Interpreting Dialogue II:
What is God’s Name?
Finding a way to address God is a paradoxical exercise in Jewish thought. Indeed, a theology that denies God any human attributes should make naming Him a logical impossibility. Nonetheless, the Jewish God is not an abstraction. We are obligated to pray to Him and we are encouraged to sense His intervention in our lives and in our collective history.
Moshe touches upon this issue directly when he asks God for a name by which to identify the One Who is sending him to the Jewish people (Exodus 3:13). As we will see, God’s reply to Moshe (Exodus 3:14–15) is highly enigmatic. The midrash we will explore below addresses the problem posed by God’s reply, interpreting the dialogue between God and Moshe and its implications for the naming of God.
The midrash is based on the following biblical dialogue:1Please read Exodus 3 in its entirety for a clearer understanding of the midrashic discussion.
(Verse 13) “And Moshe said to the Lord, ‘Here, I will come to the children of Israel, and I will say to them, “The Lord of your fathers has sent me to you,” and they will say to me, “What is His name?” What will I say to them?’ (Verse 14) And the Lord said to Moshe (vayomer Elohim el Moshe), “I will be that which I will be (eheye asher eheye);” and He said (vayomer), “Thus you will say to the children of Israel: ‘ “I will be” (eheye) has sent me to you.’” (Verse 15) And the Lord said again to Moshe (vayomer od Elohim el Moshe), “Thus you will say to the children of Israel: ‘God, the Lord of your fathers, the Lord of Avraham, the Lord of Yitzhak, and the Lord of Yaakov has sent me to you’; this is My name forever, and this is my remembrance from generation to generation.”
Defining the Interpretive Problem
Moshe’s question is easily understood, but God’s answer is an enigma. For one thing, He appears to be offering three answers to Moshe’s single question. This leaves Moshe’s problem unresolved: Which of God’s three statements is the answer to Moshe’s question? Does God expect Moshe to repeat all three statements to the children of Israel? Based on the words of the text, how is he to know? Furthermore, the first two answers (in verse 14) are cryptic. What, we may ask, is Moshe supposed to make of a statement like, “I will be that which I will be”?
Exodus Rabba 3:6 reads Exodus 3:13–15 closely to address these questions. Each of the interpretations proposed is expressed in the form of an expanded dialogue which clarifies the author’s understanding of the exchange between God and Moshe.
The Midrashic Commentary
The commentary from Exodus Rabba follows:
And the Lord said to Moshe:
(1) R. Abba bar Memel said,
(2) “The Holy One blessed be He said to Moshe,
(3) ‘You wish to know My name?
(4) I am called according to My deeds.
(5) Sometimes, I am called by [the name] El Shaddai, by [the name God of] Hosts (Tzevaot), by [the name] Lord (Elohim), by [the name] God (Hashem).
(6) When I judge humankind, I am called “Lord,”
(7) And when I make war against the wicked, I am called “[God of] Hosts,”
(8) And when I suspend [judgment for] a person’s sins, I am called “El Shaddai.”
(9) And when I have mercy on My world, I am called “God”’
(10) for God is none other than the quality of mercy,
(12) That is [what it means when it says,] “I will be that which I will be”:
(13) “I am called according to My deeds.”
(14) R. Yitzhak says:
(15) “The Holy One blessed be He said to Moshe,”
(16) ‘Say to them,
(17) “I am the One Who was, and I am the One Who is now, and I am the One Who will be in the future to come.”
(18) That’s why it says ‘I will be (eheye)’ three times.”
(19) Another explanation [for] “I will be that which I will be (eheye asher eheye)”
(20) R. Yaakov the son of R. Avina, in the name of R. Huna of Tzipori said:
(21) “The Holy One blessed be He said to Moshe,
(22) ‘Say to them,
(23) “In this enslavement, I will be with them,
(24) and they will go into enslavement [in the future] and I will be with them.””
(25) [Moshe] said before Him,
(26) “And thus I should say to them? It is enough [that they face] the [future] trouble in its time!”
(27) [God] said to him,
(28) “No, ‘thus you should say to the children of Israel, “I will be” has sent me to you.’
(29) To you, I am making it known; to them, I am not making it known.””
