's astrologers told Pharaoh there was no more need to throw children into the sea: Sotah 12b
Moses was put into the sea on the 21st of Nisan, and the angels protested that he shouldn't suffer on the water on the date when he was destined to sing to Gd by the Sea: Sotah 12b
Moses was put into the sea on the 6th of Sivan, and the angels protested that he shouldn't suffer on the water on the date when he was destined to receive the Torah: Sotah 12b
Moses refused to nurse from the Egyptian women, as they had eaten non-Kosher food, and so Miriam could suggest that a Jewish woman be brought for him: Sotah 12b
Gd gave Moshe the Torah because he weaned himself from non-Kosher milk: Sotah 12b
-
Apparently there is a Gemara that baby Moses was 'fit for prophecy'....
Moses was fit for prophecy at birth: Sotah 12a
-
Regarding baby Moses challenge in Pharoahs home...
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1829/jewish/The-Birth-of-Moses.htm
.
.
.
Moses Becomes Tongue-Tied
Once it happened that Moses was playing on King Pharaoh's lap. He saw the shining crown, studded with jewels, and reached for it and took it off. Pharaoh, who was superstitious like all his fellow-Egyptians, and who in addition was always afraid of losing his throne, asked his astrologers and counselors for the meaning of this action of the infant. Most of them interpreted it to mean that Moses was a threat to Pharaoh's crown and suggested that the child be put to death before it could do any harm. One of the king's counselors, however, suggested that they should first test the boy and see whether his action was prompted by intelligence, or he was merely grasping for sparkling things as any other child would.
Pharaoh agreed to this, and two bowls were set down before young Moses. One contained gold and jewels, and the other held glowing fire-coals. Moses reached out for the gold, but an angel directed his hand to the coals. Moses snatched a glowing coal and put it to his lips. He burned his hand and tongue, but his life was saved. After that fateful test, Moses suffered from a slight speech defect. He could not become an orator, but his words were nevertheless to carry weight, for it was G-d's words that were spoken through his lips.
.
.
.
See also http://www.tfdixie.com/parshat/shmot/007.htm
There is an interesting Midrash on this week's Torah portion. Pharaoh's astrologers had discovered that the savior of the Jewish people had been born. In order to ascertain whether or not the baby Moses was destined to be this future leader of the Jewish people, the Egyptians devised a test. They placed burning hot coals in one dish and jewels in a second dish. If Moses were to reach for the jewels, the Egyptians reasoned this to be a sign that he was a threat to the kingdom and should be killed immediately. When Moses in fact reached for the jewels, Hashem sent an angel to conceal the fact that Moses was the future leader of the Jewish people, and the angel pushed Moses' hand towards the hot coals instead. The angel not only caused the baby Moses to choose the hot coals, but Moses also placed it to his lips. As a result, he developed a speech impediment. The question arises, what did Moses do wrong as a child that he should have been punished with a lifelong handicap?
-
According to this lesson it appears that Hashem did not appear to Moses until he exhibited a trait of compassion for a sheep in his flock prior to the incident of the burning bush...
http://www.torah.org/learning/drasha/5758/shemos.html
.
.
As the book of Exodus begins, it is important to ponder what catapulted Moshe (Moses) from the position of valiant citizen to national leader. The story of Moshe's youth in Egypt is hardly expounded upon in the Torah. Yes, it tells the story of his birth and his escape in the Nile River. The Torah even mentions his great vigilance in smiting an Egyptian who struck a Hebrew. But in relating those stories, it does not leave us feeling that those acts, merited Divine ordination. It tells the tale of Moshe stopping a fight between two Hebrew fellows, and how he was forced to flee from Egypt to the wilderness of Midian because of his strong stand in chastising those Jews who quarreled. All those stories show perseverance, courage, and fortitude. Yet not one of those incidents is juxtaposed with the Divine revelation that catapults Moshe into the great spiritual and prophetic leader whom we know.
Even after the event in which he saves Yisro's (Jethro) seven daughters from evil shepherds G-d is silent, there is no pronouncement of Moses' glory or appointment of a Divine role. Hashem declares Moshe's greatness in the context of a very simple serene story.
"Moses was shepherding the sheep of Jethro his father-in-law, he guided them into the wilderness, and he arrived at the mountain of G-d toward Horeb. An angel of G-d appeared to him in a blaze of fire from amidst the bush, and he saw that the bush was burning, and the bush was not consumed. Moshe looked and analyzed the sight and he questioned, "why is the bush not being burned?" (Exodus 3:1-3). It is only in that serene setting that G-d called out "Moshe, Moshe," to which Moshe replied "Here I am." The end of that story is the beginning of the Jewish nation.
Why is the act of shepherding sheep the setting for such majestic and Divine revelation? What amazing incident occurred during the shepherding? Why didn't G-d appear to Moses after his courageous act of smiting the Egyptian or after he reproached two Hebrews who were fighting? Wouldn't that setting be the ripe moment for induction into the halls of prophecy and leadership?
-
http://www.oztorah.com/2009/01/turning-here-there-shmot/
“When Moses was grown up, he went out to his brethren, and he saw an Egyptian attacking one of his brethren. He looked this way and that, and when he saw that there was no man, he attacked the Egyptian and hid him in the sand” (Ex. 2:11-12).
Why was there “no man”? Does it mean that no-one was looking? Adopting this view, Samson Raphael Hirsch says, “He looked in all directions to be sure that he was unobserved and could dare to do the deed… He is far from that daring boldness which rushes without thinking into danger”.
The author of “HaK’tav V’haKabbalah” has a different opinion. To him, “He looked this way and that” means that he looked at the Israelites who were standing by in the expectation that one of them would come forward to help the victim, but “there was no man” – no-one had the courage to come forward and help.
