Doubling God’s Name?

R. Yaakov Bieler Parashat Ki Tissa 5775

A captivating parable.

For the title of a book he published in 2000, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, former Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth, employed a metaphor attributed to the Ba’al Shem Tov. The 18th century founder of Chassidism, R. Yisrael ben Eliezer said: The Jewish people are a living Sefer Tora,1 and every Jew is one of its letters. This evocative image led R. Sacks, in his book called A Letter in the Scroll,2 to pose the following question to the reader: Will we, in our lifetimes, be letters in the scroll of the Jewish people?3 R. Sacks proceeded to discuss this idea from the perspective of a totally modern sensibility, when he considers how to convince a Jew to decide to take his place alongside those who have come before him, and thereby be a recognizable and proactive part of the Jewish saga. Taking the Mashal to another level.

It seems to me, however, that if we employ Darshanic license,4 (a Rabbinic form of “poetic license”) in order to look at the Ba’al Shem Tov’s Mashal (parable) from an Halachic point of view, it is not really left up to a Jew whether or not to be a “letter” in the paradigmatic Sefer Tora of the Jewish people. Opting out of Jewish life does not appear to be an option de jure (although de facto many act as if it is). Statements like,

Sanhedrin 44a R. Abba b. Zavda said: “Even though (the people) have sinned, they are still (called) 'Israel.'”

1 The states that at least Tora scholars are living Sifrei Tora: Kiddushin 33b The scholars propounded: “Must one rise before a Scroll of the Law?” — R. Chilkia, R. Shimon and R. Eleazar say: “It follows a fortiori: if we rise before those who study it, how much more before that itself! R. Elai and R. Yaakov b. Zavdi were sitting when R. Shimon b. Abba passed by, whereupon they rose before him. Said he to them: (You should not have risen;) firstly, because you are Sages, whereas I am but a Chaver: moreover, shall then the Tora rise before its students! Now, he held with R. Eleazar, who said: A scholar must not stand up before his teacher when he (the disciple) is engaged in studying. Abaye condemned this (teaching). The Ba’al Shem Tov, as was his wont, applied the teaching, at least in part to all Jews, rather than just Tora scholars. 2 A Letter in the Scroll: Understanding our Jewish Identity and Exploring the Legacy of the World’s Oldest Religion, The Free Press, New York. 3 P. 39. 4 Anyone can fall back on the principle, “Ein Meishivim Al HaDerash” (one should not ask questions regarding homiletical interpretations) probably because the authors are more interested in making a moral or ethical point than a rigorous argument. Consequently, many such presentations and ideas fail to stand up to precise analysis.

1

and

Shabbat 68b …R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish maintain: Only one who knew but subsequently forgot (the laws of Shabbat and them violated them is liable), but a child who was taken captive among Gentiles,5 or a proselyte who became converted in the midst of Gentiles, is not culpable (in other words, if an individual because of circumstances beyond his control, was never made familiar with his heritage and the lifestyle expected of him, he cannot be held accountable, until he familiarizes himself with these laws and practices). imply that Jewish status is not necessarily a function of the degree of an individual’s personal level of observance or choice. Therefore, just as RaMBaM writes in Mishneh Tora Hilchot Tefillin 1:2 : …And so too a Sefer Tora that is missing even a single letter is disqualified (from being used as a holy object, e.g., read from in public to fulfill the Mitzva of Kriyat HaTora [publicly reading the Tora]). the “Tora scroll” of the Jewish people is “disqualified” as long as there are Jews who do not participate in Jewish life, whatever that may be understood to mean.6 All of a sudden Kiruv activities (programs designed to draw alienated Jews back to their religious and cultural heritage) are not only altruistic in terms of intending to benefit the non-observant, or as R. Kook might say, “the not-yet observant,”7 but are also terribly significant for even the community of believers, who themselves are not considered “complete” until their “Sefer Tora” is whole, with all of its “letters” properly formed and in place. Other Halachot regarding how a Sefer Tora must be perfectly complete.

a) Every word and letter is important.

