Translated by Shulamith Berman
(All rights reserved to Keren Yishai)

This week I want us to examine the first two parashiot of the Book of Shemot (Exodus) – the unique mission entrusted to Moses, father of all the prophets. Moses has great difficulty clarifying his mission, both internally, with the Children of Israel, and externally with Pharaoh, king of Egypt. I want to look more closely at the language of redemption.

“Therefore say to the children of Israel, I am the Lord” – YHWE – I have never made myself known to them by this name until now. “I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you out of their service, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm, and with great judgements: And I will take you to Me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and you shall know that I am the Eternal your God, who brings you out from under the burdens of Egypt.” Four terms of redemption are quoted to the generation who have dwelt in Egypt, suffered torture and survived. Those survivors, those who leave Egypt, pass through these four stages – they are brought out, rescued, redeemed with an outstretched arm and great judgements. Within a short time, in the third month, they will stand at the foot of Mt. Sinai, hearing the words “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt. I have taken you to me for a nation and I will be your God.” These are the four terms of redemption.

At this point we see the first problem that I intend to deal with today. It is a linguistic and ideological problem. “And I will bring you to the land”. Factually, this is incorrect! The generation that departs from Egypt deserves to leave. They deserve to be saved, to be redeemed, to assemble at Mt. Sinai – but not one of them earns the right to enter the Land, apart from Joshua and Calev ben-Yefuneh. The twenty-year-olds and the women, perhaps – but the entire people as a total entity? “And I will bring you” is completely different from the others. I continue with the verse: “To the Land, concerning which I did swear to give to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob; and I will give it to you for a heritage. I am the Lord.” This expression “heritage” needs to be understood. What is its significance? It comes from the same root as “inheritance”. Incidentally, the word appears twice in the whole Torah. Apart from this instance it also appears in the phrase “Moses entrusted the Torah to us, as a heritage for the assembly of Jacob”. This expression must be thoroughly understood. An inheritance is something which I receive passively, but a heritage requires my active participation. I will return to this later on.

So far we have two questions. The first - “And I will bring you to the land” doesn’t really refer to you! We can perhaps argue that were it not for the sin of the spies and so on, this prophecy would have been fulfilled, and they would have entered the land. But retroactively we can see that the prophecy did not refer to those of whom it was said: “I will redeem, I will take, I will bring out, I will save”. All the commentators agree on this point. Ibn Ezra, for example, immediately explains “And I will bring you to the land” as follows: “For many of those who departed from Egypt their children were considered as themselves”. This is a very Jewish characteristic – when I say to a Jew “You will merit to enter the land” it makes no difference to him whether I am referring to him or his son – the important thing is that the Jewish people will merit it. Very nice, but how does the word “you” fit here? Other commentators offer their interpretations. For example, Rabenu Behai agrees that there is a problem because those who hear these words are not those who will enter the land. He explains “And I will bring you to the land” in terms of a heritage. “A heritage and not an inheritance, to hint that they would not inherit it, because those who departed from Egypt would die in the wilderness, but they would bequeath it as a heritage to their children. Not they but their children would enter the land. For this reason the term ‘heritage’ appears.” In other words, Rabenu Behai makes a distinction between ‘I will bring you out’, ‘I will deliver you’, ‘I will redeem you’, ‘I will take you’ and the final ‘I will bring you’ – as inheritors for your children. So why was it merely hinted at? Because it was indeed a hint – if you don’t sin you will enter the land, with the help of God. But if you ask me retroactively what happened, I can tell you that this was a clear hint for you to mend your ways.

All this is well and good, but a difficulty remains nevertheless. If the word ‘morasha’ means heritage, how do we explain the phrase “Moses entrusted the Torah to us, as a heritage for the assembly of Jacob” – do we bequeath it without ourselves inheriting it? It’s true that the Torah is a heritage, something we must impart to our children. It is written that a Rabbi who prevents his students from learning Torah is stealing from the estate of his fathers – it does not belong to him. But it is still difficult to understand, because it is clearly also an inheritance. If the adults who left Egypt were inheritors, then the word ‘heritage’ does not fit the explanation. I have presented two possible solutions to the problem. Rabbi Behai combines both problems into one central concept “I will bring you into the land” as an expression of heritage rather than actual inheritance. Excellent!