In his “Ha’amek Davar”, the Natziv (Naftali Tzvi Y’hudah Berlin) sees the incident differently again. Why was the Egyptian attacking the Israelite? It seems to have been simply because he was a Jew. What did Moses do? “He looked this way and that”. He turned to this court and that, seeking a tribunal to which he could bring an appeal for justice. But Egyptian law was flawed. Members of a slave people had no legal rights or redress. The judges would not intervene. “There was no man”, and Moses felt he had to take the law into his own hands.
The Midrash comments that this is acceptable for the Almighty but not for a human being. In a passage with echoes of the Moses story, Isaiah says, “The Lord looked, and it was evil in His eyes that there was no justice. He saw there was no man and was astonished that no-one intervened, so His own arm brought salvation” (Isa. 59:15-16).
When God later told Moses he was going to die, Moses complained. “You, God, killed all the firstborn of Egypt; shall I die because of one Egyptian?” God, however, retorted, “How can You compare yourself to Me who both causes to die and restores to life?” (Midrash P’tirat Moshe). Whatever the provocation, it is a grave sin to play God and take a human life.
-
Could Moses know the 'name' of Hashem? Here is a discussion which suggests maybe he did know, without the need of prophecy...
http://www.chayas.com/10plague.htm
3) In Moses’ initial contact with the Creator, he asked to know His Name. This seems strange, since the Midrash teaches that Moses knew the Divine Name, using it to kill the Egyptian taskmaster. Being a Levite, whose tribe faithfully preserved the holy traditions of the nation, how couldn’t Moses have known the Name of His G-d? Notice that HaShem did not then reveal to Moses the essence of His most sacred Name, but replies, “I Shall Be What I Shall Be.” Now E-hiyeh (I Shall Be) is indeed one of the seven holy Names of G-d that may not be erased. However, it may well have been a mild form of rebuke. Ancient magic and sorcery involved the use of various “holy names” in incantations to cast spells and manipulate supernatural powers. This practice is alive and well in India, as well as in largely extinct schools of pseudo-Kabbalah (as opposed to genuine Qabbalah). Considering Moses’ upbringing, his question could hint to the magical perspective of the ancient world, in which Moses was raised and educated. (Moses is not a flat character, but one who grows and develops, which could warrant a special essay in itself!) It is not inconceivable that at this initial encounter with the Almighty, he requested a holy name through which he might be expected to perform HaShem's wonders.
HaShem's answer carries a simple, powerful message: “I am what I am always. I am unique and totally sovereign. You cannot control or manipulate Me with any Name. My Name(s) (are) Holy, and not meant to be used as magical implements.”
-
Some of the Talmudic sources regarding Moses...
http://www.webshas.org/torah/bichtav/tanach/mitzraim.htm
Moses's Family and his Birth
Yocheved, Moshe's mother, was born when the Jews entered Egypt: Sotah 12a
His mother was 300+ Years old???
-
Muman even though I just skimmed through your recent posts here (as its too many) I don't think you have the direct about it (unless you can point it out). Even if he was "fit for Prophecy" he still wasn't a Prophet at the time. His first revelation was at the burning-bush and that was a lower revelation through an angel (this is what the Rambam saw's was the first Prophecy).
-
His mother was 300+ Years old???
According to the Midrash this is the case. Of course the midrash must be understood not as the simple meaning. I am not sure what is learned from this though...
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/112040/jewish/Yocheved.htm
Yocheved was the daughter of Levi, Jacob’s son. She was born at the very moment when Jacob and his entire household, Levi and his wife among them, had just entered the gates of Egypt. That was in the year 2238 after Creation. Yocheved was the youngest member of the seventy souls who made up Jacob’s household.
Yocheved was brought up by her father and grandfather. For seventeen years she was together with her grandfather, for Jacob died seventeen years after his coming to Egypt. Yocheved married her nephew Amram, a grandson of her father.
-
Regarding the quote brought by Muman613
"Moses was shepherding the sheep of Jethro his father-in-law, he guided them into the wilderness, and he arrived at the mountain of G-d toward Horeb. An angel of G-d appeared to him in a blaze of fire from amidst the bush, and he saw that the bush was burning, and the bush was not consumed. Moshe looked and analyzed the sight and he questioned, "why is the bush not being burned?" (Exodus 3:1-3). It is only in that serene setting that G-d called out "Moshe, Moshe," to which Moshe replied "Here I am." The end of that story is the beginning of the Jewish nation.
Why is the act of shepherding sheep the setting for such majestic and Divine revelation? What amazing incident occurred during the shepherding? Why didn't G-d appear to Moses after his courageous act of smiting the Egyptian or after he reproached two Hebrews who were fighting? Wouldn't that setting be the ripe moment for induction into the halls of prophecy and leadership?
According to the Midrash, (Shmot Rabba 2:6). It was Moshe's concern about the pain of Israel that caused him to have the prophecy at the burning bush.
This is based on a double meaning to the words in the Biblical text Shmot/Exodus 3:4
כִּי סָר לִרְאוֹת
-
Then why would Rashi say it?
He says it because he is quoting the midrash, which he almost always does for his Torah commentary. (Thus, Rashi is not a "pashtan" and is almost always explaining the verses using the drashot of chazal, not giving over pshat). Why does Rashi choose to cite this midrash? I think it's because he had the same intention that chazal did when they first derived it. As I heard from Rabbi Bar Hayim once, Chazal created this drasha with a supernatural explanation to discourage any Jews from fighting against goyim following the Bar Kochba tragedy. If Moshe was only able to kill an Egyptian using a supernatural means, reciting a divine name, which no Jew today is really capable of, then that goes to show that we are not "allowed" to kill enemies except through this method. Therefore do not fight people like this abusive egyptian because it was different when Moshe did it.
