Parashat Va'Eira

Rashi’s peirush on the Chumash is often vague and unclear, and some ambiguities perceivably border heresy. One such example appears in this week’s parasha; when Hahsem declares ViNasati Es Yadi BiMitzrayim, Rashi comments that Hashem is referring to His literal hand, Yad Mamash. Undoubtedly Rashi does not mean to ascribe HaKadosh Baruch Hu an actual physical body, but what does he mean? The Gur Aryeh explains that Rashi intends to distinguish between G-d’s physical interaction with the world and His metaphysical influence. In Lashon HaTorah, a Yad can refer to someone’s hand, but it can also refer to his will or capability. When Lavan chases after Ya’akov with malicious intent, he explains Yeish LiEl Yadi La’Asos Imachem Ra, I could have done evil toward you. Clearly, Lavan is not referring to his literal hand but rather to his capabilities. Therefore, Rashi must inform us when the pasuk refers to a Yad Mamash; in our parasha, Hashem is not saying that he will exert His will over Mitzrayim, but rather that He will hit Mitzrayim physically, as if He possessed a literal hand.

However, sometimes the difficulties with Rashi’s comments are more subtle, and often those comments are even more troubling:

Hu Aharon U’Moshe Asher Amar Hashem LaHem Hotze’u Es Bnei Yisrael Mei’Eretz Mitzrayim Al Tzivosam (Shemos 6:26)

Hu Aharon U’Moshe: Sometimes the pasuk places Aharon before Moshe, and sometime the pasuk places Moshe before Aharon, to say that they are Shkulin Ki’Echad, equally great.

Rashi, Shemos 6:26

Certainly Rashi would never consider Aharon to be Moshe’s equal! The Torah teaches us quite explicitly Lo Kam Navi Od BiYisrael KiMoshe, that no Navi ever reached Moshe’s greatness. How then can Rashi claim that Aharon and Moshe are equally great, of equal weight?

Rav Moshe Feinstein answers that while no future Navi will ever match Moshe in terms of personal accomplishment, every individual bears the capability of fulfilling his maximum potential, as Moshe did. Aharon may not have possessed the capability to reach Moshe’s level of greatness, but – like his brother – he did not squander an ounce of his potential. And for that, he was deserving of being mentioned before his younger brother in our parasha.

But Rav Moshe’s answer is largely unsatisfying, for it does not actually address the question at hand. It establishes a comparison between Aharon and Moshe – they both achieved 100% of their potential – but it fails to place Aharon on Moshe’s actual level of greatness. Pasuk 26 states Hu AHaron U’Moshe, while pasuk 27 ends Hu Moshe ViAharon, thus placing the pasuk that attributes greatness to Aharon before the one that exalts Moshe. But by our given explanation, though one would expect both Moshe and Aharon to be praised, Moshe’s acclaim should certainly precede Aharon’s!

Indeed, weighting the percentages of Moshe and Aharon’s achieved potential proves a poor gauge of equality, for it assumes that a man cannot exceed 100% of his potential. However, Moshe indeed does exceed his natural potential when he begs HaKadosh Baruch Hu, “Hareini Na Es KiVodecha!” Moshe’s request seems thematically disconnected from the story of Hashem’s forgiveness over Cheit HaEigel; therefore, the midrash expounds that Moshe was not Ra’oi to see G-d’s glory; Moshe therefore waited until Hashem was in a good mood. When Moshe was in G-d’s best graces, he then asked for an invaluable favor. Aharon may have achieved 100% of his potential, but Moshe achieved 101%! The two are unfortunately still not equal. What then did Rashi mean? How are Moshe and Aharon Shkulin KiEchad?