(30) Another explanation [for] “I will be” (eheye):
(31) R. Yitzhak in the name of R. Ami said,
(32) “In mortar and bricks they are standing, and to mortar and bricks they are going.”
(33) And thus [it says] in Daniel, “And I, Daniel, was broken (nihiyeti) and sick...” (Daniel 8:27).2See Rashi on this verse.
(34) [Moshe] said before Him, “And thus I should say to them?”
(35) [God] said to him, “No, rather [say to them] ‘I will be’ (eheye) has sent me to you.””
(36) R. Yohanan said,
(37) “I will be to those whom I will be (eheye la’asher eheye), with individuals
(38) but to the masses, against their will, whether or not they want it, when their teeth are broken, I will rule over them,
(39) as it says, “By my life, says God the Lord, with a strong hand and an outstretched arm and rage poured out, I will rule over you” (Ezekiel 20:23).”
(40) Another explanation, that R. Ananiel the son of R. Sasson said:
(41) “The Holy One blessed be He said,
(42) ‘When I wish, one of the angels, which is a third [the size] of the world, stretches out its hand from the heavens and touches the earth,
(43) as it says, “And he sent the form of a hand and he took me by the fringes of my head” (Ezekiel 8:3).
(44) And when I wished, I made three of them sitting under the tree,
(46) And when I wish, His honor fills the whole world,
(48) And when I wished, I spoke with Iyov from the storm,
(50) And when I wish, [I speak] from within the thornbush.’”
The Vayomer Vayomer Problem: Violation of a Biblical Convention
As we have noted elsewhere,3Chapter 12. Hazal assume that biblical dialogue is only a partial recording of the actual conversations that take place in the Tanakh. Part of the function of midrashic commentary is to flesh out the dialogue in ways that clarify the meanings of these partially reproduced conversations. This approach to dialogue is particularly appropriate in the three verses we are examining here because of what might be called the “vayomer vayomer ” problem.4I first encountered this textual problem in a weekly Torah study class for teachers taught by Nehama Leibowitz. This problem is described in the midrash with the following generalization: “R. Yohanan said, ‘Wherever it says vayomer vayomer, [the text] needs to be expounded.’”5Yalkut Shimoni I Kings 220. See also, Tanhuma Emor 3, Megilla 16a: “vayomer vayomer lama li?” and Leviticus Rabba 26:8.
The use of the word vayomer (“and H/he said”) to introduce direct speech is one of the most common conventions of biblical style. Typically, once a speaker’s words have been prefaced with vayomer the word is not repeated in reference to that speaker unless there has been intervening action in the narrative or intervening speech by another speaker. When vayomer is repeated with reference to an already mentioned speaker without intervening description or speech, then, the text “needs to be expounded.” The assumption is that our attention is being drawn to some action or reaction, verbal or otherwise, left unstated in the text.
In the verses we are analyzing (Exodus 3:13–15), the word vayomer occurs three times in succession without intervening speech or action on the part of Moshe (or, for that matter, intervening action on the part of God). Acting on the midrashic observation about this violation of biblical style, we need to assume that something is missing from the text. Furthermore, as we have pointed out, even without the vayomer vayomer problem, the exchange between God and Moshe in verses 13–15 is problematic. Moshe has asked a question, and God does not appear to be answering it in a way that we can actually understand. How are we to interpret God words?
The Structure of the Paragraph
The editors of Exodus Rabba offer six possible readings of God’s answer to Moshe:
(1) R. Abba bar Memel’s reading (lines 1–13)
(2) R. Yitzhak’s reading (lines 14–18)
(3) R. Yaakov the son of R. Avina’s reading (lines 20–29)
(4) R. Yitzhak’s reading in the name of R. Ami (lines 30–35)
(5) R. Yohanan’s reading (lines 36–39)
(6) R. Ananiel the son of R. Sasson’s reading (lines 40–50)
(1) R. Abba bar Memel’s Reading
R. Abba bar Memel (lines 1–13) addresses this problem by reading eheye asher eheye not as one of God’s names – and hence an answer to Moshe – but as a correction, or perhaps even a rebuke, to Moshe’s question. Moshe has asked God for a name to pass on to the children of Israel. In saying eheye asher eheye, God is telling Moshe that he has asked the wrong question: “You wish to know My name? I am called according to My deeds” (lines 2–3). Before giving Moshe the name that will legitimate his mission to the Jewish people, God wishes to make sure that Moshe understands the nature of the relationship between His name and His essence. God has many names (lines 5–11), but none of them answer the question of Who God is. It is important that Moshe not confuse the name of God with the Being it represents.