An additional consideration of how a Sefer Tora is much greater than the sum of its individual parts, is the assumption that there is not a wasted letter or word in the entire document, and therefore, by implication from the Ba’al Shem Tov’s parable, every Jew has a particular purpose that only s/he can fulfill. Furthermore, everything written in the Tora can by definition be accounted for in one way or another, and therefore must be thought about and analyzed assiduously in order to try to discover the meaning that lies within it. For this reason, even when there appear to be words and/or letters that are of no apparent real consequence, the Sefer Tora is nevertheless just as Pasul (disqualified) if one of

5 There are some who apply this concept to those who never received Jewish educations, let alone were raised in unobservant households. 6 While Ba’al Shem Tov’s major challenge was the apparent elitism generated by the system, which led to people who were not highly educated in Tora matters to feel disconnected from their heritage, with the subsequent advent of the Haskala and the evolution of Jewish denominationalism, the idea of “participating in the Jewish people” would appear to have become a much more complex question. What would we say about someone who was moved by a Birthright trip to engage in Jewish life or even to settle in Israel, but who chooses not to be observant? Is a secular Jewish communal worker part of such this “Sefer Tora”? And what about someone who devotes him/herself to the Jewish poor? Any number of additional examples could be brought to bear on this question. 7 Orot HaKodesh, p. 143. R. Kook discusses viewing “Chol” (non-holiness) from the perspective of the holy, hence “Chol” is the “not-yet-holy.”

2 them is missing or incomplete, as it would be were the Shema8 or the Ten Commandments9 not to be included.

b) All words must be reviewed prior to the public Tora reading.

Not only is there a need for the Cheftza (the object of the Sefer Tora) to be complete in every way in terms of its letters and words, but the manner in which one reviews and prepares for the weekly public Tora reading is also impacted: , Orech Chayim 285:1 Even though an individual hears the entire Tora reading each Shabbat as a member of the congregation, he is obligated to read (the Parasha) by himself each week, reviewing the Tora text twice, and an interpretation (of the text) once, even (the words) “Atarot” and “Divon.”

The two words mentioned at the end of the above passage are names of areas on the far side of the Jordan within which members of the tribes of Gad and Reuven requested to be allowed to take up residence, instead of living in Canaan proper:

BaMidbar 32:2-4 The children of Gad and the children of Reuven came and spoke to Moshe, and to Eleazar the priest, and to the princes of the congregation, saying: “’Atarot,’ and ‘Divon,’ and Yazer, and Nimra, and Cheshbon, and Ela’eh, and Sevam, and Nevo, and Be’on. The land which the Lord Smote before the congregation of Israel, is a land for cattle, and your servants have cattle.” {S}

While one might have reason to think that when reviewing the Parasha, simple, unadorned names of places can simply be skipped over in favor of concentrating on the story line that surrounds them, the Halacha teaches that just as the Sefer Tora would be disqualified if the names of places like these were either misspelled, or omitted, the Mitzva of reviewing the Tora prior to its being read in Shul an also not be fulfilled were someone to skip over these words.

Apparently, the Ba’al Shem Tov is therefore advocating that a symbiotic symbolic relationship be promoted between the laws affecting the holiness of a Sefer Tora, and the nature of the Jewish people. The conclusion to be drawn is that every Jew is precious, just as every letter and word in the Tora is similarly deemed precious. The underlying assumptions of this analogy are egalitarianism and populism, key features of the Chassidic movement founded by this visionary Jewish leader.

c) It is unusual to find repetitions of words in the Tora.

Along similar lines, it should not be surprising that there are virtually no immediate repetitions of words10 in the Tora. When every letter and every crown of a letter11 is individually pregnant with deep

8 Devarim 6:4-9; 11:13-21; BaMidbar 15:37-41. 9 Shemot 20:1-17; Devarim 5:4-21. 10 Naturally we find topics discussed in one place in the Tora repeated in other places with similar if not identical terminology. However to come across a single word repeated one time after the other in the same sentence generally does not occur. 11 Certain letters in the Sefer Tora are written with extra lines attached to their tops:

3 meaning—represented by the concept of Shivim Panim LaTora (the Tora has 70 faces, facets) 12-- repeated words would entail adding words of no inherent consequence, and therefore would be the last thing we would expect to find in the Tora text.

