|
Pharoah claimed that the Israelites had forfeited their right to emancipation because "how
were they [the Israelites] different from the others; they practiced idolatry and they
practiced idolatry." In response to Pharoah and the Israelites, HaKadosh Baruch Hu
created the marvelous staff which thrown upon the ground turned into a serpent and
picked up by Moses turned back into a staff. Astonished, the world asked: "How can the
staff of the Lord which had engraved upon it one of the blessed Creator's holy names turn
into a serpent?" The Or HaHaim commented upon this quandary:
And [HaKadosh Baruch Hu] hinted to him [Pharoah] that via Moses' hands,
through his tremendous (spiritual) powers, the power to be a serpent was lost and
it became a desiccated stick. But when he removed his hands from it and threw it
[upon the ground], it turned into a serpent which Moses was forced to flee from.
(Exodus 3:5)
'And He said: Do not
come near. Remove your shoes from your feet because the place upon
which you are standing it is sanctified'(Ex 3:5). Hashem commands
Moses to follow two injunctions: firstly, not to come near, and
secondly not to remain with shoes on even in the place where he is
presently standing. We must understand why HaKadosh Barukh Hu did
not first tell Moses to remove the stumbling block he had tripped
over - standing shoed upon sanctified ground, and then commanded him
not to come near
One might also suggest that the place upon which
Moses was standing did not become sanctified until
later
. The
reason for this being that when Hashem wished to speak with him there, in the
place where he was standing, only at that time did He wish to sanctify it so he
warned him first. Perhaps, this is the reason Scripture specifically uses the term
hu ['it', in the phrase 'it is sanctified'], for the Bible could have simply stated 'the
place [
is sanctified]"
[it is, and always was] holy ground; however, by using
the terminology it did, the Bible meant to imply that "it" [the place] was not
previously sanctified.
The saintly Or HaHaim's words clearly emphasize that the Creator's appearance upon the
scene and His intervention were unmediated, direct, notwithstanding their taking place
alongside of man's presence, both in the case of the staff and the holy place. This is
especially striking when contrasted with Jacob's reaction "How awesome is this
place"(Gen 28:17) where we find neither G-d's blessed presence nor His divine
intervention; rather, everything stems from Jacob our forefather.
In the book of Exodus a distinct change takes
place. The divine presence which has its source in the supernal
reaches is found in the company of man and is subject to human
initiative "And He saw that he [Moses] had turned aside to
look"(Ex 3:4); likewise, Moses' grasp on the staff caused the
situation to change. The Creator, in this way, teaches Moses the
difference between himself and the patriarchs.
The patriarchs' very presence
was enough to create divine presence which flowed from within their inner beings.
In Moses' case the blessed presence dwelt upon Moses so that it could achieve a
presence.
This is what the Or HaHaim stated: the place where Moses was standing did not become
sanctified until Moses stood there. Therefore, the Or HaHaim's answer differentiating
between the negative injunction, "Do not come near," and the positive injunction,
"remove your shoes from your feet," becomes unnecessary. The place was wholly
unsanctified until Moses stood there; therefore, there was no injunction requiring the
removal of shoes until after Moses had stood there and consecrated it with his presence.
The same is true of Moses'grasp upon the
serpent's tail and the metamorphosis of the staff into a serpent.
The staff itself, as an object, has no intrinsic sanctity whatsoever
except when it is present within Moses' reality. Therefore, the
staff is subservient to the needs of the man wielding it. When Moses
needed to use the staff to prove to Pharoah and the nation that the
divine presence rests upon him, the staff was subservient
and enslaved to the divine presence emanating from Moses.
The superficially similar miracles performed by the Egyptian
magicians with their rods only seemed to be so. "But Aaron's staff
swallowed their staffs"(Ex 7:12), to teach Pharaoh the difference
between unmediated divine presence and divine presence mediated by
man who does not nullify and subsume himself. On different
levels
. First and foremost, the level of tangibility, of
substance; however, also concerning control over less tangible levels as well, such as
sorcery. However even on levels like these man's ability is limited exclusively to objects
and to these frameworks. Thus, man can cause an object to descend from the level of
sorcery to that of the tangible and back. "But Aaron's staff swallowed their staffs"(Ex
7:12); after it metamorphosed back into being a staff, it swallowed all of them. Here was
the innovation, the action which took a step beyond man's ability qua man; that which the
Egyptian magicians failed to accomplish.