Bringing R. Abba bar Memel’s reading of the verse back to the biblical text, we see that it solves part of our problem. If eheye asher eheye is not meant to be the answer to Moshe’s question about what to tell the children of Israel, we have explained both the meaning of the phrase itself, and the repetition of vayomer in verse 14. Eheye asher eheye means God has told Moshe that his question is misconceived, and Moshe has presumably indicated by word or gesture his understanding of God’s correction, requiring the repetition of vayomer to indicate that there has been an interruption.
Problems With R. Abba bar Memel’s Reading
However, if we follow R. Abba bar Memel’s line of thought, we are still left with two problems. First, how are we to understand the second part of verse 14, “Thus you will say to the children of Israel, ‘I will be (eheye)’has sent me to you.’” Is Moshe actually meant to tell the Jewish people, “Eheye has sent me to you”? If so, why does God go on to issue very specific instructions about using a different name in verse 15: “Thus you will say to the children of Israel: ‘God, the Lord of your fathers, the Lord of Avraham, the Lord of Yitzhak, and the Lord of Yaakov has sent me to you....’”6One way to determine Moshe’s understanding of God’s words in verses 14 and 15 might be to check Moshe’s initial meeting with the children of Israel and see which name/s of God he actually uses in passing on God’s message to them. The problem is that Moshe’s first meeting with the Jewish people, recorded in Exodus 4:29–31, is described in very concise, third-person narrative with no direct speech. The issue of God’s name is completely absent from these verses. Second, what are we to do with the third consecutive vayomer in God’s speech with which verse 15 opens?
R. Abba bar Memel’s interpretation does not address these problems. He appears to be concerned only with understanding the meaning of the phrase eheye asher eheye, and while his reading of that phrase is both textually plausible and theologically profound, he solves only the local interpretive problem, not the global ones we have outlined.7See Chapter 12 for a discussion of local vs. global interpretation.
(2) R. Yitzhak’s Reading
The next interpretation offered by the editors of Exodus Rabba, that of R. Yitzhak (lines 14–18), is somewhat broader in scope, because it relates to the whole of verse 14. In contrast to R. Abba bar Memel, R. Yitzhak reads eheye asher eheye, together with the second part of the verse, “’I will be’ (eheye) has sent me to you,” as part of God’s answer to Moshe, not as a correction of the question. In fact, he reads all of verse 14 as a message that God wishes Moshe to deliver to Israel: “Say to them, ‘I am the One Who was, and I am the One Who is now, and I am the One Who will be in the future to come’” (lines 16–17).8It might be argued that, in contrast to R. Abba bar Memel, R. Yitzhak reads the word eheye as a name of God and treats the three repetitions of this Name as a message whose meaning Moshe is intended to transmit to the children of Israel. I am not inclined toward this interpretation because in verse 15, God answers Moshe’s question with something that is unambiguously a name. As R. Yitzhak himself points out in line 18, he derives this reading, from the three-fold appearance of the word eheye in the verse.
By casting eheye asher eheye as an answer to Moshe’s question, R. Yitzhak’s reading offers an alternative to R. Abba bar Memel’s view of these words as a challenge to Moshe’s question. In addition, R. Yizchak’s reading offers an interpretation of the second half of the verse (“Eheye has sent me to you”), since he reads the two statements as one overall message. The disadvantage of this interpretation is that it ignores the repetitions of vayomer in verses 14 and 15, and does not relate to God’s response to Moshe’s request for a name to tell the children of Israel in verse 15. Inarguably, R. Yitzhak’s interpretation is as theologically deep as R. Abba bar Memel’s reading, yet in a way, it is less successful in addressing the textual anomalies we have noted in verse 14. R. Abba bar Memel simply does not offer an interpretation of verse 14 as a whole, but R. Yitzhak does. In any case, our questions remain.
