English translation — שמות ב

A.

The only time that we find in the Torah that the Most High is called by the name ,

Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh",

is in our parshah<sup>1</sup>

(After Moshe Rabbeinu asked the Most High<sup>2</sup>

"Behold I come to the children of Israel and say to them the God of your fathers sent me to you and they say to me what is His name what shall I say to them",

is)

"And God said to Moshe Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh and He said thus you shall say to the children of Israel Ehyeh sent me to you".

In the Gemara<sup>3</sup>

"Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh"<sup>4</sup>

is counted as one of the ,

names that may not be erased".

The Rambam⁵

but does not count the Name ,

Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh"

(or ,

Ehyeh" alone⁶)

among the 7 Names

(which "all

one who erases even one letter from these seven is lashed").

The Kesef Mishneh

explains: "And it seems that it was not in the version of our teacher

(in the Gemara)

I will be what I will be"; and he adds,

that "in the edition printed in Venice"

"I will be" is counted as one of the seven names.

And so there are additional versions of the Rambam where "I will be" is counted as one of the names that may not be erased.

In the editions of the Rambam

(the common ones)

that are before us, however, it is not mentioned,

"I will be".

And it seems,

that the Beis Yosef also assumes the version before us

(where the Rambam does not mention the name,

"I will be")

and the proof: although he himself says

(in the Kesef Mishneh)

regarding the aforementioned version,

"and it is a correct version that counts the name I will be among the seven names",

nevertheless,

in his book after the Kesef Mishneh,

and especially since it is for halachah"

(in his Shulchan Aruch)

he says "And these are the seven names"

— he does not count "Eheyeh",

he only adds "and some versions also [have] Eheyeh asher Eheyeh"¹⁵.

One must understand: why does the Beit Yosef assume that the primary version in the Rambam is that

"Eheyeh" is not among the names that may not be erased?

And especially since in most versions of the Talmud "Eheyeh asher Eheyeh" is counted among the names that may not be erased¹⁶,

and there are also versions of the Rambam that count this name¹⁷,

as above.

2.

At first glance, one must say the reason for this: the Midrash says¹⁸

on the verse: "The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: 'You seek to know My name? According to My deeds I am called. Sometimes I am called El Shaddai, Tzevaot, Elokim, Havayah; when I judge the creatures I am called Elokim, etc., and when I have mercy on My world I am called Havayah, etc.'"

and elaborates,

"I will be what I will be; I am called according to My deeds."

And we will explain the intent of the Midrash, at least with difficulty,¹⁹

that according to this,²⁰

"I will be what I will be" was not said as a name,

but it means,

"I am called according to My deeds."

And according to this, it is also understood

simply why we do not find in the Tanakh that the Almighty is called thus.²¹

the air of the homily of the Gemara²²

on ,

“I Will Be Who I Will Be” — “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: Go, say to them to Israel: I was with you²⁴

in this bondage and I will be with you in the bondage of the kingdoms” — it implies,

that this is not a name,

rather with this the Most High says

(on the contrary,

that it does not pertain to His name,

because)

He is and will always be with them — whether when called by the name Havayah — of mercy or by the name Elokim etc. —

(and in the manner that the Ramban²⁵

interprets the homily)²⁶.

And based on this one can say that therefore the Beis Yosef holds — that

(according to the opinion of the Rambam)

is ,

“I Will Be Who I Will Be” is not a name.

3.

