Parashath Shëmoth (Exodus I.1-VI,1) 1/13/12

A.

ואלה שמות בני ישראל הבאים מצרימה את יעקב איש וביתו באו: ראובן שמעון לוי ויהודה: יששכר זבולן ובנימן: דן ונפתלי גד ואשר: (“And these are the names of the bënei Yisra’él coming to Egypt with Ya‘aqov; man and his household they came. Rë’uvén, Shim‘on Lévi and Yëhuda. Yissachar, Zëvulun, and Binyamin. Dan and Naftali, Gad and Asher”). So begins our parasha.

On reflection, this list seems entirely unnecessary; after all, a much more comprehensive list, fleshing out the total number of bënei Yisra’él who entered the Egyptian exile, was already provided in Genesis XLVI, 8-27; why this partial repetition?

The brothers’ names appear in the order in which they were born, grouped by their mothers; the first six are Lé’a’s sons; the seventh, Rahél’s son, Binyamin (Yoséf, already in Egypt, is not listed); followed by the sons of Bilha and Zilpa. Why, then are they divided between three verses as they are?

Finally, why does the passage begin with the vav ha-hibbur, the conjunctive prefix? This usually serves to connect two ideas related either in content or sequence, and so is usually translated “and”; but, last week’s parasha ended with Ya‘aqov’s burial in the Holy Land, years after their descent into Egypt. Hence, this is not a simple continuation of events from Genesis, but a new departure, and the prefix seems out of place; so why is it there?

B.

The great Rabbi Yoséf Caro, author of the Shulhan ‘Aruch, provides us with unique insight in his séfer Maggid Méysharim.

In order to understand what follows, a measure of background is necessary.

I have previously discussed de Broglie’s and Schrödinger’s discoveries of the mathematical relationships, expressed as wave functions, which underlie physical reality, as well as the metaphysical relationships expressed through the letters of the Holy Alphabet which Hazal assert generate and drive this world, presumably through these wave functions.

The resultant cosmos is administered via ten bilateral conduits between the Infinite and the finite, whose technical term is sëfiroth, the most common names of which are: Kether (“crown”), Hochma (‘wisdom”), Bina (“understanding”), Hesed (“kindness”), Gëvura (“Might”), Tif’ereth (“Splendour”), Netzah (“eternity”), Hod (“majesty”). Yësod (“foun-dation”), and Malchuth (“kingship”); through these the metaphysical energy sustaining and operating the world is channeled, as is our feedback (עיי' למשל במדבר רבה פי"ד סי' כ"ד, פסיקתא זוטא לבראשית א' א', ספר יצירה פ"א וזוה"ק ח"ב מ"ב. בין השאר). The sëfiroth are also mentioned in the Tanach, perhaps most famously in King David’s declaration: לך ד' הגדלה והגבורה והתפארת והנצח והוד וגו' (“Yours, Ha-Shem, is Gëdulla [‘greatness’, an alternate name for Malchuth], Gëvura, Tif’ereth, Netzah, and Hod....”; I Chronicles XXIX,11).

Kether The sëfiroth are usually configured as shown: three on the right, three

Bina Hochma on the left, and four in the centre. Those on the right are expressions of

Gëvura Hesed unbounded infinitude, those on the left delimit and define them, pro-

Tif’ereth ceeding from and recombining into unity in a phased step-down in the

Hod Netzah boundless light’s intensity such that gross physicality can tolerate and

Yësod accept it; for instance, Hochma may be compared to an artistic concept,

Malchuth Bina implements the concept in plans or blueprints. The metaphor may be extended, until Malchuth is the point of ingress and egress to and from this world.

As I already said, the sëfiroth are two-lane highways, and there is also human feedback, through mitzva observance and prayer, carried on the sëfiroth, serving to draw down sanctity and abundance from Above. To enable this feedback, it is necessary for a direct coonnexion to exist between humanity and the sëfiroth. Israel provides that link.

C.