It is, of course, possible that R. Yitzhak does not maintain that, “Wherever it says vayomer vayomer [the text] requires interpretation.” In that case, his reading all of God’s words in verse 14 as one statement is perfectly justified. The editors of Exodus Rabba, however, do not seem to view R. Yitzhak’s interpretation as satisfactory enough to preclude the need for other readings.
(3) R. Yaakov the Son of R. Avina’s Reading
R. Yaakov the son of R. Avina (lines 20–29) solves the vayomer vayomer problem, and the cryptic nature of God’s words in verse 14 by turning the verse into a dialogue. On his reading, eheye asher eheye does not mean ‘I will be that which I will be” but rather “I will be with them now just as I will be with them later” (lines 22–24).
R. Yaakov restructures verse 14 as follows: In response to Moshe’s request for a name to bring with him to the Jewish people, God says, “Eheye asher eheye,” which means, “Say to them, ‘In this enslavement I will be with them, and they will go into enslavement [in the future] and I will be with them’” (lines 22–24). Moshe is dismayed at the idea of telling slaves that, after their redemption, their descendents will be enslaved yet again, and answers, “And thus I should say to them? It is enough [that they face] the [future] trouble in its time!” God then answers that Moshe should tell the children of Israel, “Eheye has sent me to you,” which presumably means something like, “The One Who will be with you in your enslavement has sent me to you.” God has told Moshe the whole story, but he does not wish Moshe to tell the suffering children of Israel more than they need to know now (lines 28–29).
R. Yaakov’s reading is subtle, and offers an elegant solution to the vayomer vayomer problem. Like the opinions which precede his, R. Yaakov does not read either eheye asher eheye or eheye as names of God, and like them he sees these words as messages that need to be interpreted. Unlike them, however, by refiguring verse 14 as a dialogue, he makes the interpolation of vayomer in the middle of verse 14 coherent. There has been an interruption (Moshe’s objection), unstated in the text, but real nevertheless. To signal this, God’s words are prefaced with vayomer.
We should note that R. Yaakov’s reading requires us to add words to the text,9It could be argued that the very formulation of God’s answer virtually requires us to add words due to the open-ended nature of the verb of being. R. Yaakov, in effect, is reading “I will be” as “I will be….” but this is true of all the interpretations in this midrash, and is indeed characteristic of this kind of midrashic exercise. The method by which the various midrashic authors explicate biblical dialogue is almost invariably by narrative expansion.
Does R. Yaakov’s interpretation square with what follows in verse 15? R. Yaakov does not address this question, but we might argue that it does, for although God’s dialogue with Moshe in verse 14 as R. Yaakov presents it is relevant to the larger discussion of Moshe’s mission, God has not actually given Moshe an answer to his question, i.e., what name to tell the children of Israel. The vayomer preceding God’s statement that He is to be identified as the God of the Patriarchs may well indicate that Moshe has reiterated his original question and then, in verse 15, been given the answer. Nothing in R. Yaakov’s interpretation would refute such a reading, and his treatment of verse 14 as a dialogue can be seen as giving indirect support to such an approach for verse 15.
(4) R. Yitzhak’s Reading
R. Yitzhak’s interpretation (offered in the name of R. Ami), which follows upon R. Yaakov’s (lines 31–35) appears to arrive at a place very close to his, but via a different route. R. Yitzhak reads eheye as derived from the root h-v-h with the meaning of trouble or evil (rather than h-y-h, the root for ‘being,’ which the other interpretations assume to be the derivation of eheye). The prooftext for this position (line 33) is from Daniel (8:27), where the word nihiyeti is probably best translated as “I was broken.”
R. Yitzhak then conflates both possible meanings of the word eheye. He understands God’s words to Moshe as follows: “In mortar and bricks they are standing, and to mortar and bricks they are going” (line 32). These words, a description of slavery that vividly conveys the physical hardships endured by the children of Israel, resonate with the ‘brokenness’ meaning of the prooftext from Daniel. When we read these words right in the wake of R. Yaakov’s interpretation – “ In this enslavement, I will be with them…” – we realize that R. Yitzhak’ construes eheye asher eheye as: “I, God, am with them where they stand in their state of brokenness (‘in mortar and bricks’), and I will likewise be with them in future enslavement.” This view of R. Yitzhak’s narrative expansion superimposes the connotation of ‘brokenness’ on the connotation of ‘being.’ Taken together, we understand R. Yitzhak’s reading of eheye asher eheye as an intensified version of R. Yaakov’s reading just before it.
