English translation — יתרו ב

A.

In the verse¹

“I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt” — Rashi copies the words “who brought you out of the land of Egypt” and explains: it is fitting²

that the exodus should be that you are enslaved to Me.

as below section 5].

What is the difficulty in the verse that Rashi comes to answer in his commentary?

Says the Mizrachi

(and other commentators<sup>3</sup>),

that the question is — why "did He attach His divinity to the Exodus from Egypt and say 'which I took you out' and did not say 'which I created heaven and earth'"?

And to this Rashi answers "that through the taking out from Egypt from being slaves to them, He acquired them to be subjugated to Him and He will be their God."

The explanation is however seemingly not smooth: according to the simple meaning of the verse, initially <b>no place </b>has the question why it does not say "which I created heaven and earth" — because this comes indeed as a continuation

(reason)

on "I am the Lord your G‑d",

that "the Lord" is the G‑d of <b>Jews</b>; <b>must</b> one say a matter that pertains only to the people of Israel

(for which reason Jews are <b>distinguished </b>from all the world)<sup>4</sup>.

And the reason that one chooses specifically <b>this </b>matter

(in connection with the people of Israel)<sup>5</sup>

— "I took you out of the land of Egypt" — is understood <b>simply</b>,

because this is the redemption of the people of Israel,

which led to the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai.

The question is even stronger: the concept — that the Exodus is the reason for "I am the L-rd your G-d"

(In another style — the Exodus was so that Jews should accept the Almighty as "G-d" and serve Him)

— is already stated <b>earlier</b>,

and several times

— immediately in Parshat Shemot<sup>6</sup>

it says "When you bring the people out of Egypt, you will serve G-d on this mountain"; likewise at the beginning of Parshat Va'era<sup>7</sup>

— "Therefore say to Bnei Yisrael etc. And I will take you out from under the burdens of Egypt etc. And I will take you to Me as a people and I will be to you as a G-d and you will know that I am the L-rd your G-d who brings you out from under the burdens of Egypt"; moreover: <b>in our parshah itself</b>,

by the <b>preparations</b> for the Giving of the Torah,

it says<sup>8</sup>

"You have seen what I did to Egypt and I carried you etc. and I brought you to Me ..

If you will surely listen to My voice and keep My covenant ..

And you will be to Me ..

and a holy nation" —

It is not understood: what is difficult specifically in <b>this</b> verse,

that Rashi needs <b>here</b>

(not earlier)

to explain "the expenditure is worthwhile etc."?

B.

Also there are several precise points in Rashi's language:

As one learns simply,

are the words

(of Rashi)

"that you be enslaved to Me" the interpretation of the beginning of the verse "I am the Lord your God"

(in the language of the aforementioned Ra'am: enslaved to Him and He will be their God),

and according to this explanation, "who brought you out of the land of Egypt" is the <b>reason </b>for "I am the Lord your God"<sup>9</sup>

(since "I brought you out of the land of Egypt",

therefore the Jews became enslaved to the Most High).

In the manner that it is stated at the end of Parshat Shelach<sup>10</sup>

(and in several other verses<sup>11</sup>)

"I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be a God to you",

and as Rashi explains<sup>12</sup>

— "on condition that I redeemed you etc.'"

Based on this, however, it is not understood:

a)

Why does Rashi not quote in this discourse beginning also the words "I am the Lord your God"

(<b>which </b>he later explains)?

b)

In the <b>vast majority </b>of the places¹³

where Rashi says this content

(that Yetziat Mitzrayim

was in order that Jews should accept upon themselves the Almighty as "Elokim")

— is Rashi's language "&lt;b&gt;on condition that &lt;/b&gt;I redeemed etc.'"

(and the like)

; why does &lt;b&gt;here &lt;/b&gt;Rashi use the language&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;

"&lt;b&gt;Worthwhile is &lt;/b&gt;the expense etc.'"&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;?

c)

Rashi should have said — in accordance with the language of the verse

("I am the L-rd your G-d")

— "Worthwhile etc. &lt;b&gt;that you accept My G-dliness&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;

(as the language of &lt;b&gt;Rashi &lt;/b&gt;elsewhere&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;)

"that you accept &lt;b&gt;My kingship&lt;/b&gt;" and the like]

; why does Rashi deviate from the language of the verse and say a new language

(and concept)

— "that you be &lt;b&gt;subjugated &lt;/b&gt;to Me"?