With this in mind, let us consider what the Maggid tells us of the shëvatim:

ראובן שמעון לוי רמיזא לג' אבהן. ראובן בחסד, והיינו דכתיב בי' "כי ראה ד' כי שנואה אנכי" דרחים עלה מסטרא דחסד (“Rë’uvén, Shim‘on, Lévi allude to the three patriarchs, Rë’uvén through Hesed, as it is written concerning him: ‘for Ha-Shem has seen that I am hated’ [cf. Genesis XXIX, 31-32], that He had mercy on [Lé’a] from the side of Hesed”). The name Rë’uvén is composed of the root réysh-alef-hé – “see, perceive” – and the word bén, “son”.

שמעון לגבורה ומש"ה עביד נוקמא בשכם (“Shim‘on is for Gëvura, and because of this he took vengeance in Shëchem” [when his sister Dina was raped; cf. ibid., XXXIV). The name Shim‘on can be interpreted as comprised of the word shém, “name”, and the root ‘ayin-vav-hé, which can signify “overturning” or “overcoming” (cf. Isaiah XXIV, 1).

לוי בתפארת וכו' והיינו דכתיב "הפעם ילוה אישי אלי כי ילדתי לו שלשה בנים" כלומר כיון דילדת ית לוי דרמיז בת"ת ילוה אישי אלי דגם הוא רמיז בת"ת. וכמא דאיהו "איש תם יושב אהלים" דאיהו מחבר בין שני אהלים דהיינו חסד וגבורה והכי נמי לוי בההוא גבנא (“Lévi [is characterized by] Tif’ereth...and this is what is written, ‘This time my husband will become close [yillave] to me, for I have borne him three sons’ [ibid., XXIX, 34] as if to say, 'Since I have borne Lévi, who is a manifestation of Tif’ereth, my husband will be close to me for he, too, is a manifestation of Tif’ereth, in that he is "a perfect man, dwelling in tents" [ibid., XXV, 27], for he unites two "tents," those of Hesed and Gëvura, and similarly Lévi also has that character"'”). The root of Lévi, lamed-vav-hé, means “join, adhere to, borrow”.

The sëfiroth Hesed and Gëvura combine to form Tif’ereth, which thus “borrows” from both. Avraham embodied the quality of hesed, Yitzhaq the quality of gëvura or din, and Ya‘aqov the amalgamation of the two (to which the Maggid finds allusion in the refer-ence to dwelling in “tents”). Lévi fits between Hesed and Gëvura, partaking of both, because he, too, is an amalgamation of both qualities, manifest in Tif’ereth.

ויהודה רמיז למלכות והיינו דכתיב "הפעם אודה את ד'" דהפעם רמיז במלכות ומשום הכי אמרה "אודה את ד'" דכנסת ישראל הוא אתרא דהוראה ברזא ד"אלקים אל דמי לך" וכתיב בי' וא"ו לחברא לה עם תפארת (“And Yëhuda manifests Malchuth, which is what is written ‘this time [ha-pa‘am] I shall thank [ode] Ha-Shem’ [ibid., XXIX, 35], for ha-pa‘am alludes to Malchuth, and for this reason [Lé’a] said ‘I shall thank Ha-Shem,’ for the Assembly of Israel is the place of instruction according to the principle of ‘G-d, be not silent’ [Psalms LXXXIII, 2]; and a vav is written [prefixed to Yëhuda] to join [Malchuth] to Tif’ereth”).

The name Yëhuda incorporates the verb hoda – “thank, admit” – inextricably bound to the Tetragrammaton. The root pé-‘ayin-mem used verbally means “urge, impel”, whilst the noun implies a rhythmic beat, here connoting a specific instant of time. The term’s sense pf urging/impulse/direction alludes to initiative and direction inherent in kingship.

Herein is our explanation for the four names of the first verse: The third is the amalgam of the first two, and the fourth is tied to it, imparting its energy and thus instructing and impelling the physical world

We come to the middle verse: יששכר רמיז בבינה כדכתיב "ומבני יששכר וידעי בינה לעתים" (“Yis-sachar is a manifestation of Bina, as it is written: “And of the bënei Yissachar, knowers of Bina for the times”; I Chronicles XII,32).

זבולן רמיז בחכמה כדכתיב "בנה בניתי בית זבול לך" (“Zëvulun is a manifestation of Hochma, as it is written, “Building I have built a house of habitation [zëvul] for You”; I Kings VII, 13); the relationship between Zëvulun’s name and “habitation” is obvious.