Like R. Yaakov, R. Yitzhak has solved the vayomer vayomer problem by turning verse 14 into a dialogue, and like R. Yaakov, R. Yitzhak concludes that Moshe is not meant to tell the Jewish people more than they can bear at this point. In fact, lines 34–35 support the contention that we are meant to read eheye asher eheye with both meanings of ‘brokenness’ and ‘being’: “[Moshe] said before Him, ‘And thus should I say to them?’ [God] said to him, ‘No, rather [say to them], “I will be (eheye)” has sent me to you.’” Clearly, in this line at least, we are not meant to read eheye with the ‘brokenness’ meaning alone, but rather as, “Tell them that I will be with them in their brokenness and trouble.”
Blurring the Lines Between Interpretation and Homiletics
Readers unfamiliar with midrashic style might be inclined to ask at this point why R. Yitzhak doesn’t make his reading more explicit, and indicate in the words of his narrative expansion that he is reading eheye asher eheye using both meanings simultaneously. The simple, technical answer is that R. Yitzhak’s reading does not actually work grammatically. Whichever root meaning one would wish to assign it, eheye is a first person future conjugation of either h-y-h or h-v-h and, translated accurately, has to mean either, “I will be” or “I will be broken.” In R. Yitzhak’s reading, the ‘brokenness’ meaning is attributed to the children of Israel, not to God (“In mortar and bricks they are standing…”), even though the grammatical form of the verb in its textual context can only refer to God, and not the Jewish people.
Why, then, doesn’t R. Yitzhak associate the ‘brokenness’ meaning explicitly with God, and make the interpretation grammatically consistent? This could be accomplished by saying something like: “I am broken (troubled) with them in their slavery now as I will be in their future enslavements.” R. Yitzhak presumably does not expand the narrative in this way to avoid the theological difficulties that might arise from a problematic description of God. Ascribing weakness to God, as would the phrase “I am broken…,” might create new interpretive difficulties in verse 14, more formidable than the problems his interpretation solves.
Aside from this, though, the greatest difficulty with R. Yitzhak’s interpretation from a plain-sense-of-the-text perspective is that, in fact, it is less strictly interpretive than the readings before it. We noted the kinship between R. Yitzhak’s and R. Yaakov’s interpretations of verse 14. The critical difference between them is the method each uses to arrive at his reading, and R. Yaakov’s conflation of two layers of meaning. Both these differences involve making use of a somewhat counterintuitive root meaning for eheye (i.e., h-v-h). The advantage of R. Yitzhak’s reading, however, is that it enables him to deepen the emotional impact of verse 14, in a way that a strictly interpretive reading does not. R. Yitzhak’s version conveys, albeit indirectly, just how closely tied God is to the Jewish people in their suffering.
(5) R. Yohanan’s Reading
R. Yohanan’s interpretation (lines 36–39), which follows R. Yitzhak’s, reverts to the “I will be” reading of eheye we saw earlier, but takes a completely different view of the message to be conveyed. He reads eheye asher eheye as eheye la’asher eheye, “I will be to those whom I will be…”
R. Yohanan reading of verse 14 seems to be: When God says eheye asher eheye, He is telling Moshe, “I will be to those whom I will be, with individuals,” i.e., God’s relationship with individuals will be individually determined by their relationship with Him. (In other words, individuals can choose whether or not to accept God’s rule.) But when God says, “Thus you will say to the children of Israel: ‘Eheye has sent me to you,’” He is telling Moshe to transmit to the children of Israel (“the masses”) that “against their will, whether or not they want it, when their teeth are broken, I will rule over them.” R. Yohanan buttresses his reading with a proof-text describing a similar situation of God’s imposing His kingship over the Jewish people regardless of their will.10For the full force of R. Yohanan’s prooftext, read it in context: Ezekiel 20:33–38.