Now, the Jews were downright powerless in France in Rashi's day with absolutely no means of self-defense. They would be slaughtered even worse than in bar kochva's time. Rashi is wisely trying to prevent them from doing anything violent that might upset the goyim.
-
He says it because he is quoting the midrash, which he almost always does for his Torah commentary. (Thus, Rashi is not a "pashtan" and is almost always explaining the verses using the drashot of chazal, not giving over pshat). Why does Rashi choose to cite this midrash? I think it's because he had the same intention that chazal did when they first derived it. As I heard from Rabbi Bar Hayim once, Chazal created this drasha with a supernatural explanation to discourage any Jews from fighting against goyim following the Bar Kochba tragedy. If Moshe was only able to kill an Egyptian using a supernatural means, reciting a divine name, which no Jew today is really capable of, then that goes to show that we are not "allowed" to kill enemies except through this method. Therefore do not fight people like this abusive egyptian because it was different when Moshe did it.
Now, the Jews were downright powerless in France in Rashi's day with absolutely no means of self-defense. They would be slaughtered even worse than in bar kochva's time. Rashi is wisely trying to prevent them from doing anything violent that might upset the goyim.
Does anyone besides Bar Hayim say this? He says a lot of things like this... I don't listen to him... Could you tell me the sources for this belief?
I find it hard to stomach... That all the Jewish sources were censored for fear of the goyim? Why didn't they remove the section about Amalek? Or about wiping out all idolatry (I am sure the goyim find that problematic)...
I would like to see others beside Bar Hayim saying this in order to accept it as anything other than one rabbis theory... Or is it Bar Hayim has a better talmid chocham than Rashi?
-
Why would the 'censors' allow Rashi to say that the purpose of the book of Genesis (the story of Creation) is to prove that the Jewish people own Israel? You are familiar with this Rashi (I am sure)... The reason for the story of creation was to say to the nations that the land of Israel is owned by the Jews.
http://www.chabad.org/parshah/torahreading.asp?aid=7781&p=1&showrashi=true
In the beginning: Said Rabbi Isaac: It was not necessary to begin the Torah except from “This month is to you,” (Exod. 12:2) which is the first commandment that the Israelites were commanded, (for the main purpose of the Torah is its commandments, and although several commandments are found in Genesis, e.g., circumcision and the prohibition of eating the thigh sinew, they could have been included together with the other commandments). Now for what reason did He commence with “In the beginning?” Because of [the verse] “The strength of His works He related to His people, to give them the inheritance of the nations” (Ps. 111:6). For if the nations of the world should say to Israel, “You are robbers, for you conquered by force the lands of the seven nations [of Canaan],” they will reply, "The entire earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it (this we learn from the story of the Creation) and gave it to whomever He deemed proper When He wished, He gave it to them, and when He wished, He took it away from them and gave it to us.
-
I am looking at the Rashi on Shemot and do not see him mention using the Shem Hashem to smite the egyptian:
http://www.chabad.org/parshah/torahreading.asp?aid=15559&showrashi=true&p=complete
He turned this way and that way: He saw what he [the Egyptian] had done to him [the Hebrew] in the house and what he had done to him in the field (Exod. Rabbah 1:28). But according to its simple meaning, it is to be interpreted according to its apparent meaning, i.e., he looked in all directions and saw that no one had seen him slay the Egyptian. [
and he saw that there was no man: [I.e., he saw that] there was no man destined to be descended from him [the Egyptian] who would become a proselyte [i.e., a convert]. [From Exod. Rabbah 1:29]
-
Why would the 'censors' allow Rashi to say that the purpose of the book of Genesis (the story of Creation) is to prove that the Jewish people own Israel? You are familiar with this Rashi (I am sure)... The reason for the story of creation was to say to the nations that the land of Israel is owned by the Jews.
It was not about the censors in this case, it was about a Jew not rising up and striking a goy who was harassing a Jew (or severely beating him etc.). That is the difference, what does Rashi saing the land of Israel belonging to Jews have any threat to a Frenchman living in France at the time? To them soo what, what this Jew thinks and writes about a far away land that isn't even controlled by France. Threat? Hardly.
Also add to that the general attitude and thinking brought about as a result of the galut as well.
-
It was not about the censors in this case, it was about a Jew not rising up and striking a goy who was harassing a Jew (or severely beating him etc.). That is the difference, what does Rashi saing the land of Israel belonging to Jews have any threat to a Frenchman living in France at the time? To them soo what, what this Jew thinks and writes about a far away land that isn't even controlled by France. Threat? Hardly.
Also add to that the general attitude and thinking brought about as a result of the galut as well.
I understand that some factions of Jews would think that way... But I don't think that only Moses smiting the Egyptian would offend them. The Jews, toward the end of the Torah, actually go to war with the nations and effectively terminate them... This is one reason I am not accepting this explanation as the reason some sages believe that Moses used a Name of Hashem...
I am currently looking for more background on this teaching...
-
I understand that some factions of Jews would think that way... But I don't think that only Moses smiting the Egyptian would offend them. The Jews, toward the end of the Torah, actually go to war with the nations and effectively terminate them... This is one reason I am not accepting this explanation as the reason some sages believe that Moses used a Name of Hashem...
I am currently looking for more background on this teaching...
Not offend Jews, possibly inspire a Jew to take action against an oppressor.
The Torah is written letter for letter and cannot be changed. Not a Jew nor a Christian would change it in any way (as they also believe in it).
The Talmudh and other Jewish books thy did often burn, even the censored one's.
The Talmud (at Paris), first of many such burnings over the next centuries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_book-burning_incidents#The_Talmud_.28at_Paris.29.2C_first_of_many_such_burnings_over_the_next_centuries
-
Not offend Jews, possibly inspire a Jew to take action against an oppressor.