“And Moses spoke these words to the children of Israel, but they did not hear Moses through anguish of spirit and through hard service”. Most commentators raise a relevant question here: We can understand that the children of Israel didn’t heed Moses’ words through anguish of spirit (literally, shortness of breath) and hard labor, which prevented them from hearing great tidings. But how do we explain that they didn’t hear him at all? After all, what was he saying? He was telling them God’s promise, he was saying, in Joseph’s words, “God will surely visit you”. He was telling them that with God’s help there would be a deliverance. He wasn’t calling them together to give them a series of lessons in faith and belief. He was saying ‘I will bring you out’, ‘I will deliver you’, ‘I will redeem you’, ‘I will take you’ – so why weren’t they listening? I can understand that due to anguish of spirit and hard labor I may not have the strength to attend to lofty spiritual ideas, but why wouldn’t I believe these words? Was their despair so total that they simply didn’t hear what Moses was saying?

In “Ha’amek Davar” the Natziv doesn’t accept that the people of Israel lost their belief in redemption. He maintains that this never happened, at any stage. There may have been great difficulties, but never to the extent that they lost their faith. Even if some people despaired, there surely remained a large group who encouraged and inspired the others. This is a most depressing verse – ‘they did not hear Moses through anguish of spirit and through hard service.” They have lost their faith This is the same people of whom it was said in the previous parashah that they didn’t change their names or their mode of dress. They did not hear? However, the Natziv claims that wherever this is written, we don’t understand the plain meaning of the words. For example, in the previous parashah, when Moses says to the Almighty “they will not believe me, neither will they listen to my voice – for they will say, God did not reveal himself to you” – the Natziv claims that this doesn’t mean they will not believe in redemption. He brings his famous explanation, which is today more important than ever, as follows: the people are actually saying ‘Certainly redemption will come. With the help of God, we will experience a great redemption. But with all due respect to you, Moses, it won’t come through you. You cannot possibly be the representative of the redemption. Look at yourself! You are a product of Pharaoh’s court, you are modern and enlightened. Redemption, certainly, but only through a Jew such as your brother, Aharon the priest, someone with a beard. Redemption cannot be through someone of your appearance!’ “They will not believe me, neither will they listen to my voice, for they will say ‘God did not reveal himself to you”.

What does the Almighty reply to him? On the face of it, God says to Moses “Come, let’s turn your staff in to a snake. The redemption will be equally simple”. But Pharaoh’s magicians accomplish the same feat. Instead of elevating this achievement, their imitation demeans it. But the Natziv views this as a great thing. “What’s your problem? You’re worried that the people won’t believe you? You think that they are entirely sure of the redemption but equally sure that it won’t come through someone like you? What’s that in your hand?” Note that in the text the word is “Mahzeh” – one word instead of the usual two. Rashi immediately explains ‘From that which is in your hand I will teach you – how so? What is in your hand? And he said: a staff.’ The Natziv says that it is kingship – it is the staff with which you will part the sea, with which you will bring Israel into the land. It is also the staff with which you will smite the rock – the same staff.

Then the Almighty instructs Moses to throw it on the ground. “And he cast it on the earth and it became a serpent.” The Natziv says that this doesn’t really impress him – every Egyptian magician was capable of the same feat. Then Moses is told to pick it up, and once again it becomes a staff. But how exactly is he told? The text reads: “Grasp it by the tail”. According to the Natziv, this is where the miracle occurs. He grasps the serpent by the tail – what should happen? It should soon change into a staff. But if he grasps the tail and it is transformed, he will find himself holding the end of the staff. Let’s return to the text: “And God said to Moses, ‘Put forth your hand and seize it by its tail’. And he put forth his hand, and laid hold of it, and it became a staff in his hand”. The Natziv claims that there is a lesson to be learnt here: the tail of the serpent can change into the head of the staff! Why didn’t the children of Israel believe Moses? Because they felt that he was not suited to be the harbinger of redemption. So you, Moses, who have been considered as unsuitable as the tail of the serpent, will miraculously become the head of the staff. Take Aaron with you. Mahzeh – from this will you teach them. I have included this because the Natziv’s explanation appears extremely logical. The children of Israel want redemption, so why do we learn that they “did not hear Moses through anguish of spirit and hard service”? Precisely why didn’t they hear?