If we are correct in understanding R. Yohanan’s narrative expansion as an interpretation of the whole of verse 14, and not simply of the phrase eheye asher eheye, we easily see how R. Yohanan’s reading solves the textual problems we have noticed. Like all the previous interpretations,11With the possible exception of R. Yitzhak’s. R. Yohanan understands God’s words to Moshe in verse 14 as a message, rather than as a name of God. And although he does not read verse 14 as a dialogue – giving us as he does only one side of the conversation – it is clear that his reading solves the vayomer vayomer problem by presenting a two-part message. The first part, “I will be to those whom I will be, with individuals,” is intended for Moshe alone; the second part, “against their will, whether or not they want it, when their teeth are broken, I will rule over them,” is to be passed on to the children of Israel by Moshe. The second vayomer in verse 14 would then indicate that Moshe has reacted to the first message. In response, God now tells him that only the second part of the message is meant for the Jewish people.
A Change in Tone
R. Yohanan’s reading is strikingly different in tone from the previous interpretations of verse 14. In the words eheye asher eheye, R. Abba bar Memel sees God as restating the terms of Moshe’s question. Taken together with the second part of verse 14, R. Yitzhak reads these words as a statement about the nature of God that also responds, in part, to Moshe’s request for a name to tell the Jewish people. Both R. Yaakov and R. Yitzhak (in the name of R. Ami) see eheye asher eheye as a message linking Israel’s present slavery with future enslavement by God’s willingness to be with the Jewish people in all their sufferings. R. Yohanan’s reading of verse 14 seems harsh, in contrast, especially as a first message to the children of Israel and in light of their terrible plight.
The rationale for R. Yohanan’s interpretation may reside in Moshe’s question in verse 13, “Here, I will come to the children of Israel, and I will say to them, ‘The Lord of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they will say to me, ‘What is His name?’ what will I say to them?” We could read this question as implying that Moshe views his impending mission as the beginning of negotiations between God and the Jewish people over their acceptance of God’s sovereignty. In effect, the dialogue in Exodus 3 as a whole savors strongly of negotiation, especially as Moshe bargains with God in his attempt to evade the task which God wishes to impose upon him. R. Yohanan’s interpretation may be a reaction to that aspect of Exodus 3. His reading of verse 14 suggests that God wishes to impose the terms of the relationship between Himself and the Jewish people quite clearly at the very outset. Moshe, perhaps, can take the liberty of negotiating the terms of his relationship with God since, with individuals at least, God “will be to those whom [He] will be.” In the case of the people, though, regardless of their questions, and regardless of the Name Moshe brings them, “whether or not they want it, when their teeth are broken, I will rule over them.”
(6) R. Ananiel’s Reading
The final interpretation offered by the editors of Exodus Rabba, that of R. Ananiel the son of R. Sasson (lines 40–50), brings us full circle back to the beginning of the paragraph. Our first impression is that R. Ananiel’s reading is essentially the same as R. Abba bar Memel’s. On closer examination, however, we realize that while R. Abba bar Memel reads eheye asher eheye in terms of God’s deeds, R. Ananiel reads it in terms of God’s manifestations – the forms through which God chooses to reveal Himself to people. In this sense, R. Ananiel’s reading is closest to the literal meaning of the text since he appears to be reading eheye asher eheye as “I will be that which I will be,” without the addition of any words to that phrase. (This in distinction to R. Yaakov’s “I will be with them” or R. Yohanan’s “I will be to those whom I will be,” for example.)
R. Abba bar Memel maintains that Moshe’s request for God’s name is mistaken, because God can be known only through His deeds, and the various names of God are merely labels reflecting God’s actions. Like R. Abba bar Memel’s reading of eheye asher eheye, R. Ananiel’s expansion of the narrative implies that he understands Moshe’s request for a name to tell the children of Israel as a veiled question about Who God is. The answer, however, as R. Ananiel conceives it, is that God can be perceived only through the revelations of Himself that He wishes to manifest. The phrase ‘when I wish/ed’ (k’she’ani mivakesh/k’she’bikashti) recurs five times in the course of R. Ananiel’s commentary, which strongly indicates that he views this sort of self-revelation as an expression of God’s will, something that human beings can perceive, but not something they can influence.