And superficially it is thus implied

(that "I Will Be Who I Will Be" is not a name),

also

from the Rambam himself in Moreh Nevuchim²⁷

: he explains at length Moses' question "And they will say to me, 'What is His name?'",

that with this Moses did not mean to ask what is the name of the Most High

(Because then for the Jews there would not have been any proof that "Hashem sent me",

as he explains it: If the Jews knew the Name of the Most High, then from Moshe's saying the Name there is no proof and sign that the Most High sent him — because just as the Jews know His Name, may He be blessed,

so

(and all the more so)

Moshe could also have known it from before; and if they did not know the Name of the Most High — then they would again have no proof from that which Moshe will tell them that this is the Name)

Rather his question is — a proof for them of the existence of Hashem — "Because all human beings except individuals<sup>2</sup>

did not feel the existence of Hashem'; and his statement "What is His Name" is "to magnify Him and to glorify Him in a narrative as if one said that His essence and Your truth no person will be ignorant of it"<sup>29</sup>

but not so in His "Name" there can be "ignorance"

("even though in truth their ignorance was of His existence, may He be exalted"<sup>30</sup>)

And on this "the Lord taught him that knowledge

of His reaching them will confirm for them the existence of the Lord"³¹.

In a different style: The Rambam says that "I Will Be Who I Will Be" is not sufficient to tell the Jews [that] the Name

but "He made known, may He be blessed,

(to Moses)

the proofs by which His existence will be established among their wise men"?

This is the content of the words "I Will Be Who I Will Be".

4.

It is, however, understood that this answer is a great difficulty: Since according to most versions of the Talmud "I Will Be Who I Will Be" is one of the Names that may not be erased, and so is also the opinion of most of the halachic authorities,

it is a great difficulty to increase a dispute from one extreme to the other — that according to the aforementioned Midrashim of our Sages,

not only are the words "I Will Be Who I Will Be" not among the Names that may not be erased, but they are altogether not a "Name"!

And therefore it is plausible to say,

that the aforementioned midrashim of our Sages of blessed memory do not uproot the plain meaning of the verses

(and they expound that .

"I will be what I will be" is not an answer

to Moses' question "And they will say to me, what is His name" — according to its plain meaning)

But they add to the plain meaning — that "I will be what I will be" also hints at a matter,

a proof of the existence of God³⁵.

Furthermore,

from the Rambam's own words in the Guide for the Perplexed it is proven that "I will be what I will be" is a name of the Most High³⁶

: he begins,

"And this is the name",

And further — he explains in detail that the content and necessity of the existence of God is in the words "I will be what I will be" and he explains it in continuation to the explanation of the name Havayah³⁷,

And further — in continuation to the explanation of "I will be what I will be" he brings³⁸

and he explains the other names: and so the name Yah ..

and Shaddai etc.³⁹

; and as it is also implied from the words of the Ramban⁴⁰,

bringing from the Guide for the Perplexed there.

And moreover: according to the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim it comes out that the name "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" is close and similar to the explicit name

(the name Havayah)⁴¹

— more than the others

Names⁴².

And together with this one sees,

as above,

that the other names the Rambam counts as names that may not be erased,

and specifically "I Will Be Who I Will Be"

(although also He,

according to the above,

is one of the names)

is not among the names that may not be erased.

H.

And one may say the explanation in this:

The Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim there explains and elucidates "Eheyeh asher Eheyeh",

and his language is⁴⁴

: And this name is derived from "hayah" and it is existence ..

And the secret entirely is in his changing the word itself that indicates existence in the manner of the attribute etc. And the first name was placed, which is the described, Eheyeh, and the second name with which he described it, Eheyeh, and it is itself, and it is as if he showed that the described is the attribute itself, and this was an explanation of the matter that He exists not in existence ..

The existent which is the existent⁴⁵

That is, the necessary existence.

That means — the Rambam explains that "Eheyeh asher Eheyeh" is not a name

Which describes a power and activity of the Above,

but it brings out that the "existence" — presence — of the Above is entirely not in the manner of "existence" as in creations: the existence of all existents is a novelty — they are existent and it is possible that they not be existent and moreover — so indeed it was

(before they came into existence from the truth of His existence)

; but not so the Above's "existence" is necessary existence.

And this is expressed by the name "I Will Be Who I Will Be" — "the existent which is the existent, meaning the necessary existent",

an existence which must be,

existence from itself⁴⁶.

And this is necessary

(a proof)

from the intellect,

as the Rambam continues: "And this is what the proof brings to him, necessarily, that there is a being whose existence is necessary, not absent and not ceasing."