A repetition of a word that is startling, to say the least.

This last point brings us to a central verse in this morning’s Parashat HaShavua. One of the most famous lines in the Tora that we not only read this morning, but that is recited repeatedly when we engage in Selichot prayers during the Penitential period,13 on fast days like this past Ta’anit Esther,14 and which is both part of the fast day Tora reading15 as well as recited by the congregation during the reading,16 is Shemot 34:6 :

The Talmud notes that R. Akiva had an interpretation not only for every word and letter in the Tora, but even the Taggin (crowns attached to certain letters): Menachot 29b Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: “When Moshe ascended on high (on Mt. Sinai to receive the Tora), he found the Holy One, Blessed Be He, Engaged in affixing coronets to the letters. Said Moshe: ‘Lord of the Universe, Who forces Your hand (to do this)?’ He answered: ‘There will arise a man, at the end of many generations, Akiva b.Yoseph by name, who will expound upon each tittle (Tag, crown, coronet, etc.) heaps and heaps of laws’. ‘Lord of the Universe,’ said Moshe, ‘permit me to see him’. He replied: ‘Turn around.’ Moshe went and sat down behind eight rows (and listened to the discourses about the law). Not being able to follow their arguments, he was ill at ease. But when they came to a certain subject and the disciples said to the master, ‘From where do you know it?’ and the latter replied, ‘It is a law given unto Moshe at Sinai,’ he was comforted…” 12 The number “seventy” in is not taken literally, but is understood to connote a large, perhaps even infinite, number. 13 E.g., “First Day” in The Complete ArtScroll Selichot—Ashkenaz, Minhag Lita, trans. Yaakov Lavon, ed. R. Avie Gold, Mesorah Publications, Ltd., Brooklyn, 1993, pp. 14, 20, 26, 30. 14 The Koren Siddur—Nussach Ashkenaz, trans. + commentary R. Jonathan Sacks, Koren Publishers, Jerusalem, 2009, pp. 949, 951, 953, 925. 15 Ibid. p. 1096. 16 Ibid. Concerning this communal recitation, there is an additional problem, i.e., only a portion of the second verse completing the Thirteen Divine Attributes is read by those listening to the Tora reading. Although Shemot 34:7 reads in its entirety: שמות פרק לד )ז( נ ֹ ֵ֥צר חֶֶ֙סֶ דֶ֙ ָל ֲא ָל ִ֔ פים נ ֹ ֵ֥שא עָוֹ֛ן וָ ֶֶ֖פ ַׁשע וְ ַׁח ָט ָָ֑אה וְנַׁ ק ֶ֙ה לֹ֣ א יְנַׁ ִֶ֔קה פ ֹ ֹ֣קד׀ עֲוֹ֣ן ָאב֗ ות ַׁעל־ ָבנ י ֶ֙ם וְ ַׁעל־ ְב ֹ֣ני ָב ִ֔נ ים ַׁעל־ ש ל ֶ֖שים וְ ַׁעל־ ר ב ִֽעים: According to .וְנַׁ ק ֶ֙ה is split, with the congregation completing its recitation with the word וְנַׁ ק ֶ֙ה לֹ֣ א יְנַׁ ִֶ֔קה ,the phrase וְנַׁ ק ֶ֙ה :some commentaries, by parsing the phrase in this manner, the sense of these words is completely reversed וְנַׁ ק ֶ֙ה לֹ֣ א יְנַׁ ִֶ֔קה ;alone means “Who Cleanses,” referring to HaShem’s Determination to Forgive and Grant Atonement on the other hand, could be understood as “Who Cleanses? No, He Does Not!” a much more negative assessment of how God Interacts with man, particularly with those who are unrepentant transgressors. So not only does the accepted practice of reciting these words on a fast day during the reading of the Tora entail only partially quoting a Tora verse rather than in its entirety, running afoul of Rav’s rule: Ta’anit 29b He is of the opinion that any verse which Moshe did not divide, we may not divide, (this rule ironically is the polar opposite of the problem of repeating words, with both extremes seemingly inappropriately disrespecting the integrity of the Tora text) but the manner in which it is quoted might suggest just the opposite of the simple meaning of the text! These issues constitute substantial bases for discussions in their own right.