At first glance one can answer,

that Rashi takes it out from the conclusion of the verse — "from the house of slaves"¹⁸

: Since the Almighty took the Jews out of "the <b>house of slaves</b>",

therefore "the taking out is worthwhile" that Jews should become <b>servants of G‑d</b>¹⁹

(in the manner that it is stated²⁰

"They are My servants, whom I brought out from the land of Egypt").

But this is not a sufficient answer,

because:

(a)

It is still not smooth Rashi's language — he should have said

(as the wording of the verse)

"Worth it etc. that you be <b>My servants</b>"²¹

; why does he change and say "<b>enslaved</b>"?

(b)

<b>And the main point</b>: in this discourse beginning Rashi copies only the words "which I brought you out of the land of Egypt",

and <b>not</b> the end of the verse "from the house of slaves"

(and he does not even hint to it with an "etc.").

From this it is understood,

that the matter of "Worth it is the bringing out that you be enslaved to Me" Rashi derives

(not from "from the house of slaves",

but)

from the words "which I brought you out of the land of Egypt" itself

not — "the bringing out <b>from the house of slaves</b>"].

3.

And one must say the explanation in all this:

The question in "who brought you out of the land of Egypt" is

(not — why does one connect "I am the L-rd your G-d" with "who brought you out of Egypt",

but <b>the opposite</b>)

— what is this coming to teach us?

As said,

Jews already knew from before that the Giving of the Torah

("You shall serve God")

is the purpose of the Exodus from Egypt,

and moreover — this the Almighty commanded to convey to Jews in the preparation days for the Giving of the Torah as mentioned — "You

have seen what I did to Egypt, and I carried you etc. and I brought you to Me..

If you will surely listen to My voice and keep My covenant..

you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation";

And since so — is what is the novel point

that "I am the Lord your God" is the result and purpose of "I took you out of the land of Egypt"?

Rashi therefore teaches,

that "which I brought you out of the land of Egypt" is

(not a reason

(or explanation)

for "I am the Lord your God",

but this is)

a <b>separate</b> and <b>new</b> matter — "the Exodus is sufficient that you be <b>enslaved</b> to Me":

"I am the Lord your God" means — acceptance of His kingship²⁴,

that one accepts the Almighty as ruler and king,

and consequently — that one will obey all His commands²⁵

etc.; afterwards the Almighty added another matter,

that the matter of acceptance of the yoke of heaven is not enough

(which leads to acceptance of the yoke of commandments,

to obeying His decrees),

but Jews must be "<b>enslaved</b> to Me",

entirely enslaved to the Almighty.

Accepting the kingship does not negate the freedom of a personal "private" life²⁶,

it only means that the matters

specific which the king commands to do — one obeys him

and in negative commands — not to do that which the king forbids to do]

; and so too regarding the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He,

when one accepts upon oneself to fulfill all the commandments

(and decrees)

of the King.

But “&lt;b&gt;enslaved &lt;/b&gt;to Me” means&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;

— that a Jew is not independent,

has no &lt;b&gt;any &lt;/b&gt;

(&lt;b&gt;own&lt;/b&gt;)

&lt;b&gt;freedom&lt;/b&gt;,

he is enslaved

(entirely)

to the Most High,

with everything that he has and does&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;.

And therefore Rashi is precise “&lt;b&gt;worthwhile &lt;/b&gt;is the expenditure etc.”

(not “on condition”)

: the expression “on condition” Rashi says when in the verse there are two matters that one is a condition in the other

(like: I am the L-rd your G-d who brought you out etc. to be to you a G-d),

but not in our case,

where “you shall be enslaved to Me”

(according to Rashi)

is not a condition,

but rather it is the explanation

(and intention)

of “who brought you out of the land of Egypt” itself: the bringing out is “worthwhile”

(and carries within itself)

the concept that Jews become “enslaved to Me”.

4.

Based on this, one will also understand why Rashi does not copy

(in this opening phrase)

the end of the verse "from the house

of slaves"

(and does not even hint at it with an "etc.")