More questions! The first was “and I brought you”, and we have already seen one attempt at solving this difficulty. Problem number two: what is ‘heritage’? The third problem – why didn’t the people listen to Moses? After he finished speaking, God replied to him, and the plain text is difficult to comprehend. Note that God didn’t relate to his complaint that the people paid no heed to him. God didn’t say, ‘don’t worry, it’ll be fine!’ “And the Lord spoke to Moses saying, ‘Go in, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, that he send the children of Israel out of his land.” We’ve already agreed that you’re the one who will be sent, we’ve discussed the matter of your speech impediment, we’ve been through all this and it’s all been settled. We’re not going through it again – that belonged to last week’s parashah. And now “Moses spoke to the Lord saying: ‘Behold, the children of Israel have not listened to me; now then shall Pharaoh hear me, who am of uncircumcised lips?’” This entire verse is unclear, from beginning to end. Our sages say that this is one of the ten instances of “kal vachomer” in the Torah. I confess I do not understand - where is the kal and where is the chomer? What exactly is Moses saying here? He says: Ribono shel Olam, I just told you in the previous verse that the children of Israel would not listen to me, so how will Pharaoh listen? There would not be a problem here if the previous verse had simply said that the children of Israel didn’t heed Moses, but why didn’t they listen? Because of anguish of spirit and hard labor. We may assume that Pharaoh has problems of his own, but we can be sure that anguish of spirit and hard labor aren’t included! The children of Israel didn’t listen to Moses because of a specific problem – anguish of spirit and hard labor – so how does it follow that Pharaoh, too, won’t listen?

Now we turn to the end of the verse, which is equally unclear. Why is there another reference to ‘uncircumcised lips’? We’ve already been through this. Why do you have a problem speaking to Pharaoh with ‘uncircumcised lips’ if it doesn’t bother you when you confront the children of Israel? When a problem arises in a specific verse, it always helps to go on to the next one. Let’s see how the Almighty responds: “And God spoke to Moses and Aaron, and commanded them concerning the children of Israel and concerning Pharaoh king of Egypt, to bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt.” Wonderful – go and tell Pharaoh that God commands you to let the people go, he’ll leap to attention to do God’s bidding and everything will be great! What does this have to do with the previous verse? I presented You with a kal vachomer, I told You about my ‘uncircumcised lips’, and You don’t relate at all, not even to tell me that my concerns are irrelevant. Instead, You instruct me further – what kind of answer is this?

And now comes the biggest question of all. “… commanded them concerning the children of Israel and concerning Pharaoh king of Egypt, to bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt.” How is this to be done? Let’s look at the next verse:

“These are the heads of their fathers’ houses: The sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel; Hanoch, and Pallu, Hezron, and Carmi; these are the families of Reuben.” What’s the connection? Rashi has the following to say: “The real meaning is: He gave them a command with regard to Israel and with regard to His mission to Pharaoh (the purpose of this command is explained in the second section, after the order of genealogy). But because the text has mentioned Moses and Aaron here, it interrupts the narrative by interpolating the section beginning ‘These are the heads of their fathers’ houses’ in order to inform us how Moses and Aaron were born and with whom they are connected by descent.” Then we are presented with a whole family album – Reuben, Shimon, Levi. I don’t understand why this had to appear here – it should have been inserted after the command. But even if we accept that this is the correct place for it, why do we need so much detail? The ‘heads of the houses’ would certainly have sufficed. Yet the text continues with (verse 20) “And Amram took to himself Jochebed his aunt for a wife; and she bore him Aaron and Moses: and the years of the life of Amram were a hundred and thirty seven years…. And Aaron took Elisheba, daughter of Aminadav, sister of Nahshon for a wife.” All the laws pertaining to matchmaking and betrothal are derived from this chapter. When selecting a wife, one should also ascertain what her siblings are like. Granted, this may be very important, but what is the relevance of its insertion precisely at this place in the narrative? Furthermore, assuming that we are interested in the genealogy of Moses and Aaron, why do we also encounter Elazar ben Aaron? “And Elazar Aaron’s son took to himself one of the daughters of Putiel for a wife, and she bore him Pinhas”. Now we’ve reached the next generation – Aaron’s grandchildren. Pinhas, son of Elazar, son of Aaron – beyond the generation of the wilderness! “These are the heads of the fathers of the Levites according their families. These are Aaron and Moses to whom the Eternal said, Bring out the children of Israel from the land of Egypt according to their hosts.” And finally we read: “And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am the Lord: say to Pharaoh king of Egypt everything that I tell you.” Rashi comments as follows: “And God spoke – this is the selfsame command which was mentioned before: ‘Go in, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt’ but because the Torah broke off the narrative to record their genealogy it now reverts to it and begins it anew.” The following verse reads: “And Moses said before God, Behold, I am of uncircumcised lips, and how shall Pharaoh hearken unto me?” We’ve also heard this before! Rashi comments: “And Moses said before God – this is the statement which he made above, ‘Behold, the children of Israel have not hearkened to me.’ The Torah repeats it here, because it broke off the narrative. This is the method, like a person who says to his fellow: ‘Let us return to the previous subject.’