And: בנימין רמז לכתר ומשום הכי נבנה בית המקדש בחלקו וכתיב בי' וא"ו למרמז דת"צ סליק עד הכתר )"Binyamin is a manifestation of Kether, and for this reason the Temple was built in his territory; and [his name] is written with the [prefix] vav to demonstrate that Tif’ereth reaches all the way to Kether.

Hochma and Bina are higher order, more rarefied expressions than Hesed and Gëvura, emanating from Kether, the highest order of unity which human intelligence can grasp.

The final verse holds two pairs: דן הוא רמז להוד דאיהו מסטרא דבינה (“Dan is a manifestation of Hod, for he is of the side of Bina”). The left side of the equation, on which Bina resides, is that of gëvura or din, “judgment”; the simple meaning of his name puts Dan on that side of the transaction..

נפתלי רמיז לנצח והיינו דכתיב "נפתולי אלקים נפתלתי" לשון שפע דמתמן נגיד שפעא וא"ו דכתיב בי' רמז דמחובר לת"ת (“Naftali is a manifestation of Netzah and this is what is written ‘the struggles of G-d have I struggled [naftulei Eloqim niftalti; Genesis XXX, 8], an expression of abundance, for from there is the abundance drawn, and it is written with a prefixed vav showing that it is attached to Tif’ereth’). Onqëlos explains Rahél’s statement as an expression of prayer; it is through prayer, flowing back up through the conduit of Netzah that we are able to access and draw down the Divine abundance which constitutes His mercy, the amalgam of hesed and gëvuroth which results in Tif’ereth.

Then: גד רמז ליסוד דגד לשנא דמזל הוא ומיסוד נוזל כל שפע וכל טוב לעלמין (“Gad is a manifestation of Yësod, for Gad is an expression of mazzal, and from Yësod does all abundance and goodness flow [nozél] to the worlds”). Mazzal is a point source from which metaphysical energy flows.

And: אשר רמיז למלכות והיינו דכתיב בי' "באשרי כי אשרוני בנות" וא"ו דכתיב בי' למרמז דסלקא ומתחברא לת"ת (“Asher alludes to Malchuth, and this is what is written of him, ‘in my happiness, for daughters will judge me happy’ [Genesis XXX, 13] and the vav written with it is to demonstrate that it rises and is connected to Tif’ereth”). The rest of the world benefits from the energy flows drawn down by Israel.

D.

Rabbi Aharon David Goldberg שליט"א, in his commentary on the Nefesh ha-Hayyim, points out that the connectivity up through the sëfiroth to Kether is exercised by our command of the Holy Language. This was once common to all bënei adam, but it was abused twice, once creating such a warping of the fabric of the fabric of the universe that it necessitated the cosmic reset of the Mabbul, the second being arrested before it got that far by the Great Dispersion which brought into existence the nations and their languages, cutting the connexion before it was too late. The Maggid here reveals how this linkage was gradually restored in preparation for the purifying crucible which would be the shi‘bud Mitzrayim, culminating in the triumph of Mattan Torah (עיי' ובחרת בחיים לנפש החיים שער א' פרק ג' אות ח' ובמלואים שם).

Parshath Shëmoth (Exodus I,1-VI,1) 12/24/10

A.

Our parasha begins with the account of the growing shi‘bud Mitzrayim, the enslavement of the bënei Yisra’él which started with the rise to power of a מלך חדש אשר לא ידע את יוסף (“new king who did not know Yoséf”: I, 8). The Talmud records the famous dispute of Rav and Shëmu’él as to whether this was in fact a new king, or the old one with an adjusted attitude towards the gratitude owed Yoséf for having made Egypt into a great power (עיי' סוטה י"א.). For our purposes, it is immaterial; Yoséf and his brothers were now all dead, and the result was a steady decline, first into spiritual slavery, as the hedonistic culture of Egypt began to have its effect, then finally physical servitude.