The Torah is written letter for letter and cannot be changed. Not a Jew nor a Christian would change it in any way (as they also believe in it).
The Talmudh and other Jewish books thy did often burn, even the censored one's.
The Talmud (at Paris), first of many such burnings over the next centuries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_book-burning_incidents#The_Talmud_.28at_Paris.29.2C_first_of_many_such_burnings_over_the_next_centuries
Yes I am aware of the Talmud burnings...
It is one of the things we reflect upon on 17th of Tammuz..
http://ohr.edu/1094
“WHERE ONE BURNS BOOKS, ONE WILL, IN THE END, BURN PEOPLE.”
(HEINRICH HEINE 1797-1856)
The 17th of Tammuz marks the first book burning in Jewish history, but it was certainly not the last.
The Franciscan theologian, Alexander of Hales, noted that burning the Talmud would be an appropriate punishment for anti-Christian speech or actions.
Louis IX of France ruled that the Talmud was "full of errors, and that the veil covers the heart of these people to such a degree, that these books turn the Jews... to fables and lies."
In 1242, as a result of this attitude, some 10,000 copies of the Talmud, carried in 24 wagon loads, were burned at the stake before the eyes of grieving Parisian Jews who were kept at bay by royal soldiers. Jewish communities all over Europe mourned this and later destruction of these holy books.
Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg lamented: "O [Torah] that has been consumed by fire, seek the welfare of those who mourn you."
In 1244, Pope Innocent IV ordered Louis IX to again burn the Talmud, and to forbid Jews from hiring Christian nurses or servants. Louis willingly complied.
As late as 1553, under Pope Julius III, Cardinal Peter Caraffa, head of the Inquisition and the future Pope Paul IV, ordered copies of the Talmud burned in the Papal States and all across Italy.
-
Another Derasha on this topic (I'm quoting from an article of RationalistJudaism"
"a terrific drush on this from Rabbi Dr. Natan Lopez-Cardozo, quoting Rav Shlomo Kluger: that we are being told here about the identity crisis of the prince of Egypt. When Moshe saw the Egyptian beating the Jew, “He looked this way and that way” – he looked at his royal Egyptian upbringing, and at his Jewish ancestral roots. “And he saw that there was no man” – he saw that he lacked a true identity. “And he slew the Egyptian” – within himself. “And hid him in the sand” – he totally detached himself from the Egyptian mindset, and aligned himself fully with the fate of the Jews. "
-
Does anyone besides Bar Hayim say this? He says a lot of things like this... I don't listen to him... Could you tell me the sources for this belief?
I find it hard to stomach... That all the Jewish sources were censored for fear of the goyim? Why didn't they remove the section about Amalek? Or about wiping out all idolatry (I am sure the goyim find that problematic)...
I would like to see others beside Bar Hayim saying this in order to accept it as anything other than one rabbis theory... Or is it Bar Hayim has a better talmid chocham than Rashi?
Wow, it's amazing to me that you could have misinterpreted the entire post that I wrote. I would almost suggest that you did it on purpose. Hmmm??
Reread the post you replied to and the comments you wrote in response, and tell me how what you wrote has anything to do with what I wrote
Please.
-
Wow, it's amazing to me that you could have misinterpreted the entire post that I wrote. I would almost suggest that you did it on purpose. Hmmm??
Reread the post you replied to and the comments you wrote in response, and tell me how what you wrote has anything to do with what I wrote
Please.
No I did not misinterpret the post. I read again your posting and you suggest that Chazal censored the teachings on this pasuk in order to make it seem that Jews are not supposed to rise up against the oppression of the nations.
Did KWRBT write this?
As I heard from Rabbi Bar Hayim once, Chazal created this drasha with a supernatural explanation to discourage any Jews from fighting against goyim following the Bar Kochba tragedy. If Moshe was only able to kill an Egyptian using a supernatural means, reciting a divine name, which no Jew today is really capable of, then that goes to show that we are not "allowed" to kill enemies except through this method. Therefore do not fight people like this abusive egyptian because it was different when Moshe did it.
If so you are clearly suggesting that the Sages modified the teaching in order to satisfy the gentile nations.
But this still makes no sense, because by the 'simple meaning' of the parsha Moshe took a rock and murdered the Egyptian. So what difference does it make that he used a 'divine name'?
Can you still find a source from Chazal or others which support Rabbi Bar Chayims opinion?
-
No I did not misinterpret the post.
Yes. You did.
Furthermore,
This: If so you are clearly suggesting that the Sages modified the teaching in order to satisfy the gentile nations.
Does not follow from this:
that Chazal censored the teachings on this pasuk in order to make it seem that Jews are not supposed to rise up against the oppression of the nations.
Even though YOU assume that it does. You at times make assumptions which are extremely accusatory and contentious when it is completely uncalled for.
But this still makes no sense, because by the 'simple meaning' of the parsha Moshe took a rock and murdered the Egyptian. So what difference does it make that he used a 'divine name'?
Chazal, as they often do with drashot, are adding a deeper level of understanding and meaning to the verse's supposed "simple meaning." And as you know, Judaism functions based on how the sages understand the pesukim, not how any old shmo who opens up the text and uses a thesaurus might understand the verse. Would you tell me that an "Eye for an eye" should go by the "simple meaning of the verse" and therefore what chazal said about its meaning is irrelevant? No, of course not. So apply the same standard here. What chazal say matters. Rav Bar Hayim agrees with that, and so does every sage and every posek from time immemorial. So it is you, muman613, who must find a source to support your supposed point that what chazal say about a verse makes no difference.
As to your question, I already made this clear. Chazal are saying in THAT MIDRASH, that Moshe did not kill the Egyptian with a rock, he killed him by invoking the Divine name. That makes a big difference because no Jew today is capable of killing someone by that means.