The difference between the expression "enslaved to Me" and the term servitude

(plain)

is²⁸

When one says "servant" plain, it is not yet emphasized that one has no freedom.

For although a servant is not an independent entity,

he is <b>the property of the master</b>

(not like a worker who only does work for his employer)

— nevertheless,

the <b>yoke</b> of servitude is expressed primarily in relation to the work that he does for the master²⁹.

And consequently,

at the times when he eats,

sleeps, etc., he does not feel

(so much)

the yoke of the master.

Until there can be a case when the master does not need the work of the servant and the servant can "rest" etc.³⁰

(He is not obligated to <b>seek</b> work for the master).

However, the term "&lt;b&gt;enslaved&lt;/b&gt;" emphasizes the slave's subjugation to his master in a manner of &lt;b&gt;constant yoke&lt;/b&gt;

that the money becomes subjugated and "bound" to the creditor&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;]

— in everything that he does

he feels the yoke of the master,

until even in the times when the master gives him no work — the slave feels his existence that it is subjugated to the master&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;.

And this is the precise language of Rashi "that you will be &lt;b&gt;enslaved &lt;/b&gt;to Me" — not "that you will be &lt;b&gt;My servants&lt;/b&gt;"

(and the like)

That which the giving of the Torah accomplished that Jews became "servants of the Lord"

(plainly)

is already included in "I am the Lord &lt;b&gt;your God&lt;/b&gt;".

Since the Almighty is our ruler and king,

Jews "belong" to the Almighty

("And I will take you to Me as a people and I will be to you as a God"&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;),

and consequently one must obey Him and serve Him as a servant to his master*&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;.

But unlike with "I took you out of the land of Egypt," an additional matter was added — "The exodus is worthwhile that you be enslaved to Me":

Even though the "condition" of the Exodus from Egypt is

(merely)

that Jews become "a people for Me"

(which can mean regarding the relationship of a people to a mortal king),

but "&lt;b&gt;The exodus &lt;/b&gt;is worthwhile

(from the land of Egypt)

that you be enslaved to Me";

Since the Jews were in slavery in &lt;b&gt;the land of Egypt&lt;/b&gt;,

where they

were

(not merely "slaves" — "house of slaves" — but)

in a manner of &lt;b&gt;subjugation&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;

— labor of &lt;b&gt;crushing toil&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;,

until in a manner of "&lt;b&gt;the work was heavy&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;

(beyond measure etc.),

therefore "the expenditure is worthwhile

(this expenditure of "the land of Egypt")

that you should be

(not merely slaves,

&lt;b&gt;subjugated &lt;/b&gt;to Me".

5.

According to the explanation in Rashi — that “who brought you out of the land of Egypt” is

(not a reason for “I am the Lord your God”,

but)

but)

a <b>separate </b>new matter — one will understand why after this explanation in “who brought you out of the land of Egypt”,

Rashi brings yet two explanations,

and his language is:

Another explanation: because He was revealed at the sea as a mighty warrior and was revealed here as an elder full of mercy, as it is said³⁷

And under His feet ..

Since I change in appearances, do not say there are two authorities; I am He who brought you out of Egypt and at the sea.

Another explanation: because they were hearing many voices ..

coming from four directions and from the heavens and from the earth, do not say there are many authorities

Not to them did I command “You shall have no other gods” except to Me alone].

It is seemingly perplexing: Rashi is indeed explaining the simple meaning of the verse — what is lacking in the first explanation

a matter that is understood and simple,

and one finds similar to this in yet several verses,

as above]

— that because of this Rashi is compelled in the other two explanations³⁸,

which are

(entirely)

far from the plain meaning

— indeed from the aspect of their <b>general</b> content,

that one needed to protect Jews from an error that "two authorities are",

"many authorities are": as it is fitting to say,

that after seeing all the miracles in Egypt and at the sea etc.,

and standing at Mount Sinai³⁹,

one should still need to protect Jews from the error that "two

(many)

authorities are"?

is seemingly not a sufficient reason for such an error,

because it is understood simply

(and one sees <b>evidence for this</b> tangibly in a flesh and blood [person])

that the appearance of the face

(at least)

changes according to the action

What one does.

It is not the same the facial expression of someone when he leads a war to the same person when he is engaged in an act of kindness and mercy.