But, as Hazal tell us, הקב"ה מקדים רפואה למכה (“The Holy One, Blessed is He, precedes the cure to the blow”;פסיקתא זוטרתא לשמות פ"ג א' בין השאר ). Just as the worst phase was cranking up, our parasha tells us: וילך איש מבית לוי ויקח את בת לוי: ותהר האשה ותלד בן ותרא אתו כי טוב הוא וגו' (“And a man from the house of Lévi went and took a daughter of Lévi. And the woman became pregnant and bore a son; and she saw that he was good....”; II, 1-2).

The Talmud (שם, י"ב.) tells us that there were various signs at Moshe’s birth (though he did not yet bear that name; his parents named him Tuvya) that he was rather a special child. For one thing, we are told, he was born without a foreskin (ask your local mohél how common that is); for another, as Rashi summarizes the Talmud, כשנולד נתמלא הבית כולו אורה (“when he was born, the house filled entirely with light”).

If it was as obvious as that that something unusual had occurred with the boy’s birth, a question suggests itself: Why does the Torah not reveal the names of the parents here? It is only after Moshe is well set on his mission to free the bënei Yisra’él from Egyptian bondage, that the Torah lets us know: ויקח עמרם את יוכבד דדתו לו לאשה ותלד לו את אהרן ואת משה וגו' (“And ‘Amram took Yocheved his aunt to himself to wife, and she bore him Aharon and Moshe....”; VI, 20), whereas in our parasha, where the account occurs in historical sequence, we read only of a “man from the house of Lévi” and a “daughter of Lévi.”

Why should this be? Why does the Torah not tell us who they were from the beginning?

B.

Our question appears a bit sharper when we review other sources to see just how great ‘Amram and Yocheved really were in their own right.

Before recording the birth of Moshe, our parasha tells of the Egyptian king’s evil scheme to reduce the population of the bënei Yisra’él in his midst by having the two midwives watch carefully as each baby is born; if a boy, they were to kill him; if a girl, she could be allowed to live (remember that this was before mattan Torah, and ethnic identity even for bënei Yisra’él ran through the male line).

The virtuous midwives were G-d-fearing, and would have nothing to do with this scheme. Our parasha identifies them as Shifra and Pu‘a, but, as Rashi reveals, following the Talmud (שם): שפרה זו יוכבד על שם שמשפרת את הולד. פועה זו מרים שפועה ומדברת והוגה לולד כדרך הנשים המפייסות תינוק הבוכה (“Shifra is Yocheved, for she would make the child beautiful [mëshappereth, from the same root as Shifra]. Pu‘a is Miryam, for she would call aloud [po‘a] and speak and murmur to the child as is the way of women who calm down a wailing baby”). The heart of the resistance of the Israelite women to Egypt’s abortion mandate thus coalesced around Yocheved and her daughter.

As for ‘Amram, ‘Amram was the spiritual giant of his day (שם בסוטה וע"ע שמות רבה פ"א סי' י"ז). Indeed, Hazal tell us, ‘Amram was the last but one of seven great tzaddiqim who returned the Shëchina, the Divine Presence intended to be resident in this world, from the far exile into which the successive evils of the first two millennia of human activity had driven it: עמד אמרם והורידה מן הב' לא'. עמד משה והורידה מלמעלה למטה: (“Stood ‘Amram and brought it down from the second level to the first [i.e. just outside our world]. Stood Moshe and brought it down from on high to below”; בראשית רבה פי"ט סי' י"ג). ‘Amram’s tzidqiyuth was of such a level, we learn, ארבעה מתו בעטיו של נחש ואלו הן בנימין בן יעקב ועמרם אבי משה וישי אבי דוד וכלאב בן דוד (“Four men died at the snake’s instigation and they are: Binyamin ben Ya‘aqov; ‘Amram, father of Moshe; Yishai, father of David; and Kil’av ben David”; שבת נ"ה:). As Rashi ad loc. explains, they died at the snake’s instigation ולא בחטא אחר שלא חטאו (“and not because of any other sin, for they did not sin”).

If such as these were Moshe’s parents, why, indeed, does the Torah not identify them from the first?

C.

The question bothered the great Rabbi Moshe Feinstein זצ"ל, who considers it in his Darash Moshe. He sees the Torah’s educative purpose as providing a vital lesson in bëhira, in human free choice. All of the signs and portents noted by Hazal at Moshe’s birth were signs of great potential, to be sure; but that was all.