-
I understand that some factions of Jews would think that way... But I don't think that only Moses smiting the Egyptian would offend them. The Jews, toward the end of the Torah, actually go to war with the nations and effectively terminate them...
It's not about "offending" anyone. This is one reason you clearly misinterpreted my post. I'm not talking about offending people, Jew or non-Jew. I'm talking about discouraging Jews from taking revenge in individual or collective acts of violence as Moshe undertook in this verse.
-
Does anyone besides Bar Hayim say this? He says a lot of things like this... I don't listen to him...
That's your loss.
Could you tell me the sources for this belief?
Rational thought?
What belief in particular are you struggling with? The belief that chazal authored midrashim? The belief that chazal had a purpose in authoring them? Something else? Please elaborate.
I find it hard to stomach... That all the Jewish sources were censored for fear of the goyim?
Actually, I didn't make this claim. But all the Jewish sources WERE censored by the Catholic Church which controlled the printing presses. Were you not aware of that?
However, that is clearly NOT the point I'm making about this particular midrash. Chazal derived this idea with a practical purpose in mind following the failure of the Bar Kochva revolt. That purpose was not "Avoid offending non-Jews." That purpose was "Discourage Jews from fighting evil/abusive non-Jews like the Egyptian in this verse so as not to provoke the physical attack of non-Jewish armed attackers."
I don't see what is so implausible about this suggestion.
Why didn't they remove the section about Amalek? Or about wiping out all idolatry (I am sure the goyim find that problematic)...
Because I never said that all verses which goyim find "problematic" should be "removed" (God forbid).
I also never said that chazal felt that way.
I also never said that chazal would ever remove or change the text.
But here are some more reasons: Aside from the fact that we don't "remove verses," chazal DID temper the discussion of Amalek by saying that we don't know who amalek is in our day. So why would you equate "goyim" with "Amalek?" Only some goyim are Amalek, and we don't know who they are (unless, according to some opinions, they express outright nazism). No goy would think that we have it out for them based on Amalek. But neo-nazis DO actually pretend that we have genocidal intentions with the world based on the Amalek verses. I have seen what they write about it. So what?
Most non-Jews don't consider themselves idol worshipers, so they are not bothered by the Torah calling for it to be removed. However, some understand that we consider their religion to be idol worship, and they ARE offended by our desire to remove their idols from Eretz Yisrael, and so on. So what?
These have nothing to do with this thread which is about Moshe killing an Egyptian.
I would like to see others beside Bar Hayim saying this in order to accept it as anything other than one rabbis theory...
Saying what exactly? Point it out from among the things that I said, not the things that you attributed to me but which I did not actually say.
Or is it Bar Hayim has a better talmid chocham than Rashi?
Huh? Where did Rashi disagree with this view? And in what world does having a view different from rashi assert being a better talmid chacham than Rashi?
-
It's not about "offending" anyone. This is one reason you clearly misinterpreted my post. I'm not talking about offending people, Jew or non-Jew. I'm talking about discouraging Jews from taking revenge in individual or collective acts of violence as Moshe undertook in this verse.
Again I do not believe this... Can you refer to some source (which medresh) says that Chazal didn't want the Jewish people to react to the oppression of the nations?
This whole thread of yours seems unreal... You have mentioned one Rabbi who says this, and cannot tell me where this is learned from... This is why I reject your comment.
Whether Moses killed the Egyptian with a rock or with the Divine name of Hashem makes no difference. The fact that Moshe killed the Egyptian is the lesson, that a Jew cannot stand idle as his fellow Jew is oppressed. I do not think that anything is changed by saying that it was through a divine name.
I was just interested if there were actual sources for this belief, but as you continue making personal issue out of it, I am pretty sure there is no real source of this idea. Maybe you can ask Rabbi Bar Hayim to provide the sources for his statement.
-
KWRBT,
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that you go on and on about this?
You state that the Sages introduced a teaching about the killing of the Egyptian for the purpose of preventing Jews from murdering our oppressors... You claim this happened after Bar Kochba, without providing any source for this...
There are several parts of the Torah which suggest that Jews should not stand idle when our fellow Jews are threatened. I can see no benefit to our mesorah to teach that Moses killed the Egyptian by a divine name (so somehow that means we cannot act to save our brothers)... I simply find that fantastical...
-
Please provide the original source of this idea... That the chazal 'made up' this teaching to prevent Jews from 'provoking' attacks from non-Jews...
-
http://torahinmotion.org/discussions-and-blogs/shemot-ineffable-name
Shemot: The Ineffable Name
"And he saw an Egyptian man hitting a Hebrew of his brothers" (2:11). To the slave in Egypt, being beaten up by our tormentors was the norm, and the Jewish people--having no recourse or justice--suffered in silence. Moshe's act of fighting back on behalf of some "lowly" slave was shocking for those immersed in Egyptian culture, and it nearly cost him his life.
With the Jews learning to defend themselves, the process of redemption could now begin. Years earlier, the enslavement of the Jewish people began with a well-orchestrated state-sponsored propaganda campaign to demonize the Jewish people. "He [Pharaoh] said to his people: Now the nation of the people of Israel is greater and more powerful than us". Only after hateful speech could Pharaoh impose upon them taskmasters, to "afflict them with their burdens [and to] build storage cities for Pharaoh", soon to be followed up by the tossing of Jewish babies into the Nile.
Just as the process of slavery began with speech, so too did the process of redemption. "And he said: 'Who made you a master and judge over us? Helargeinu atta omer, do you say to kill us, as you killed the Egyptian?'" (2:14). Our rabbis, ever so sensitive to the wording of the text, add an additional layer of meaning to the phrase helargeinu atta omer, do you say to kill us. They comment that Moshe killed the Egyptian using words as his weapon, his words being the shem hameforash, the ineffable Name of G-d.