4

שמות פרק לד )ו( יְק ֹ וָ֣ק׀ יְקֹו ָ֔ק קל ַׁר ֶ֖חּום וְ ַׁח ָ֑נּון ֵֶ֥א ֶרְך ַׁא ֶַׁ֖פי ם וְ ַׁרב־ ֵֶ֥ח ֶסד וֶאֱמֶ ִֽת:

The logical thread that informs the apparent problem with the beginning of this verse proceeds as follows:

a) By repeating words in a Tora text, we are disrespecting the integrity and possibly even the meaning of the text. b) Of all the words that would appear least appropriate to repeat, would be a form of God’s Name, in light of one of the Ten Commandments— Shemot 20:7 Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not Hold him guiltless that takes His Name in vain. c) Of all of the Names of God, the most Holy is the Tetragrammaton, i.e., Yud Keh Vav Keh, to such a point that only the Kohen Gadol is informed how to pronounce this word.17

So if there are so many reasons why the Tetragrammaton should not be repeated in the Tora, why was it apparently important for HaShem to announce Yud Keh Vav Keh twice when Describing Himself to Moshe?

R. Yochanan, in Rosh HaShana 17b, offers an explanation:

“The Lord, the Lord”: (The first instance of the Name connotes) I Am the Eternal before a man sins and (the repetition of the Name teaches) the same after a man sins and repents.

Da’at Zekeinim MiBa’alei HaTosafot explains R. Yochanan’s interpretation:

Not only is the individual who repents entitled to Divine Mercy,18 but the person who has not as yet either sinned or repented also is in need of such a relationship. The

17 E.g., Kiddushin 71a It was taught: R. Tarfon said: ‘I once ascended the dais after my mother's brother, and inclined my ear to the High Priest, and heard him swallowing the Name (reciting it in a manner that when others would employ the term “Ado-nai” they would not be able to hear what the High Priest was saying) during the chanting of his brother priests. The context is the blessing of the people by the Priests during which the Tetragrammaton is invoked three times: BaMidbar 6:24-6 )כד( יְבָרֶ כְךֵ֥ יְקֶָֹ֖וק וְי ְש ְמ ֶ ִֽרך: ס )כה( יָ ֵ֨ אר יְקָָֹ֧וק׀ ָפ ָֹ֛ניו א ֶֶ֖ליך וִֽי ֻח ֶנִֽךָ: ס )כו( י ֵ֨ ָשא יְקָָֹ֤וק׀ ָפנָי ֶ֙ו א ִ֔ ֶליך וְיָ ֵ֥שם ְל ֶ֖ך ָש ִֽלום: ס 18 The Tetragrammaton is associated with the Attribute of Mercy, while the Divine Name Elokim is understood to represent the Attribute of Justice. Consider the following comment by RaShI: RaShI on Beraishit 1:1 d.h. Bara Elokim And the text does not state “Bara HaShem” (the Tetragrammaton), because initially God “Proposed” to Create it (the universe) in accordance with the Attribute of Justice (hence all of the early verses that refer to God as “Elokim” alone—Beraishit 1:1-12, 14, 17-18, 20-22, 24-9, 31; 2:2-3). (However) He “Saw” that the world (since the fate of the world was dependent upon man’s actions, and were man to be held accountable in accordance with justice, it would be necessary to do away with both him and his

5

reason for this is that it is revealed and known before the Holy One, Blessed Be He, that in the end, man will inevitably sin.