This entire section is not easily understood. Why is the story repeated? Why does the genealogy appear in the middle? And we mustn’t forget the other questions raised above. In my humble opinion, all these questions flow in the same direction. By the way, now that we have survived the “Millenium Bug” and emerged unscathed, I would like to mention that someone told me that the initials of the word ‘BUG’ in Hebrew are “Efes Bilti Goalenu” – when all else fails and all systems crash, he likes the concept of attaching himself to a great Redemption. I pointed out that the order of the letters is incorrect, but, he explained, that’s caused by the ‘bug’!

Now I want to delve to a far deeper level, which answers the questions of identity alluded to above. Rabbi Hirsch has an interesting comment: At the height of suspense, the story of Moses is halted – we are about to learn of Israel’s great deliverance. From this point on, Moses will very quickly be transformed into a kind of heroic figure, a figure of fable – and we know all too well what can become of such figures. Some generations later this would happen to another Jew, lehavdil. For this reason the narrative stops abruptly at this point, and says, in effect: ‘Listen, we have something to tell you. This man was born, he has a mother, a father, siblings, cousins, uncles and aunts. He married so-and-so, he is entirely normal. In the future he will be imbued with ruach hakodesh – the spirit of holiness, but he is mortal. He was born and he will die.

In my humble opinion the key to this parashah is to be found in the word with which we began – morashah (heritage). Rabeinu Behai uses this word to explain the first question that arose – “And I brought you” – not necessarily referring to you, but to the fact that you have a heritage which you pass on, in contrast to actively inheriting. But we went further and pointed out that a heritage can mean both to bequeath and to inherit. By the way, the Talmud Yerushalmi states this explicitly in Masechet Bava Batra, dealing with the legacy of the Land, saying that one is empowered both to inherit and to bequeath it. “A heritage for the assembly of Jacob” means that I bequeath this Torah to my son, but at the same time I inherit it for myself.

Ba’al Haturim recalls the two places where this expression occurs, and claims that when something appears only twice in the entire Torah, we can assume that there is a connection between them. He maintains that the heritage of Eretz Israel is conditional – if we will observe the heritage of the assembly of Jacob, we will inherit the Land of Israel. Hamaharam of Rutenburg say that the Torah has the status of a heritage, but not in the sense that I pass it on to my children. I can never rest assured that the Torah is my inheritance, because unlike the Priesthood, this is not something that I receive passively. If my father is a Cohen, I will automatically become a Cohen, in the same way that I may inherit money – I don’t have to do a thing about it, I don’t need to take any legal action… But this is not true of Torah learning. “Prepare yourself to learn Torah, for it is not your inheritance”. The Priesthood is passed down as a legacy, property is passed down the same way, and the same may apply to royal lineage as well, but Torah is not a legacy. So why is it nevertheless referred to as a heritage? Because everyone who belongs to the heritage of this nation belongs to the Torah. But in specific terms, you have no preferential rights by virtue of the fact that your father was a great Torah scholar. This is not your inheritance, it is a heritage.