The Creator provided
Moses and the Egyptians with an outstanding lesson regarding
connecting with the divine presence. The man who remains
separate, individuated contrasted with the man who metamorphoses
into a divine presence. Regarding the man who transforms
himself through the dint of absolute devotion and self-nullification
into being a humble man, he steps beyond the boundaries of humankind
in the direction of the ein-sof (literally, infinite or
endless state) of love where the Self erupts forth from within his inner being
bursts the boundaries of the Ego and attaches itself to the divine
ein-sof, embracing the other with its
love, and adopting the ein-sof as its own
presence
. In similar fashion, Aaron's staff swallows the other staffs without becoming
fatter. Likewise, in this manner, the humble individual turns away from his ego and
expresses his divine self which breaks through the delimiting framework. Mount Sinai,
which was short for a mountain, and situated outside the borders of the holy place plays a
similar role.
Mount Moriah merited having the divine
presence's formation -- which later became the tangible divine
presence take place upon it. However, Mount Sinai teaches a
fundamental principle regarding the divine presence: the role man
plays in its formation. This presence cannot begin without human
initiative; without the awakening of the lower realm, without the
"and they cried out"(Ex 2:23), without ""I have heard their outcry
because of their taskmasters"(Ex 3:10). The constant actualization
of the presence in the Temple was also dependant upon human
initiative. Divine worship is the human component in the
divine presence. Man's contribution to the covenant.
The difference between the presence in patriarchal times and
later days
: the forefathers themselves
represented the presence through their spiritual force. The unmediated presence alone did
not dwell upon them but rather was experienced through or via them and played the
background for the events transpiring in their lives.
For Moses, in contrast, the
divine presence can be defined as unmediated, or direct, in two
ways: not only in that it was experienced via him but also in that
it was experienced with his help, through his response to the
original awakening of the upper realm
, and as a new
stage in the relationship between man and his Creator, following Adam's sin. From this
we may deduce that G-d's descent upon Mount Sinai and the acceptance of the Torah by
Israel were intended to repair the breach created by Adam's sin. Therefore, the Creator
did not heal Moses' stutter so that no one would err and think that Moses himself,
through his own powers, performed the miracles, for then they would not distinguish
between Moses and Pharoah and his magicians. Therefore, of all men, a humble man,
seemingly a handicapped one, was chosen to bear the unmediated divine presence. For
this reason, the "bush was all aflame, but the bush was not consumed"(Ex 3:2). For this
reason, the Torah repeatedly records G-d's response to the Israelites outcry, in chapter
three, verses seven and nine, and in chapter two, verses twenty-four and twenty-five.
In
His first response to Moses' refusal, G-d states: "For I will be
with you"(Ex 3:12). G- d's presence confirmed. But only in an ad hoc
fashion, when necessary to remedy the situation. Moses is not
satisfied with this promise for he foresees three difficulties. The
first, convincing himself; the second, convincing the Israelites;
the third, convincing Pharoah. "For I will be with you": this verse
signifies the divine presence, however, in a very elementary form.
For like the patriarchs Moses is endowed with the divine presence in
response to his toiling in the vineyards of the Lord; indeed, the
patriarchs became the divine presence. Convincing the nation
requires a more methodological presence, "I will be, what I will be"
(Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh
, Ex 3:14), a constant presence.
In order to convince
Pharoah a presence governing the forces of nature and overriding
them is necessary; putting into action a methodical, carefully
conceived approach built in stages. For even though the Creator
could have redeemed the Jewish people in one fell swoop, he
preferred to impart a lesson concerning how the divine presence
functions in this world: it utilizes a premeditated approach
to reach its permanent goals. Therefore, long before the
Exodus even takes place, Scriptures relates that "Each woman shall
borrow from her neighbor
silver and gold objects and clothing"(Ex
3:22). Moses aspired to attain a differential divine
presence
, one uniquely suited to the level of each
and every individual, and of course to each and every situation and level of hardship; this,
in keeping with the credo of the verse, "where he is"(Gen 21:17).
Translated by
Rabbi Meshulam Gotlieb
www.MGtransEd.com
|