Of course, such a comment "contradicts" the text itself where exactly two verses prior, we are told that "he saw that there was no man [looking] and he hit the Egyptian and buried him in the sand". While Moshe may have struck the Egyptian, our rabbis were noting that words are more powerful and dangerous than any weapon. No weapon is used until it is preceded by demonization. Speech may kill, yet those who seek life are able to "guard their tongue from speaking evil and [their] lips from guile". The voice of Jacob can be more powerful than the hands of Eisav. It is not mere coincidence that the first place the Jewish people encamped upon departing Egypt was Pi Hacherot, literally "The Mouth of Freedom". Slaves are silent; only the redeemed can speak. Pesach, the holiday that celebrates this transformation from slavery to freedom, is really a conjunction of two words: peh sach, the mouth speaks.
The Torah begins with the awesome voice of G-d creating the world through the power of speech. "In ten utterances was the world created".
The shem hameforash brings the power of the Divine to earth. It is to be used sparingly and carefully. There is nothing more powerful and fearsome than the name of G-d, a name representing the Divine essence. It is only to be used by the high priest in the Temple, where the Divine presence rests. And when one hears the name, one must prostrate oneself; with G-d's presence manifest, man is powerless.
Vayikra b'shem Hashem, and they called in the name of G-d, is a refrain we hear over and over as our founding fathers brought the message of G-d to the world, constantly calling in the name of G-d. Abraham, and hence the Jewish people, are descendants of Shem, and our lives must ensure that our lifestyle does not "profane My holy name", so that "I will be made holy in the midst of the people of Israel" (Vayikra 22:32).
"And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob with El, but My name I did not make known to them". There are many names of G-d, each representing a different aspect of the Divine. It is our task to live up to G-d's name, a name that will ensure the redemption of the Jewish people.
-
but as you continue making personal issue out of it, I am pretty sure there is no real source of this idea. Maybe you can ask Rabbi Bar Hayim to provide the sources for his statement.
Dude come on. Man up. Go back and read the posts and see that you made the issue personal and he responded back.
-
Dude come on. Man up. Go back and read the posts and see that you made the issue personal and he responded back.
How did I make it personal? I said that I would like to see sources which confirm the statement made. There is nothing personal about it...
That I do not accept everything that your Rabbi says, is that making it personal? I have no intention of making it personal, I am not arguing with anyone here. It seemed to me that KWRBT is the one quoting and attempting to attack my position. My position is based on several Rabbis interpretation of the verse. All I asked for was a reliable source other than 'I heard Rabbi so-and-so say this'....
This was my 1st response to what KWRBT posted. There are no personal attacks in this post...
http://jtf.org/forum/index.php/topic,73131.msg618341.html#msg618341
PS: I realize that what I said 'fear of what the goyim think' is different than what KWRBT was saying, that by saying it was a divine name it somehow makes it OK from the perspective of the non-Jew.... I do not agree with the premise that by saying it was a divine name it lessens the idea that Moses acted on the injustice of the Egyptian beating the Jew, as in either case the Egyptian died...
All I ask for is corroboration of this idea... Not just 'Rabbi x says this'...
-
The statements and the explanations (proofs) behind them were given.
The question still remains on how would Moshe know the Divine name at this point in time where he didn't even receive Prophecy yet, AND was living as an Egyptian and just at that point even got to any of his brothers and that being where it lead him to seeing the oppression and striking the Egyptian who was beating the Jew to death.
-
I just went back, read this and had a thought in mind.
From Rav Kahane ZTL HYD
This is a Jewish response – not to let the Gentile smite with impunity, for every single blow desecrates the Children of Israel and is blasphemy against G-d’s Name. Anyone who smites a Jew must be smitten in return. More than this: Moses’ smiting the Egyptian was the Children of Israel’s first response ever to the blows they had received, and foreshadowed all the blows, all the plagues, that G-d would yet inflict upon Egypt.
Perhaps on a Derashic level what was happening was that the Egyptian was " blasphemy against G-d’s Name", by Moshe smiting him Moshe perhaps in affect was doing the opposite, he was removing the Hillul Hashem and it become a Kiddush Hashem. Soo instead of " blasphemy against G-d’s Name" it was an act that would lead and lead to uttering G-D's name- in Praises.
-
This is why I reject your comment.
I reject your rejection of my comment.
Whether Moses killed the Egyptian with a rock or with the Divine name of Hashem makes no difference.
Really? If only you could go back in time and convince the authors of the midrash that it made no difference, so they would never derive from that verse that he killed the Egyptian with the Divine name. But alas, you cannot. And they did make that derivation, which means it did make a difference to them. Otherwise, they would not have said it.
The fact that Moshe killed the Egyptian is the lesson,
Then why do they say he did so with the Divine name? You have no answer for that. You are belittling the words of the sages by saying that they "don't make a difference" and by suggesting that they said things for no reason - what a chillul Hashem.
that a Jew cannot stand idle as his fellow Jew is oppressed.
That may be the lesson YOU understand from the verse, but it wasn't the lesson Rashi promoted from this verse. Rashi said that Moshe looked to be sure that no righteous descendants would come from this Egyptian and only when seeing that was the case, then Moshe killed him. So, I can't help but ask you Muman, based on the standards of conversation that you introduce to this forum, "are you a better talmid chacham than Rashi?"
I do not think that anything is changed by saying that it was through a divine name.
If you scream loud enough and cover your eyes, it doesn't alter reality. Saying that nothing is changed by applying an entirely new meaning to the verse is quite a delusion you are harboring. Impressive, almost.