But our sages viewed it as a completely different dimension. In Yalkut Shimoni they raise three points compiled from three Talmudic tractates, referring to the verse in Parashah Vezot Habrachah: “Moses entrusted the Torah to us, as a heritage for the assembly of Jacob.” Incidentally, this verse comes after the following: “And this is the brachah which Moses, the man of God, blessed… God came from Sinai and rose from Se’ir unto them, he shone forth from Mt. Paran.” Our sages bring the famous midrash describing how God offered the Torah to all the nations of the world. They all rejected the Torah, only the children of Israel said: Na’ase venishma.

“Rav Yehuda and Rav said: anyone who withholds halacha from his student, it is as if he robbed him of his fathers’ inheritance.” A rabbi who withholds halacha from his student by refusing to teach him and no better than a thief who robs him of his inheritance. The halacha does not belong to the teacher, therefore he has no right to prevent his student from learning it. “As it is said, Torah was commanded to us by Moses as a heritage, an inheritance to all Israel since the six days of Creation.” According to our sages, morasha refers to an eternal inheritance. Interestingly, we are not told that this inheritance dates back to Mt. Sinai. The (technical) Torah was given at Mt. Sinai, but there is also the Torah that preceded the world, the spiritual, essential connection of every Jew to the Torah, even if ten generations of his family have never seen it. The teacher has no superior claim to the Torah by virtue of the fact that he is, in a sense, the representative of the Torah. This effectively invalidates all claims, and this, basically, is the meaning of the concept of heritage. Not only must you study continuously so that it remains with you, you must always remember that it doesn’t belong to you. Your bond with the Torah derives from the fact that you are part of Klal Yisrael, the entirety of Israel. If you forget this for one instant, you lose your bond with the Torah! This is the difference between heritage and inheritance. But you also have no right to say: This is my knowledge and I refuse to impart it to you. Why should I pass on to you everything I know? If you study Torah and refuse to teach it, you are in effect saying that you have learned Torah as your own private, personal, egoistic acquisition. In that case you are not connected to Torat Yisrael. “Who has chosen us from all the nations” means Who has chosen every single one of us, and that’s why He gave us the Torah. It doesn’t mean the opposite - that He gave us the Torah, and whoever succeeds in discovering the Torah is chosen.

The following sentence, from the Gemara, Masechet Pesachim, is very strange indeed. It touches on the psychoanalytic realm of dreams. “He who approaches a betrothed (me’ursah) maiden in a dream, should look on the Torah, as it is written: Moses entrusted us with the Torah as an inheritance (morasha). Do not read morasha but me’ursah.” Another Gemara: “R’ Haya says, all who study Torah before the nations of the land (the reference here is to those who hate wisdom and learning), it is as if his betrothed was violated in his presence. As it is written, Moses entrusted us with the Torah as an inheritance (morasha). Do not read it as morasha but as me’ursah.”

I would like to apply these concepts to the Torah and Eretz Israel. Before doing so I want to refer back to the concepts of betrothal and marriage, which we clarified in the discussion on the family. I believe that betrothal and marriage are part of an essential code which must be deciphered. Together they form a two dimensional element. If one dimension is removed, the eternal bond ceases to exist. This holds true for every private aspect of the relationship between a man and a woman. It is equally true of the relationship between every Jew and the Torah, and between the Jewish nation as a whole and the Torah. It is also true of the relationship between every Jews and the Land of Israel, and between the Jewish nation and the Land of Israel. But above all, it is true of the relationship between the supreme bride and groom – the Holy One, blessed be He and Knesset Yisrael.

In the Books of the Prophets, the Holy One speaks to us repeatedly in terms of betrothal and marriage. He entreats us, “And I will betroth thee unto Me for ever” – I desire to remain with you, the Assembly of Israel, “Come my friend (beloved) to greet the bride” in terms of the betrothed couple. When He wishes to comfort us, he reminds us, “So says the Lord, I have remembered the grace of your youth, the love of your betrothal”. But when we come to the Land of Israel, He describes the connection in terms of marriage: “In that day you will not call Me Husband but rather Consort” – husband and wife. The sources are equally replete with similar references to Israel and the Torah.