The matter of existence⁴⁸

compels that there is an "existent" that is "necessary" to be, and it is not possible that he not be.

And in the language of the Rambam in his book HaYad⁴⁹

"the truth of His existence"⁵⁰.

6.

Based on this, it follows that there is a fundamental difference between the name "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" and the other names:

The other names<sup>51</sup>,

such as Adon-ai E-l Elokim Elokei Tzevaos describe

(not the existence of the Above,

but)

how He is revealed through His powers and actions

(in the language of the Midrash: according to My deeds I am called)

— how He relates to influence: Adonai from the word lordship<sup>52</sup>,

You are Lord over all Your creatures<sup>53</sup>,

Elokim — "strong<sup>54</sup>

and mighty who has the ability in the upper and lower realms",

or "strong<sup>55</sup>

possessor of ability and possessor of all powers"<sup>56</sup>

(and likewise regarding the rest of the names).

And even the name Sha-dai about which the Rambam says<sup>57</sup>

that it comes from the word "dai" ,

and the shin in the sense of asher,

as already,

and its meaning will be asher dai,

the intention in this is that He does not need in existence what He brought into existence nor in its perpetuation for another,

but His existence, may He be exalted, is sufficient in Himself<sup>58</sup>

— this is also how the name

(Sha-dai)

relates to "what

that He brought into existence",

His activity in the creation is in the manner of "that He will not need in reality that which He brought into existence etc. for another".

In contrast, "I Will Be What I Will Be" speaks about the existence of the Above One as He is in and of Himself⁶⁰.

that He is "the Existent by necessity",

the true existence,

He finds Himself in a manner of "non-existence found".

7.

Based on this, the difference between the other holy names that are not erased and "I Will Be What I Will Be" is understood:

The definition of holiness is — separateness

(holy and separate⁶¹)

from other things,

through its connection with the source of holiness — for I am holy⁶².

For example: The Land of Israel is called the Holy Land,

because it is "a land which... the eyes of the Lord your God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year to the end of the year⁶³

; the Holy Temple — a house which you will build for Me⁶⁴,

and I will dwell in their midst*⁶⁴

a place of revelation of the Divine Presence.

Similarly regarding the "holy pure names with which the Holy One, blessed be He, is called"⁶⁵

: their inner content is to describe "the 'actions' and revelation of the Holy One — the Most High,

therefore they are holy names,

separated from other matters — profane.

And it is understood that holiness and separation applies between things which have

(at least something)

a connection between them⁶⁶.

For example — one does not say that a logical rationale is holy and separate from a stone⁶⁷.

And all the more so the Name Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh,

which relates to the Supreme One as He is in Himself from His own perspective,

the true essence of existence,

is not found in existence at all⁶⁸.

is

From this it is not at all applicable to divide between found in holy and found in profane.

8.

The above matter — that ,

"I will be that which I will be"

(according to the version in the "hand" of the Rambam)

is not a holy name,

a name that is not erased,

because it indicates the Necessary Existent,

the truth of His existence — it is reflected regarding a

(halacha —)

matter in the conduct of man:

The Gemara says⁶⁹

"One who reads Hallel every day is a blasphemer and reviler",

and Rashi explains it: "For the early prophets instituted to say it at intervals for praise and thanksgiving etc., and this one who reads it constantly not at its time is merely like one who sings a song and mocks."

It is known⁷⁰

the question in this: Why should one not say Hallel every day?

Among the matters in saying Hallel is to express praise and thanksgiving to the Most High for the miracles that He performed,

and this applies every day — as we say "for⁷¹

Your miracles that are with us every day"! Moreover: even nature itself truly consists of ,

miracles⁷²

many constant and continuous etc."

Stands on this the explanation⁷⁰,

that since "the one who experienced the miracle does not recognize his miracle"⁷³,

therefore there is no place to say Hallel on this — because Hallel is specifically on an open miracle.