The examples R. Ananiel chooses cogently represent a variety of possibilities of Divine revelation. The first example, refers to a prophetic vision in Ezekiel (line 43) in which the prophet sees the form of a hand reach out from a fiery figure in the heavens and lift him by the hairs of his head to the Temple in Jerusalem. R. Ananiel emphasizes the vastness of this vision by representing this image as “one of the angels, which is a third [the size] of the world, stretch[ing] out his hand from the heavens and touch[ing] the earth” (line 42). The second example, the appearance of the angels to Avraham in Genesis 18, shows us God’s messengers reduced to human scale; this is indicated by Avraham’s initial perception of them as people and his invitation to them to “rest under the tree” (lines 44–45). Both these examples present angels – God’s messengers – as manifestations of Divine revelation, but the cases differ in critical ways. In the first example, the angel’s hand (this is R. Ananiel’s gloss of the verse from Ezekiel) is frighteningly vast, but is part of a vision; the prophet is not actually transported to Jerusalem in the physical world. In the second case, the angels whom Avraham encounters are scaled to human expectations and given concrete form in the physical world Avraham inhabits.12The Rambam’s position notwithstanding. See Rashi on these verses and the Ramban’s rebuttal of the Rambam’s argument that Avraham’s visitation by the angels was a vision and did not happen in the physical world. While both cases can be subsumed under the category of revelation via messenger, it would be difficult to find examples more radically differentiated than these.
In R. Ananiel’s third example, Divine revelation in all its vastness is described in direct terms, and not as mediated through divine messengers, for when God wishes, “His honor fills the whole world” (line 46). To buttress this example, R. Ananiel quotes a prooftext from Jeremiah 23 (line 47). Its full effect is experienced when we read verse 24 together with the verse before it. As is clear from the context, the prophet is saying that God is powerful not only within close range, but also from far away. No one can hide from Him because He “fill[s] the heaven and the earth.” This use of the prooftext is particularly effective because it creates a strong contrast to the next two examples of Divine revelation, both of which are direct experiences of God’s immanent presence.
In the first, God speaks to Iyov directly “from the storm,” addressing (if not entirely answering) Iyov’s emotional struggles and intellectual speculations about his sufferings.13In other midrashic renderings of this moment, the word se’ara is read as though it is spelled with the letter sin, rather than samekh, which changes the meaning of the word from ‘storm’ to ‘hair.’ See Genesis Rabba 4:4: “Sometimes [God] speaks with a person from between the hairs on his head, as it says, ‘And God answered Iyov from the storm’ (Iyov 38:1) – from between the hairs on his head.” See also, along similar lines, Bava Batra 16a, and Nidda 52a–b (in both places, Rashi comments on the words “Min ha’se’ara”).
Clearly, this reading of God’s answer to Iyov “min ha’se’ara” intensifies, rather than diminishes the sense of intimacy conveyed by this example. In the second case, God summons Moshe to him from within the thornbush. A storm is less earthbound and concrete than a thornbush, but in both cases God addresses the recipients of His revelation in language, and engages them in dialogue. In contrast, the image of God’s presence filling the world which precedes the storm and thornbush examples, is a diffuse revelation, directed at no particular, individual human being. The examples R. Ananiel chooses to represent the possibilities of God’s manifestation thus cover a wide range of experiences.
Ordering as Commentary
We might ask, at this point, what triggers R. Ananiel’s reading of eheye asher eheye – so similar, on one hand, to R. Abba bar Memel’s and yet so different. By the same token, we might explore why the editors of Exodus Rabba choose to include both readings given their similarity, and why they place one to open the discussion and the other to close it. This question is particularly pertinent in light of two other similar readings, by R. Yaakov and R. Yitzhak, which are juxtaposed with one another, rather than separated. An answer to these questions must take into account the difference in scope as well as content between R. Abba bar Memel’s and R. Ananiel’s interpretations of eheye asher eheye.