What is betrothal – what is marriage? Betrothal is actually a legal process - entirely the opposite of marriage. Without wanting to lessen anyone’s motivation, I must point out that the Torah does not say it’s a mitzva to marry! Betrothal, however, is a great mitzva – the mitzva of Kiddushin. By the way, this word does not appear in the Torah. In the Torah it says ki yikach - “when a man takes...” The Rambam defines it as follows: “Before Matan Torah a man met a woman in the marketplace. If they so desired, he would bring her into his house - this is the act of marriage, bringing her into his house, represented by the huppa - and he has conjugal relations with her and she becomes his wife” - no witnesses were required, there was no need for legal action. But this was before the Torah, so what changed afterwards? Not the marriage itself, because this had existed beforehand - the understanding between a man and a woman. The Rambam goes on to say that “... since the Torah was given, Israel was commanded that if a man wishes to marry a woman – this involves witnesses, the kinyan, a ring, kiddushin - a whole separate issue. What takes place at the betrothal ceremony (erusin)? What takes place at the marriage ceremony (nisuin)? The marriage sanctions a state of living together as man and wife. The betrothal does precisely the opposite. Until now both parties were unattached, available to all, not intended for each other. Now we are intended for each other - from now on we are forbidden to each other, until this prohibition is removed. Nowadays the irusin/betrothal ceremony is conducted under the huppa with kiddushin and a ring. “Harei at mekudeshet li” - this is the eirusin, and approximately ten minutes elapse between this ceremony and the nisuin, the marriage. But in Biblical times an entire year separated the eirusin and the nisuin, and during this period many laws applied, such as the prohibition on being alone together, on living under the same roof.

Under the huppa we have one bracha which is really for two things - irusin and nisuin. If we conducted irusin today as written in the Torah then this benediction would be in two parts. I am referring to the bracha ”... vetsivanu al haa’arayot” (blessed be He... who has commanded us regarding those things that are forbidden to us) referring to forbidden unions - a man is prohibited from marrying his mother or sister, a woman cannot marry her father, and so on. “ve’asar lanu et ha’arusot” (and has prohibited to us the betrothed) - in Biblical times, the bracha would have ended here, but it continues “ve’hitir lanu et hanesuot lanu” (and has permitted to us those to whom we are espoused) because the marriage will be performed within the next ten minutes. The Rash comments that he knows of no other benediction in Judaism that is made specifically over that which is forbidden. He feels that it is very un-Jewish, since a Jew makes a blessing over that which is allowed to him. Now we understand the meaning of “asar lanu et ha’arusot” - by the act of betrothal the betrothed becomes forbidden - until the marriage.

By virtue of the betrothal, we are forbidden to one another - by which we mean that we are linked together. This can take two forms: the first is that we are physically forbidden to one another, and the second is that we are essentially and eternally connected, because there is a third element in our partnership - the Holy One, blessed be He. This does not find its expression in the fact that the two of us embrace and cling together - on the contrary, the true test of this is in the fact that we are forbidden to each other. In other words, the concepts ‘forbidden’ and ‘permitted’ now take on precisely the opposite meanings of what we are accustomed to. The act of betrothal prohibits us, and then we have the marriage which permits that which was formerly prohibited. Now you can live together in body and soul, and with the help of God this union will be eternal, holy, beautiful and pure. In a sense, all of life is a state of erusin and nisuim - all the laws pertaining to family purity deal with what is prohibited and what is permitted. Once again: on the surface that which is forbidden is just that - prohibited. But on a deeper level, the prohibition connects us with the source from which emanates this love, and the cycle of prohibition and permission is repeated...

So in fact the bracha does not refer to that which is forbidden. We are actually giving thanks to the Almighty who did not permit the marriage before first forbidding us to one another as betrothed. Thank You for teaching us this great concept, that it is possible to be betrothed and married. You have taught us huppa and kiddushin, over and over again. Even when there are difficulties, when things are bleak, we know there will always be peaks and valleys, and there will always be erusin and nisuim... This is the first part!