Three months after Moshe was born, our parasha tells us, Yocheved reacted to another evil decree of the Egyptian government, this time mandating that every Israelite boy be searched out and drowned in the Nile. To prevent the boy’s discovery, she set him adrift on the river in a water-tight basket. The daughter of the very king who promulgated the decree found the basket, and was charmed by the baby. Moshe’s sister Miryam, who had been hiding in the rushes watching, offered her mother’s services as a wet-nurse, and the deal was on.

Thus, Moshe was raised in the Egyptian royal palace, with all of the social and educational advantages that implies, As such, he was presented with a choice: He could place his vast talents at the disposal of the Egyptian state, to which he owed a personal debt of gratitude, or he could embrace the cause of his parents. When he saw an Egyptian overseer beating an Israelite slave to death, he made his choice, and saved the slave.

As a result, he fled Egyptian justice, and ran to Midyan. There, he married Tzippora bath Yithro, who bore him two sons, and settled into the life of a Midyani shepherd. He was again brought face to face with his choice, when confronted by the burning bush: he was now a father of two young boys, with responsibilities, he could stay in Midyan, or take up the mission of liberating the bënei Yisra’él to establish the Torah nation. He chose to return to Egypt.

And it is only then, as the realization of the tremendous potential to which those portents alluded commenced, that we are allowed to know the identity of his parents, and hence the tremendous yihus from which Moshe emerged. For what is far more important than one’s yihus is the yihus ‘atzmi, the personal, private yihus established by one’s own choices and efforts to apply and actualize the talents provided by the other kind.

D.

‘Ad kan Rabbi Feinstein. It is for this very reason that we traditionally celebrate not the birthdays of our great forebears, but their Jahrzeiten, the anniversaries of their deaths. it is only then that it is possible to assess and ascertain the extent to which a person has lived up to his potential, the extent to which his yihus ‘atzmi has served to realize and actualize his yihus.

On the occasion of the publication of his first volume of responsa, the Ha‘améq Shë’éla, the Nëtziv, Rabbi Naftali Tzëvi Yëhuda Berlin, second rosh yëshiva of Volozhin, told of an incident in his childhood. He came home one day unexpectedly, and overheard his father crying in despair in the kitchen. As he told his wife, he had had such great hopes that the boy would develop into a true Torah-scholar, had hired the finest tutors he could find, but it was not working out. He sighed that he would have to apprentice the boy to some tradesman instead.

Overcome by the strength of his father’s feelings, little Naftali burst into the kitchen, begging him not to cry, promising to try harder. The result was evident in the publication of the Ha‘améq Shë’éla.

The Nëtziv did not come from an inconsequential family; his father was a respected talmid hacham, his mother the daughter of a prominent rabbi.

So, the Nëtziv speculated, what would have happened had he not come home so unexpectedly? He would have been apprenticed, perhaps to a shoemaker. He would doubtless have been a very good shoemaker; certainly he would have been a religious man, and would have joined the hevra Mishnayoth and studied Torah. And then. at the end of his 120 years, as he faced the Great Tribunal Above, he would have been asked: Why did you not write the Ha‘améq Shë’éla?

For he would not have made the choices which would have given him the yihus ‘atzmi to actualise his yihus.

Parshath Shmoth (Exodus I,1-VI,1) 1/16/09

A.

Our parasha tells us how, over time, the attitude of the Egyptian authorities toward the bnei Yisra’él changed and became hostile, until Pharaoh proposed to his people: כל הבן הילוד היארה תשליכהו (“Every boy who is born, into the Nile shall you cast him”; I, 22).

As a result, Yocheved put her three-month-old son into a waterproof basket and cast him adrift in the reeds at the bank of the Nile, in hopes of saving him from the slaughter. The infant’s older sister, Miriam, kept an eye on him from the shore, until Pharaoh’s daughter, bathing with her attendants in the river, found the basket, and took pity on its helpless occupant. Miriam ran up to her to propose her mother as a wet-nurse, and baby Moshe was safe.