As we noted above, Exodus 3 is characterized by frequent alternations in the name of God. This phenomenon comes to the fore most visibly in the verses that describe Moshe’s perception of the burning bush (Exodus 3:1–4):
(Verse 1) And Moshe was shepherding the sheep of Yitro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the sheep in the desert, and he came to the mountain of the Lord, Horev. (Verse 2) And an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from within the thornbush, and he saw, and here, the thornbush is burning with fire, and the thornbush is not consumed. (Verse 3) And Moshe said, “I will turn aside and see this great sight, why the thornbush is not burned up” (Verse 4). And God saw that he had turned aside to see; and the Lord called to him from within the bush, and said, “Moshe, Moshe,” and he said, “Here I am.”
Verse 2, in particular, raises many questions. How does the “angel of the Lord” appear to Moshe? It does not seem to be an entity separate from the bush, like the angel in the prooftext from Ezekiel or the angels in the Avraham story; indeed, the verse goes on to say that Moshe sees the thornbush burning without being consumed, and does not say that Moshe sees the angel of the Lord. (If Moshe had perceived an angelic figure as such, we would expect the text to record it. We might also expect that Moshe would address the angel.) Verse 4 further confuses us by telling us that God sees Moshe turn aside to investigate the burning bush, but that it is the Lord Who actually addresses him.
What emerges from these verses quite clearly is that God appears to Moshe and speaks to him from within the burning bush. How God does so remains obscure. The names of God that are used in these four verses complicate the picture rather than elucidate it. In light of this, when Moshe later asks for a name with which to identify God to the Jewish people, we may well conclude, as R. Abba bar Memel does, that God cannot be fully known through His names.
We many reasonably assume that R. Ananiel’s understanding of eheye asher eheye is influenced by these verses and that he is reading verse 14 from within the larger context of the chapter. R. Ananiel cites God’s speaking to Moshe from within the thornbush as an example of a revelatory manifestation of God. We might paraphrase R. Ananiel’s reading of eheye asher eheye as a message to Moshe (and, by extension, to the reader) as follows: “You, Moshe, have experienced My presence in a particular way, but that is only an expression of My will at this given moment. When I wish, I appear in other ways. You have asked for My name, but ‘I will be that which I will be.’ Don’t ask for My name. Ask how I reveal Myself.”
Both R. Abba bar Memel and R. Ananiel see eheye asher eheye as a warning to Moshe that in asking for a name of God to bring to the Jewish people, he has asked the wrong question. R. Abba bar Memel sees God’s names as potentially misleading because names only describe actions, not the essence of God, which cannot be defined by a name. For R. Ananiel, even manifestations of God’s presence are potentially misleading because they too change as a function of God’s will, and they too fail to convey the essence of God.
These two interpretations are arrived at from different places. As we noted earlier, R. Abba bar Memel appears to be reading eheye asher eheye within the very narrow context of Moshe’s question, and does not even attempt a resolution of the whole of verse 14. In contrast, R. Ananiel seems to be bringing Moshe’s question in verse 13 back to the incident that opens the chapter (his encounter with God at the burning bush), and possibly implying a connection between them.
The line that separates these two views is narrow, but critical. The redactors of Exodus Rabba maintain the difference between these positions by structuring the paragraph as they do. In separating the two opinions, they force us to read them in isolation from one another and focus on the message of each individually. At the same time, they give us reason to compare the two views by bringing us back to the beginning of the paragraph when we think we have reached the end. Simply juxtaposing these two opinions might mislead us into thinking of them as variations of one another, as is the case in the opinions of R. Yaakov and R. Yitzhak, which are presented side by side.
Looking at the overall structure of this piece of commentary, we should note that none of the opinions cited in this paragraph solve all of the textual and theological difficulties posed by verses 13–15. Each of the opinions tackles one or more of these problems from a different place, and each offers only a partial resolution. Even taken together, the interpretations offered here do not answer all of our questions. Perhaps, also for this reason, the editors of Exodus Rabba open with R. Abba bar Memel’s reading, and conclude with R. Ananiel’s. In different ways, both opinions make the point that God cannot be truly known. Exodus 3:13–15 is written in such a way that it raises more questions about the meaning of eheye asher eheye than we can answer. The redactors of Exodus Rabba want us to understand this, and so, the midrashic commentary reflects the ultimate mystery of the passage, rather than pretending to solve it, by bringing us full circle back to the beginning of our inquiry.