To fully understand Rashi’s explanation, we must look closer at the context of these two pasukim. The description Hu Aharon U’Moshe, Hu Moshe ViAharon serves as the climax of a brief genealogical recapitulation, a recap sandwiched by two very similar dialogues between Moshe and Hashem:

And Hashem spoke to Moshe saying: Come speak to Paroh the King of Mitzrayim, and he will send the Bnei Yisrael from his land. And Moshe spoke in front of Hashem saying: Behold, [if] the Bnei Yisrael have not listened to me, how will Paroh ever listen?! I have blocked lips! (Shemos 6:10-12)

And Hashem spoke to Moshe saying: I am Hashem, speak to Paroh King of Mitzrayim all that I have spoken to you. And Moshe spoke in front of Hashem: Behold, I have blocked lips, how will Paroh listen to me?!” (Shemos 6:28-29)

VaYomeir Moshe Lifnei Hashem: This is the dialogue above, where it says “the Bnei Yisrael have not listened to me.” The pasuk repeats [the discussion], for it was [textually] broken [and now resumed], like a person who says “let us return to the original topic.”

Rashi, Shemos 6:29

But are these really the same dialogue? The first time Moshe complains about being an Aral Sifasayim, we are told VaYidabeir Hashem El Moshe ViEl Aharon VaYitzaveim El Bnei Yisrael ViEl Paroh Melech Mitzrayim LiHotzee Es Bnei Yisrael Mei’Eretz Mitzrayim, the commandment first entails a speech to the nation, and afterwards to Paroh. However, after Moshe’s second complaint, 15 pasukim later, Hashem responds Re’aih Nisatichah Elohim LiFaroh ViAharon Yihiyeh Nive’acha, entirely excluding the Bnei Yisrael’s role in the instructions! Perhaps what Rashi means to clarify is that these two conversations did not happen one after the other; rather, Moshe raised two problems and Hashem provided two respective solutions. The Torah recognizes the need for one to precede the account of Moshe and Aharon’s family tree, but felt the other should be directly attached to the ensuing narrative, namely the remainder of our parasha. Why this is so remains to be seen, but it would first help to identify what Moshe’s problems and Hashem solutions actually are.

A tremendous difficulty arises when analyzing Moshe’s complaints. Moshe draws a flawed Kal ViChomer. He reasons that if the Bnei Yisrael refuse to listen to him, why would Paroh ever receive his message, but the reason why the Bnei Yisrael did not listen was MiKotzeir Ruach U’Mei’Avoda Kasha, because they were out of breath from their arduous labor. Such a constraint does not apply to Paroh. Granted there was little likelihood that Paroh would receive Moshe’s words, but what proof could Moshe ever draw from the Bnei Yisrael’s reaction (or lack thereof)?

The Sifsei Chachamim propose that Moshe simply was unaware of the nation’s Kotzeir Ruach, but this answer is weak, for the pasukim’s dialogue would bear no ultimate effect on our story’s narrative. The Gur Aryeh identifies the Kal ViChomer differently: if the Bnei Yisrael will not oblige to better their predicament, why would Paroh ever oblige to worsen his situation? However, this interpretation assumes the Bnei Yisrael’s awareness that quitting their jobs and moving their families out of their homes and into the desert was to their advantage, and that assumption is simply illogical. What could Moshe’s Kal ViChomer possibly be?

If we look closely at Rashi’s Dibbur HaMaschil, we note that he identifies the phrase “ViEich Yishma’einee Paroh” as the Kal ViChomer itself. A Kal ViChomer is, by definition, comprised of two components, and Paroh’s obstinacy is only one of these two components, namely the Chomer, the mission impossible. Why doesn’t Rashi’s heading extend to the Kal, the Bnei Yisrael’s rejection? Perhaps Moshe’s Kal ViChomer doesn’t compare Paroh’s reaction to the Bnei Yirael’s after all. Perhaps it compares to Paroh’s reaction in last week’s parasha.

Towards the end of Parashat Shemos, Moshe gathers together the leaders of the Bnei Yisrael and leads the nation to Paroh’s palace, where he demands a three day vacation on behalf of Hashem. Paroh refuses and sends the nation back to work, despite their clear support of Moshe’s side. In our parasha, Moshe reasons that if Paroh refused to let the nation go even when they supported him, how in the world would Paroh consent if Moshe’s demand now carries zero support?!