Now for the second part. The bracha ends: “Blessed are You, O Lord, who has sanctified his people Israel by huppa and kiddushin”. This can be understood two ways: You have sanctified Israel by means of the ceremony being conducted here today. But it can also be understood another way: Just as we are marrying one another under the huppa with kiddushin, so too, You, O Lord, espouse us, Your people, with huppa and kiddushin. Ribbono Shel Olam, by bringing us into the land of Israel You have brought us into Your house – this is a marriage. When You decided to grant us Your Torah, it was a long and romantic procedure. First You went to Paran, Emor and Se’ir. You searched, and eventually you found us suitable.

Once You found us, two procedures took place. The first was the eirusin, the betrothal. “I remembered the charity of your youth, the love of your betrothal” – when was this? In the wilderness. Between a private betrothal and marriage a year must elapse. The time required for the betrothal of God and the Jewish people was forty years. First you removed us from Egypt – one nation out of another – a birth! After our birth You brought us into the wilderness, and at Mt. Sinai You presented us with the document of betrothal. And then You took us, as described in the Song of Songs. The Song of Songs is a classic illustration of the love of betrothal – a powerful love that is never consummated. The lover chases his beloved endlessly, she flees, then she searches for him, but he is not to be found. There is always a form of contact, but they remain prohibited to one another. They cannot exist without one another, their thoughts are focused on each other. Once the ripening process of eirusin/betrothal is complete, You will finally bring us into Your house, and the marriage will begin.

But what happens when the marriage is consummated without prior betrothal? By the way, this is a classic halachic question, assuming there was no betrothal, no ring, no kiddushin. For example, if a wedding took place but it transpired that the ring did not conform to halachic standards. The couple is obviously married, but they have contravened the mitzva of kiddushin. What’s to be done? Halachically, the betrothal must still be conducted, even twenty years later, because it should have been done immediately.

The greatest aspiration of lovers is: “And I will betroth you to me for ever” –the state of betrothal will never be eroded by marriage, and we will remain eternally betrothed, prohibited to one another, desiring one another, because perhaps this passion will dissipate tomorrow. “And I will betroth you to me for ever” is the highest level of all, and this is the level that the Holy One, blessed be He, desires of Israel. You are about to enter the land of Israel, and the connection between you and the land is like that between a man and a woman.

A man and a woman can be joined by marriage. The same is true for the people of Israel and the land of Israel. But a sudden crisis can reveal that they are not truly betrothed. Perhaps the tie that bound the couple was not sufficiently tested, they were too hasty in their hurry to stand under the huppa, and they skipped the kiddushin. Or perhaps they observed the kiddushin, but their marriage has nevertheless become more technical than otherwise. Likewise, we can receive the land, become espoused to the land, build it up and settle it with many houses, and yet we have not ascertained the love, the betrothal, between us, in our haste to keep going further.

A very wise man, Israel Eldad, made a remarkable comment, during the Six Day War. After all the “territories” had been liberated, he said: “In six days we have witnessed a historic shortcut – what happens when there is a shortcut? What kind of emotional connection can there be when there has not been sufficient time to become acquainted?” A person can be steeped in Torah, he can be thoroughly versed in the whole mishna, but if he is not betrothed to the Torah, the connection can be purely technical – every morning he has his coffee and studies gemara, but it’s a mechanical process. There are many b’nei Torah of this nature.

“He who approaches a betrothed maiden in a dream” refers to a person who is so strongly connected at the level of imagination, of dreams, that the betrothal cannot be severed. This is anti-betrothal. He has achieved consummation through the betrothal. “Moses entrusted the Torah to us, as a heritage for the assembly of Jacob.” In place of heritage (morashah) read betrothed (me’ursah). “He who studies Torah before the nations of the land (the reference here is to those who hate wisdom and learning), it is as if his betrothed was violated in his presence” because his Torah study is mechanical, technical, academic. He is contemptuous of the Torah, he has no romantic link, no sense of betrothal, no intimacy.

The Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: “Therefore say to the children of Israel I will bring you…. I will deliver you…. I will redeem you…I will take you…But pay attention – taking you out is not betrothal. It simply means today you’re here, tomorrow you’re out of here! I delivered you from slavery, I will take you… to Mt. Sinai. The true test is this: “And I will bring you to the land, concerning which I did swear to give to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob; and I will give it to you for a heritage. I am the Lord.” We have yet to see whether you will be betrothed to the land, or merely espoused to it. This is not technical, it is deeply spiritual. “but they did not hear Moses through anguish of spirit and through hard service.” This is not easy to hear. Someone who works very hard wants to hear that in the end he will come home, he doesn’t want to learn that first he is required to become acquainted, he doesn’t really have strength for this.

Pharaoh is the ultimate example of the technical link – he is entirely technical, with no spirituality. He orders that the work load be increased, accusing the children of Israel of idleness, claiming that the reason they want leave to offer sacrifices is that they are shirkers. There is no betrothal, there is no spiritual connection “Who is the Lord that I should heed his voice. I do not know the Lord.” Pharaoh is the symbol of ancient Egypt – his pyramids endure to this day. Pharaoh transforms each and every person into a small technical cipher for the purpose of building a huge house for him. Sometimes we forget that the redemption of Israel did not begin with Moses and Aaron. It began with Shifra and Puah, the two midwives with the great inner sense of vision. “The midwives feared God” and they saved the boys. Their reward was that God “made them houses.” Everyone has two houses – that of Pharaoh, and that of the midwives – the technical giant pyramid, huge and tall, increasing in power and size, lasting for five hundred years or more, like Pharaoh’s, but it’s a lie, it’s built on a lie! And then there are the humble, small houses of the midwives.

What was the size of their houses? Probably very small. Not so, says Rashi! “Priestly houses and royal houses.” There is no contradiction here, there reference is to houses that begin with betrothal and end with marriage. It was not Moses who created the situation of redemption but the midwives. Our sages tell us that Shifra and Puah were really Jocheved and Miriam. The implication is that the mother and sister of Moses persuaded his father not to be swayed by Pharaoh’s injunction to cast all male children into the Nile. If there is true faith, if we are truly betrothed, then we will not heed Pharaoh’s decree. “And there went forth a man of the house of Levi and took the daughter of a Levite” – he performed kiddushin. Moses could then entreat the Lord with the lament that “the children of Israel did not listen to me from anguish of spirit and hard service” – they have no more strength to listen to me speak about heritage, so to whom will I speak about betrothal? To whom will I speak? To Pharaoh? He is the arch-example of the concept that there is no intimacy, no inner, spiritual, eternal connection. He exemplifies the technical, the mechanical.

Moses repeats that he “is of uncircumcised lips” – this means far more than a speech impediment. Moses is saying, ‘I know what the problem is. I am spiritual by nature, so I stutter and stammer when I try to speak of practical things. The children of Israel respond to my spirituality by telling me that they don’t have the strength for heritage, for betrothal (morashah – me’ursah). They want to be taken, redeemed, brought out – for this they are ready. So how can I speak to them? I am of uncircumcised lips!’

The Holy One, blessed be He, says to Moses: ‘Come, speak, command, everything will be fine. But first, wait a minute, let’s show them the true meaning of betrothal and marriage.’ “And Amram took his aunt Jocheved for a wife”, and Aharon took Elisheva, sister to Nachshon – family history, betrothal and marriage. In this parasha, we are not presented with genealogy, we are learning about kiddushin and nisuin. The huppa is the foundation, the basis of everything.

‘Now go to Pharaoh and tell him everything, trust that the children of Israel will heed the story of heritage – betrothal’. In my humble opinion, the entire story of the Exodus can be found in the word that begins and ends the story of redemption. You are coming to the land which is called morashah – heritage. The Torah was commanded to us by Moses as a morashah – heritage. The test comes when we ask ourselves whether we are betrothed to the Holy One, blessed be He, with huppa and kiddushin, or do we remember the huppa but forget the kiddushin? If there are sometimes difficulties, complications, misunderstandings between the nation and the land, or between the nation and its Torah, the answer cannot be found in the marriage, the solution isn’t technical. It is far deeper – we must go back and examine the betrothal, the spiritual connection, the Song of Songs between the people of Israel and the Land of Israel, between the people of Israel and Torat Israel, between the lover and his beloved.

Home | Contact Us | Keren Yishai | Rav Mordechai Elon
Learn the Mekorot | Read the Shiur