And all the more so that one must guard against an error that "authorities many are" from the aspect of that "they were hearing many voices"⁴¹

— while from all those many voices were heard the same utterances and

(b)

and the main point)

their content is "I am the Lord your God etc. You shall not have for yourself etc."!].

And in addition to this there is a separate difficulty in each of the two explanations⁴²

In the first explanation it is not understood — the "appeared here as an elder full of mercy" is

(according to <b>Rashi</b>⁴³)

already was <b>on the fifth</b> of Sivan

(and in any case — a span of time before the Almighty began saying the Ten Commandments⁴⁴)

; the Almighty <b>immediately</b> at the time of His revelation should have protected Jews from this error

(in fundamentals of faith)

the "two authorities they are"

(and not <b>interrupt</b> because of this <b>in the middle</b> of the Ten Commandments).

And according to the second explanation — that the place for the error came about through the voice of the Aseres HaDibros

— it is difficult

(as Rashi himself continues)

"And why did He say in singular 'your G-d'": thus this is no question,

because we find in many places that the Almighty speaks to the people of Israel in singular

(and especially at the Giving of the Torah when "and Israel encamped there — as one man with one heart")

; here however — since the voice was in a manner that gives a place for error that "there are many authorities",

they needed here specifically to use a plural language,

and not a singular language which further adds to the giving of place for error,

that "one G-d speaks with one man and another G-d with another man, heaven forbid".

as commentators

ask "what does this defense avail").

And according to this it is very perplexing: What compels Rashi in the plain meaning of the verse to add,

to bring the two interpretations?

According to the above, however, it is understood simply: According to the first interpretation in Rashi,

that "which I brought you out of the land of Egypt" is a <b>separate</b> matter from "I am the Lord your God" — the continuation of the language "I am the Lord your God" is not smooth

<b>Asher </b>hotzeiticha meiEretz Mitzrayim",

for in general the term "Asher" indicates a <b>continuation </b>to that which is stated before

(and not an addition of a new thing

(entirely)).

Therefore Rashi brings the other interpretations according to which the continuation of the language of the verse is smooth — as <b>Rashi </b>emphasizes,

that according to the second

(and so forth — according to the third)

interpretation,

the meaning in the verse is — "<b>Anochi hu asher </b>hotzeiticha etc."

6.

From the conclusion in Rashi's commentary — "And why did He say singular language ..

to teach advocacy in the matter of the [Golden] Calf" — there is a wondrous lesson,

as to how much every Jew is beloved by the Most High:

Here it speaks about Jews in whom there was lacking not only the "you shall be subjugated to Me" — rather they held at the completely opposite extreme of "I am the Lord your God"; and because of &lt;b&gt;such &lt;/b&gt;Jews the Most High says at &lt;b&gt;the Giving of the Torah and for all generations &lt;/b&gt;"singular language",

so that Moses should have for &lt;b&gt;these Jews &lt;/b&gt;an "advocacy"!

Further: the opening of the mouth is connected with that this adds to the giving of place for error that "the domains are many"

(as above)

— and on the other hand,

the "advocacy" is seemingly a weak one

(as above from the commentators)

— and nevertheless the Almighty says that it is worthwhile the matter,

perhaps from this will come forth a merit-finding for a Jew,

such a Jew.

Oh there is a place for error — "it is written and whoever wishes to err shall err"⁵⁰

And the lesson is understood to each and every one of us — that one must engage in drawing close <b>each and every one of Israel</b>.

There is nothing to make calculations that with <b>this</b> Jew it is worthwhile to devote oneself as opposed to with another etc. — the Torah warns,

that already in the <b>first</b> utterance of the <b>Ten Commandments</b> the Almighty gave an opening of the mouth to be able to find a merit-finding for a Jew who will stumble, heaven forbid, in the matter of the calf

(opposite <b>that</b> utterance itself "I am the Lord your God")

And all the more so in our generation,

that the vast majority of those whom we need to bring close to

Judaism are in the category of "a captive infant among the nations" — we must find ways to reach each and every Jew.

And through this that one brings close all Jews to our Father in Heaven,

one assembles the "great congregation"⁵¹

that will go to greet the face of Moshiach our Righteous One,

speedily in our days, literally.

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Yitro 5730)