I was just interested if there were actual sources for this belief,
BEHIND WHAT BELIEF? SPECIFY WHAT BELIEF YOU REFER TO, PLEASE!
but as you continue making personal issue out of it, I am pretty sure there is no real source of this idea. Maybe you can ask Rabbi Bar Hayim to provide the sources for his statement.
Right, I made it personal, says the guy who wrote Oh, that's Rabbi Bar Hayim, "I don't listen to him" ::)
-
KWRBT,
Cool down a bit KWRBT... You are not looking at other posts I made which support the divine name explanation.
Is it my question of who it is who originated this idea you quoted him as saying which is bothering you?
My attempt to argue against this Rabbis opinion is that in the end, from the perspective of the gentile, it makes no difference how the Egyptian was killed, he is dead and buried in the sand. Does it prevent Jews from fighting our oppressors, I don't get that impression either.
This is why I wanted to know the source.
And I am sorry if I offended your Rabbi. If I am wrong that you are upset at me because I question who originated the 'concept' or 'belief' that the sages created this teaching to prevent Jews from attacking people who oppress us (after the Bar Kochba rebellion). If so, and you care to, please tell me what you are upset about.
-
I believe the Rashi interpretation, and what the Medresh says about him using the divine name...
I do not believe the explanation you gave attributed to Rav Bar Hayim...
Is that simple or what?
-
A question was raised concerning Rashi's view. How could Moshe have used special Divine names to kill the Egyptian, if he had only received prophecy at the burning bush later on?
One possible answer is that since Moshe's mother was granted permission by the daughter of Pharaoh to be Moshe's nursemaid; perhaps because of this, he retained some contact with his true family and found out through them about the special Divine names.
A 2nd possible explanation is that there are different levels of prophecy and Divine Inspiration.
Moshe only reached the higher level at the burning bush but had a low level of Divine Inspiration by the time he killed the Egyptian. The low level of Divine Inspiration gave him the knowledge that he needed to kill the Egyptian and see into the future concerning his descendants.
-
I believe the Rashi interpretation, and what the Medresh says about him using the divine name...
I do not believe the explanation you gave attributed to Rav Bar Hayim...
But Rabbi Bar Hayim didn't deny what Rashi said about it, nor did he deny that the midrash cited the use of the Divine Name. He gave an explanation of those answers! It's funny how you want to pit someone against Rashi when that someone is explaining what Rashi said. Either you exhibit the worst kind of reading comprehension imaginable, or you purposely obfuscate. Still haven't figured out which.
-
A question was raised concerning Rashi's view. How could Moshe have used special Divine names to kill the Egyptian, if he had only received prophecy at the burning bush later on?
One possible answer is that since Moshe's mother was granted permission by the daughter of Pharaoh to be Moshe's nursemaid; perhaps because of this, he retained some contact with his true family and found out through them about the special Divine names.
A 2nd possible explanation is that there are different levels of prophecy and Divine Inspiration.
Moshe only reached the higher level at the burning bush but had a low level of Divine Inspiration by the time he killed the Egyptian. The low level of Divine Inspiration gave him the knowledge that he needed to kill the Egyptian and see into the future concerning his descendants.
Then if Yocheved or someone else known the name(s) why weren't they using it when they saw others afflicted and even killed? If you say its forbidden then what would have allowed Moshe to do soo then.
2) Moshe's first Prophetic encounter at the burning Bush was a low level (I think I brought it up earlier). It wasn't even through and with Hashem directly but through an angel. And that is when he BEGAN (says soo Rambam in his Mereh) to work up in Prophecy up until he reached the highest level possible.
-
Quote from Tag-MehirTzedek
Then if Yocheved or someone else known the name(s) why weren't they using it when they saw others afflicted and even killed? If you say its forbidden then what would have allowed Moshe to do soo then.
In Kol Hator, the disciples of the Vilna Gaon claimed they had received secret names of G-d to help them above natural means but were forbidden to use them except to prevent a desecration of G-d or to save the Yishuv in the land of Israel.
Maybe Moshe felt the situation in front of him was needed to prevent a desecration of G-d.
Possibility #2, I have heard that if people who are on too low a spiritual level use these names it can bring disaster upon the user. Moshe felt he was on the level to use them.
I heard a rumor that an important rabbi blamed his use of Divine names for a terror incident that befell his family. Since I don't have sufficient verification for the story I will not provide further details.
Possibility #3 According to Maharal's Gur Aryeh commentary on Rashi, in order for the Divine names to work against the Egyptian it had to be accompanied by some type of physical hitting of the Egyptian. The Divine name magnified the small weak hit into a powerful hit that was strong enough to kill the Egyptian. So according to Maharal even if other Jews had the knowledge of the Divine names, it wouldn't work for them as long as they were too scared to give the Egyptians even a weak hit.
-
Quote from Rabbi Moshe Chayim Luzzatto's Derech Hashem as translated into English under the title the Way of G-d(page 199 in my edition)
It is obvious, however, that it is not appropriate for a commoner to make use of the King's scepter. Regarding this, our sages teach us, "He who makes use of the Crown will pass away". Things such as these are only permitted to holy individuals, who are close to G-d and attached to Him. Even such individuals, furthermore, only use these methods to sanctify G-d's name and do His will. Even though an unworthy person may not be prevented from attaining results if he follows the proper procedures, he can still be punished for his willful act.
-
Regarding what Tag-MehirTzedek said
2) Moshe's first Prophetic encounter at the burning Bush was a low level (I think I brought it up earlier). It wasn't even through and with Hashem directly but through an angel. And that is when he BEGAN (says soo Rambam in his Mereh) to work up in Prophecy up until he reached the highest level possible.
See Rabbi Moshe Chayim Luzzatto's Derech Hashem as translated into English under the title the Way of G-d, Section 3 Chapters 3,4,5 and you will see there are lower levels of Divine Inspiration than the level obtained by Moshe at the burning bush.