One needs however explanation: Known and understood that the coming into being and creation ex nihilo is a miracle and an even much greater miracle than the miracle of the splitting of the Red Sea: As the Alter Rebbe says in Tanya⁷⁴

that creation ex nihilo "is above nature and a wonder and wonder more than the splitting of the Red Sea" — and since that the Most High renews⁷⁵

every day constantly the work of creation"

(— every single moment),

then why should it be questioned to say Hallel every day,

to give praise and thanks for the miracle and wonder of "He who renews⁷⁵

in His goodness every day constantly the work of creation"?

— and all the more so one who hears this matter⁴⁶?

And likewise it is difficult — one must recite Hallel every day as per the words of our sages, of blessed memory⁷⁷

"for every breath and breath that a person breathes, one must praise the Creator, as it says: 'All the soul praises God, all the breath praises God'"?

9.

And one can explain the interpretation of this⁷⁸

The concept of a miracle is — a distinct — elevated⁷⁹

— conduct,

in which G‑dliness is revealed.

I.e.

that

that previously — before the

(miracle)

there was a state and conduct where G‑dliness is not in revelation,

and afterwards there was a change,

that G‑dliness was revealed there through the miracle,

which is above the order of nature.

And when a Jew sees the miraculous conduct it evokes in him the recitation of Hallel,

he rises above "mundaneness" and praises the Almighty.

But the concept of creation ex nihilo — or the breath that a person breathes — is always,

in actuality it is not that these existences should be nullified — so from the perspective of actuality, a change and distinction between one state and another is not applicable in it — similar to the above regarding Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh⁸⁰

But with a fundamental difference: there it is

Indeed,

also from the aspect of potential — Necessary Existence.

And therefore,

even one who hears how the creation ex nihilo is a "wonder

(great)

greater than the splitting of the Red Sea",

and how this is "every day constantly" and so on "in the breath that a person breathes" — does not come to actualize a departure from his boundary and nature to say Hallel on this — because in actuality there is no change,

the agent is always in his standing and his state.

10.

According to the above, one must mediate between the explanation of the Rambam that "I will be what I will be" with the explanation of the Gemara⁸¹

"I was with you in this bondage and I will be with you in the bondage of the kingdoms":

"I was with you in this bondage" does not mean that He is found there in a manner that it "does not affect Him" — He stands separate from the bondage — but,

as it were,

the bondage "affects" the Most High,

as Rashi infers "I will be with them in this distress",

and a full verse did the Scripture speak,

in all their distress He is distressed⁸².

And the matter is from the aspect of the Shechinah that dwells and is enclothed<sup>83</sup>

down to the very lowest level — becomes Shechinah

(with them<sup>84</sup>)

in exile<sup>85</sup>

— but not so Zeir Anpin of Atzilut<sup>86</sup>

And in particular<sup>87</sup>

Keter is "Lo

(with an alef)

tzar"<sup>88</sup>,

but not so from the aspect of the incomparable relative to it — from the aspect of "Eheyeh asher Eheyeh":

The level in G‑dliness that is connected with the holy names that may not be erased — i.e., how the Divine light shines through the holy names — is from the aspect of the "boundlessness" of G‑dliness, the Divine light can be found everywhere, also in exile,

but it is there not "with you in servitude",

"with them in this distress",

only in a manner of detachment, not in a thousand [ways];

But not so "I Will Be Who I Will Be",

the Necessary Existent,

is "with them in this distress ..

with them in the servitude of the other kingdoms"⁸⁹

And it can be said that this is also what the name אהי׳ אשר אהי׳ was revealed to Moses at the time of the revelation to him,

in a flame of fire from within the thornbush״<sup>90</sup>

— because the revelation of the Shechinah "from within the thornbush" teaches that even a thornbush<sup>91</sup>

— is "there is no<sup>92</sup>

place empty of the Shechinah."

(From the talks of Shabbat Parshat Shemot and Shabbat Parshat Va'era 5743)