The Kal ViChomer now fits perfectly into place, as does Hashem’s response. Hashem commands “them,” both Moshe and Aharon, to first address the nation and regain their support. Only then can Moshe complete the task set forth in pasuk 11, to demand the release of the nation from Paroh’s land. Aharon is directed to stir the Bnei Yisrael from the doldrums of their Kotzeir Ruach; the job set forth is one for the professional orator. Aharon was just the motivational speaker the Bnei Yisrael needed to hear (as opposed to Moshe, who failed to arouse the nation in pasuk 9).

However, even with the Bnei Yisrael’s support, one obstacle remained. There was still no sufficient reason for Paroh to accommodate Moshe’s demands. Moshe certainly was not a convincing or persuasive arbiter, and so his problem is repeated in pasuk 29, but no longer in relation to the Bnei Yisrael’s refusal. This time Hashem answers that Moshe shall be like a god over Paroh, an exceedingly powerful entity, and Paroh will eventually have no choice but to oblige. Aharon could still stand at Moshe’s side, as was agreed upon in the previous parasha (see 4:15), but he would no longer play the primary role, as he did in their address to the nation.

The parasha therefore outlines and separates two distinct duties Moshe and Aharon carried. First, they address the nation; afterwards, they confront Paroh. The speech to the Bnei Yisrael was important, but it does not directly relate to the stories of the Esser Makos; therefore, it was not necessary to establish juxtaposition between the two accounts. Moshe’s role as a god over Paroh, on the other hand, stands at the very crux of the Makos’ impact, and so it was of virtually dire importance to be repeated and connected to rest of the parasha.

If we look closely at the two pasukim, the descriptions Hu Aharon U’Moshe Hu Moshe ViAharon, we find that the parasha quite explicitly outlines two separate tasks:

He is Aharon and Moshe whom Hashem said to them to take Bnei Yisrael out of Mitzrayim by their legions. They are the ones who spoke to Paroh King of Mitzrayim to take Bnei Yisrael from Mitzrayim, he is Moshe and Aharon.

Shemos 6:26-27

Pasuk 26 details the need to address the nation, there is no mention of Paroh; therefore, Aharon’s name precedes Moshe’s, for Aharon and his rhetoric played the primary – and most necessary – role in rousing the Bnei Yisrael. Pasuk 27 describes the confrontation with Paroh; there, Moshe’s name precedes Aharon’s for it was his turn to shine as an Elohim.

Perhaps when Rav Feinstein describes Rashi to be equating the achieved potential of Moshe and Aharon, he is not only measuring each man’s greatness achieved against his potential, but also the role each individual plays in assisting others to reach their greatest potential. Moshe ended his life as history’s greatest Navi, but he would have never even gotten the Bnei Yisrael out of Mitzrayim were it not for the convincing rhetoric of his older brother. Before we can even begin to discuss Moshe’s greatness, we must talk of Aharon’s, and so Hu Aharon U’Moshe naturally precedes Hu Moshe ViAharon.

The concept of being Skulin Ki’Echad is not the same as being Shaveh. Moshe my have accomplished more than Aharon, and he may have even achieved a greater percentage of his potential. But Moshe’s accomplishments were only in light of his brother’s, and so Aharon received Schar for anything he enabled Moshe to eventually perform. Because of their unparalleled partnership, the two were weighed equally in heaven, one man’s actions counting in the other’s favor, and our pasukim express their consequential “equality” via the order of their names. While no man may ever reach Moshe’s levels of greatness in this world, we all have much to strive for when considering the multitude of actions one can be judged for, and the millions of potential external merits that pave our path to the Next World.

At first, we may have regarded Rashi’s comments as pure homeletics, thus avoiding the dangers of Kfira; but ironically, we now see just how fundamental the notions he expresses truly are.

Good Shabbos