-
If Yocheved knew then her husband knew as well. He was one of 4 who never sinned in his life. Soo if he knew this name and the Egyptian enslavement itself was a Hillul Hashem then he surely would and should have used it.
Also even back to Moshe, had he had this power he wouldn't have had to run away after striking (or using Divine name) the Egyptian dead.
-
Quote from Tag-MehirTzedek
If Yocheved knew then her husband knew as well. He was one of 4 who never sinned in his life. Soo if he knew this name and the Egyptian enslavement itself was a Hillul Hashem then he surely would and should have used it.
Also even back to Moshe, had he had this power he wouldn't have had to run away after striking (or using Divine name) the Egyptian dead.
Not everyone who is on a high spiritual level realizes he is on a high spiritual level. It could be Yocheved's husband didn't believe he was on the level of being worthy to use the Divine Names.
Or according to Maharal's take on Moshe, it could be that Yocheved's husband was too afraid to give Egyptians the weak hit in order to activate the power of the Divine Names.
Although there is room to argue about this, a possible support for the Maharal's view that a relatively weak hit was needed to activate the miracle is found in the Talmud's account in Brachot 54b regarding how Moshe killed Og the King of Bashan.
The Talmud seemingly portrays Og as the largest and strongest man in history and the hit that Moshe gave him (even with his weapon of war) in an ordinary situation would not have been enough to kill Og or even stop him. But G-d supplemented Moshe's hit with a miracle to make it do the job.
-
Edu- About Moshe and Og, its not literal at all. If you were to take it literal you would think him to be a giant, reaaaly big giant, but if you see the words of the sages and the deeper meaning behind all the measurements and statements you would appreciate the words of the sages a lot more.
If you can get a hold of this book and in the third chapter on "giants" you can see what all of it means and what it alludes to exactly.
http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Monsters-Natan-Slifkin/dp/9652295817
I think the same can be said to in regards to our case. We should understand something to be a Derash when it is a Derash and leave it at that. Live our lives on the level of Pshat instead of going through this whole pilpul of how Moshe would possibly strike someone in a way other then using his physical force available to him and strike him dead.
-
Tag_MehirTzedek holds:
Edu- About Moshe and Og, its not literal at all. If you were to take it literal you would think him to be a giant, reaaaly big giant, but if you see the words of the sages and the deeper meaning behind all the measurements and statements you would appreciate the words of the sages a lot more.
It seems the sages did think that Og was the largest and most powerful man in history.
See:
Brachot 54a
Our Rabbis taught: If one sees the place of the crossing of the Red Sea, or the fords of the Jordan,
or the fords of the streams of Arnon, or hail stones [abne elgabish] in the descent of Beth Horon, or
the stone which Og king of Bashan wanted to throw at Israel, or the stone on which Moses sat when
Joshua fought with Amalek, or [the pillar of salt of] Lot's wife, or the wall of Jericho which sank
into the ground, for all of these he should give thanksgiving and praise to the Almighty.
See Yoma page 80b Soncino Translation
When this came up for discussion, it came up in connection with ‘Og, king of Bashan’,1 so that Beth
Shammai will be found to take the severer view. — R. Zera asked a strong question: To what
difference is it due that, with regard to eating, the minimum of a date was fixed for every one,
whereas in the case of drinking each has [his minimum] in accord with his own [mouthful]? —
Abaye replied to him: Regarding2 food the Rabbis established that with [the quantity of] a date a
person may come to, but with a smaller quantity he will not come to; but with regard to drinking
[they have found] that a man will come to with the quantity of his own [mouthful], but not with less
than that. — R. Zera then asked another strong question: ‘All the world’ with a date and Og, the king
of Bashan, also with a date? — Abaye replied: The Rabbis have ascertained that [touching food] the
quantity [of a date] helps one to come to, but with a smaller quantity he will not come to; but,
whereas all the world [can come to] more so, Og, king of Bashan, [only] somewhat so.
Footnotes
(1) I.e., this teaching refers to the case of men as gigantic as Og, king of Bashan (Ber. 54b); in such cases Beth Shammai
will be found to have taken, as usual, the severer view. For according to that school the minimum incurring penalty for
any man is a fourth of a log, whereas according to the Hillelites it is for each according to his mouthful. According to
Beth Shammai, therefore, an ‘Og, king of Bashan’ would become culpable on drinking, what to him would be less than a
drop, whereas according to Beth Hillel he would incur penalty only when drinking the generous measure of his own
mouthful.
(2) Corrected according to Bah.
-
Og indeed was a giant, and he existed from pre-flood times... See Talmud Tractate Niddah 61a...
http://halakhah.com/niddah/niddah_61.html
And the Lord said unto Moses: Fear him not'.47 Consider: Sihon and Og were brothers, for a Master stated, 'Sihon and Og were the sons of Ahijah the son of Shamhazai',48 then why was it that he feared Og while he did not fear Sihon? R. Johanan citing R. Simeon b. Yohai replied: From the answer that was given49 to50 that righteous man51 you may understand what was in his mind.52 He thought: Peradventure the merit of our father Abraham will stand him53 by, for it is said, And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew,54 in connection with which R. Johanan explained: This refers to Og who escaped the fate of the generation of the flood.55
47 Num. XXI, 34.
48 One of the fallen angels referred to in Gen. VI, 2, 4 as 'sons of God' or 'Nephilim'.
49 By God.
50 Lit., 'of'.
51 Moses.
52 Lit., 'heart'.
53 Og.
54 Gen. XIV, 13.
55 Cf. Zeb. 113b.
-
Learn the Aggadot in depth. See also Rambam and others who explain what the terms mean. I already referenced one of he books where it can be found (the explanations)