When Pharaoh’s daughter found the basket, the Torah tells us, ותפתח ותראהו את הילד והנה נער בכה ותחמל עליו וגו' (“And she opened [it] and she saw him/it with the boy, and behold a youth was crying, and she felt pity on him….; II,6).

The sharp-eyed reader with a חוש חי לשפה העברית, a “lively sense of the Hebrew language (as one of my rebbe’im was wont to say) will already have noted the oddities which I have tried to capture in the rather clumsy translation:

1) The second verb in the sentence incorporates a pronominal object, “and she saw him” (or, arguably, “it”, since Hebrew has no neuter pronoun), which is then followed immediately by a prepositional phrase which normally indicates the direct object, in this case, “the boy”. As Rashi points out, the preposition eth can also be translated “with”, and it appears that this is how it must be translated in our context, but it begs the question: Who or what did she see in the basket with Moshe?

2) Having established that the basket contained a yeled, a little boy, the verse immediately goes on to inform us that he was a na‘ar, a rather older child. In discussing Proverbs XXII, 6, חנוך לנער על פי דרכו (“Train the na‘ar according to his way”), the Talmud concludes that the mitzvah to train one’s children in mitzvoth begins in earnest at the age when they begin to fast for periods on Yom Kippur, which is established to be at the age of nine years (יומא פ"ב. וע"ע רמב"ם הל' שביתת עשור פ"ב ה"י). Yeled is derived from the same root as the word meaning “to give birth,” and so is a reasonable term for a little boy; what does the Torah mean in calling him immediately afterward a na‘ar?

The verse cries out: Dorshéni! (“Interpret me!”).

B.

To begin with our second question, we note Rashi’s comment that קולו כנער, “[Moshe’s] voice was like [that of a] na‘ar.” Rashi’s source for this is the Talmud, where we find: א"ר יוסי תנא הוא ילד וקולו כנער, דברי רבי יהודה, אמר לו רבי נחמי' א"כ עשיתו למשה רבינו בעל מום! וגו' (“Said Rabbi Yossi, 'It was taught: He was a yeled and his voice was like [that of a] na‘ar, [in] the words of Rabbi Yehuda.' Said Rabbi Nechemya to him, 'If so, you have made Moshe our teacher disfigured [ba‘al mum]!'”; סוטה י"ב:).

It is very striking that Rashi quotes Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion rather than Rabbi Nechemya’s, contrary to the usual practice of deciding that the last opinion quoted is authoritative. As the Maharsha notes, the simple meaning of the claim that Moshe would be thereby a ba‘al mum seems to be that the deeper voice of a na‘ar would be unsuitable to a yeled, just as a man with a thin voice which is more suitable for a woman, or vice versa, is a ba‘al mum.

Ramban takes exception to Rabbi Yehuda’s interpretation as quoted by Rashi, citing both Rabbi Nechemya’s objection and a logical argument, that there seems to be no discernible reason for the Torah to make a point of the deepness of Moshe’s voice in this verse. He then turns to the Even ‘Ezra, who argues that the term na‘ar suggests that Moshe was unusually large and well-developed for a three-moth-old baby, and suggests that this is what Pharaoh’s daughter found arresting. Ramban finds this, too, unsatisfactory, given that the verse does specifically say that she had found a na‘ar bocheh, a “crying na‘ar,” which does suggest that she had heard something striking.

Ramban then asserts that neither na‘ar nor yeled should be understood too strictly in terms of its halachic definition or root meaning. He cites other Biblical examples in which na‘ar appears to refer to an as-yet unborn baby (Judges XIII, 8), or to a newborn (II Samuel XII, 16. Conversely, he shows that yeled is used to refer to Yishma‘el at a time when he was at least 14 years old (Genesis XXI, 15-16). Finally, he notes that Shmu’el is called a na‘ar when he must have been about 24 months old (I Samuel I, 23-24).

Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi, haham başı (“chief rabbi”) of the Ottoman Empire for much of the seventeenth century, comes to Rashi’s defense by first pointing out that, if we are to understand that Pharaoh’s daughter’s mercies were awakened both by something she saw and by Moshe’s cries, one would expect the verse to read והנה נער ובוכה (“and behold there was a na‘ar and he was crying”). Since it does not read that way, it follows that her attention was attracted by what she heard, and the verb va-tir’éhu (“and she saw him”) should be understood to mean that she pervceived something, rather than in reference to the physical faculty of sight.