In other words, HaShem as man’s Creator, Recognizes the flaws inherent within His Creation, i.e., man’s likelihood to sin, and yet does not Give up on him, but rather Compassionately and Patiently Awaits Man’s turn-around and improvement. When it comes to emulating HaShem’s Attributes, in the spirit of Sota 14a: R. Chama son of R. Chanina further said: “What means the text: (Devarim 13:5) ‘You shall walk after the Lord your God’? Is it, then, possible for a human being to (literally) walk after the Shechina (the Divine Presence), for has it not been said: (Ibid. 4:24) ‘For the Lord your God is a Devouring Fire’? But (the meaning is) to walk after the Attributes of the Holy One, Blessed Be He. As He Clothes the naked… so do you also clothe the naked. The Holy One, Blessed Be He, Visited the sick... so do you also visit the sick. The Holy One, Blessed Be He, Comforted mourners… so do you also comfort mourners. The Holy one, Blessed Be He, Buried the dead… so do you also bury the dead. the repetition of the Tetragrammaton according to R. Yochanan is asserting the Attribute of God’s Patience with man,19 another Divine Quality for each of us to emulate and internalize. Furthermore, it could be claimed that being patient with our fellow man is perhaps even more important than any of the other Attributes, in that in the list of Thirteen, it appears at the head of the list if R. Yochanan’s interpretation is accepted. In other words, the verses from Shemot 34 ought to serve as a blueprint for how each of us can bring to realization the Tzelem Elokim (the Image of God) that is inherent within us. And the virtue of being patient with one another is Deemed of such great importance, that in order to impart such a lesson, HaShem was “Prepared,” so to speak, to Allow His Name to be Mentioned twice, as extraordinary and counter-intuitive as such a repetition at any time, let alone in the Tora, may be. Just as God “Allows” His Name to be obliterated during the ritual of the Sota in the interests of restoring peace and trust between a husband and wife,20 an instance of the Mechila (foregoing) of the Divine

environment; Avot 1:2 “…He [Shimon HaTzaddik] used to say: ‘According to three things does the world continue to exist—Tora, Divine Service and deeds of kindness.’” Since these three things are exclusive functions of man’s activities, the world is dependent upon him) would not continue to exist (if judged solely on the basis of justice—exemplified by the Divine Decision to Bring a Flood upon the world to destroy all that was in existence), He Gave priority to the Attribute to Mercy (exemplified by the Tetragrammaton) and partnered it with the Attribute of Justice. This is what is meant by the verse ."ביום עשות ה' אלקים ארץ ושמים" (Beraishit 2:4) 19 Such patience is implied at the end of the list of the Thirteen Divine Attributes: Shemot 34:7 Keeping mercy unto the thousandth generation, Forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin; and that will by no means clear the guilty; Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and unto the fourth generation. RaShI d.h. VeAl ReBai’im …It turns out that the Attribute of Goodness (paralleling the Attribute of Mercy) is 500 times greater than the Attribute of Punishment (paralleling the Attribute of Justice), (since for the Attribute of punishment He Mentions four generations) while for the Attribute of Goodness He Mentions 2000 generations. (“Alafim” is the plural of “Elef” meaning 1000. Therefore the smallest plural number is a multiple of two, or 2000.) 20 BaMidbar 5:11-31 1 And the LORD Spoke to Moshe, saying: 12 “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘If any man's wife go astray, and act unfaithfully against him, 13 and a man lie with her carnally, and it be hidden from

6

Kavod (Honor) for the higher purpose of domestic tranquility, so too in this case, the Tora’s doubling the Sacred Name teaches another aspect of the same idea of how important it is that we all try to understand one another and get along. Consequently, not only should we be asking ourselves: To what extent are we Rachum—merciful, Chanun—compassionate, Erech Apayim—slow to anger, VeRav Chesed—and exceedingly kind…etc., but also patient and empathic with our fellow man, even, or perhaps especially, if he is not doing as of now what we hope that he will come around to do eventually, over time.

An alternative interpretation for the doubling of the Divine Name in Shemot 34:6.