Mizrachi goes on to cite two other cases in which the halacha was decided in favor of the first opinion expressed, despite the order in which they occur, as evidence that Rashi’s view is not quite so unprecedented as Ramban appears to suggest (עיי' ראש השנה כ"ו. ופרק ב' דפסחים).

On these bases, he dismisses Ramban’s logical quibble about Rashi and Rabbi Yehuda as well, and decides: והזכיר הכתוב שזאת היתה סיבת החמלה עם היותו מילדי העברים המאוסים אצל כל מצרים וכל שכן בבת המלך (“And Scripture has mentioned that this was the cause of [Pharaoh’s daughter’s] pity, despite his being of the Hebrew boys, despised by all Egyptians and certainly by the king’s daughter”).

In other words, something about Moshe’s voice caught her attention and caused her to perceive something else which motivated her to defy her father’s will. What was it?

C.

It seems to me from the examples cited by Ramban that the Torah’s application of the words yeled and na‘ar to a small boy has less to do with the child’s physical age than it does with his emotional maturity and behavior. Shmu’el, who was destined to become one of Israel’s greatest prophets, was an unusually mature two-year-old; on the other hand, Yishma‘el at 14 was still a little boy.

With this in mind, let us turn back to the moment of Moshe’s birth, and read: ותרא אתו כי טוב הוא (“and [Yocheved] saw him, that/for he was good”; II, 2). Rashi, again following the Talmud, explains: כשנולד נתמלא הבית אורה (“when he was born the house was filled with light”; סוטה י"ב.). The same gmara, a bit later, goes on to interpret “and she saw him with the boy” as meaning that Pharaoh’s daughter perceived the Shchina, the Divine Presence, with Moshe, and cites the prophet Yisha‘yahu, אני ד' הוא שמי (“I am Ha-Shem, Hu is My name”; Isaiah XLII, 8; וע"ע שמות רבה פ"א סי' כ"א וזוה"ק ח"ב י"ב.).

Rabbénu Bechayé goes a bit further in his comment on our verse by noting that one could divide va-tir’éhu and read it va-tére’ Hu, “and she saw Hu,” eliminating the alef which occurs in the word as it appears in Isaiah and leaving only the two letters from the Tetragrammaton, as we find in the introductory Hosha‘na mandated by Chazal on Sukkoth: אני והו הושיעה נא (“I and Hé-Vav, save, please”; סוכה נ.).

Note that when Moshe was born, the word otho, “him,” is written chasér, lacking the first vav, so that it could be read itto, “with him,” and that the second clause, ki tov Hu’, could be understood to mean “for H-u is good” (spelt as in the verse from Isaiah). Yocheved looked at Moshe and perceived the Shchina; Pharaoh’s daughter heard his voice, and perceived the same thing.

D.

So we see that the seeds of greatness in human character and their cultivation are a matter of both nature and nurture. Shmu’el’s mother Channa was rewarded with a son of such tremendous potentialities because of the exemplary purity of her desires and intents. That very purity is demonstrated by her willingness to hand over the child at the tender age of two to ‘Eli ha-kohén ha-gadol for the education requisite to his realizing that potential. On the other hand, Yishma‘el was similarly the product of his mother, the weak and vain servant Hagar, as evidenced by the fact that despite being raised in the outstanding environment of Avraham’s household, he was susceptible to the influence of the surrounding Canaanites. Sara drove him from the encampment when she found him imitating them, complete with his own little idol.

Yocheved, too, was rewarded for her rock-solid faith (as evidenced in her willingness to entrust her son to the Nile and G-d’s protection) with Moshe, and G-d arranged that, even in Pharaoh’s household, she would continue to nurture him.

אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר, the Torah tells us; “For a woman will conceive and bear a male….” (Leviticus XII, 2). The great Rabbi Chayyim Yosef David Azoulai, known by his initials as Chida, notes that the initial letters of the last four words can be arranged to spell זכות, “merit,” and observes that whatever merit we have is due primarily to our mothers.