But I would like to conclude our discussion of the repetition of the Tetragrammaton, with a Esther 9:1 “and it is the very opposite”) is only a) ונהפוך הוא more radical approach. I don’t think that

the eyes of her husband, she being defiled secretly, and there be no witness against her, nor was she observed in the act; 14 and the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled; or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled; 15 then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an Epha of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is a meal-offering of jealousy, a meal-offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance. 16 And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the Lord. 17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water. 18 And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord, and let the hair of the woman's head go loose, and put the meal- offering of memorial in her hands, which is the meal-offering of jealousy; and the priest shall have in his hand the water of bitterness that causes the curse. 19 And the priest shall cause her to swear, and shall say unto the woman: 'If no man has lain with thee, and if you have not gone aside to uncleanness, being under your husband, be you free from this water of bitterness that causes the curse; 20 but if you have gone aside, being under your husband, and if you be defiled, and some man have lain with you besides your husband-- 21 then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman--the Lord Make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord Makes your thigh to fall away, and your belly to swell; 22 and this water that causes the curse shall go into your bowels, and make your belly to swell, and your thigh to fall away'; and the woman shall say: 'Amen, Amen.' 23 And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness. (According to some commentators, the “curses” refer to the verses in which the consequences of marital infidelity are described, with one of the verses mentioning the Tetragrammaton twice: במדבר פרק ה )כא( וְ ה ְש ֵ֨ בי ַׁע ַׁהכ ֹ ֵ֥הן ֶ ִֽאת־ ָ ִֽה א ָש ה ב ְש ֻב ַֹׁ֣עת הָ ָאלָה וְָא ַָׁ֤מר ַׁהכ ֹ ה ֶ֙ן ָ ִֽל א ִ֔ ָשה י ֵ֨ תן יְקֵָֹ֥וק או ָֹ֛תְך ְלָא ֵָ֥לה וְ ל ְש ֻב ֶָ֖עה בְתֹ֣ וְך ַׁע ָ֑מְך ְב ֵ֨ תת יְקָָֹ֤וק ֶאת־יְ ר כ ְֶ֙ך נֹפִֶ֔ לֶת וְ ֶאת־ ב ְט ֶ֖נְך צָבָ ִֽה: If the scroll is subsequently dissolved in water, that means that the two instances of the Tetragrammaton were obliterated as well.) 24 And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causes the curse; and the water that causes the curse shall enter into her and become bitter. 25 And the priest shall take the meal-offering of jealousy out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the meal-offering before the Lord, and bring it to the altar. 26 And the priest shall take a handful of the meal-offering, as the memorial- part thereof, and make it smoke upon the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water. 27 And when he hath made her drink the water, then it shall come to pass, if she be defiled, and have acted unfaithfully against her husband, that the water that causes the curse shall enter into her and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away; and the woman shall be a curse among her people. 28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed. 29 This is the law of jealousy, when a wife, being under her husband, goes astray, and is defiled; 30 or when the spirit of jealousy comes upon a man, and he be jealous of his wife; then shall he set the woman before the Lord , and the priest shall execute upon her all this law. 31 And the man shall be clear from iniquity, and that woman shall bear her iniquity. {P}

7

Purim theme, but rather, whenever possible, it should inform our Tora study and thinking about Jewish principles in general. I feel that looking for such interpretations just makes everything that makes up such study more memorable and alive.

While most commentators21 think that the “subject” of Shemot 34:5, i.e., the One calling out the Thirteen Divine Attributes, is HaShem, resulting in understanding that the same “subject” in involved in both the beginning and the end of the verse:

And the Lord Descended in the cloud, and Stood with him there, and Proclaimed the Name of the Lord. there are others, granted a minority, that speculate that it was Moshe Who was Divinely Inspired to proclaim HaShem’s Qualities and Behaviors:

Targum Yerushalmi )ו( וַׁ ֲע ָב ַׁרת יְ ַׁקר ְש כינְ תיּה ַׁד ה' קֳדָ מוי וְ ַׁצ לי מֹשֶ ה (and Moshe prayed) ו ֲא ַׁמר ה' אֱלָ קא ַׁר ֲח ָמנָא וְ ַׁחנָנָא ָר חיק ְר ַׁגז וְ ָק רב ַׁר ֲח מין ּו ַׁמ ְס גי ְל ֶמ ֱע ַׁבד חֶסֶד ּוקְ שוט:

Implicit in this approach is that Moshe doubled God’s Name. Ibn Ezra, in his longer commentary, while maintaining the position that it is God Who is Teaching Moshe about Himself, sees this doubling of God’s Name within a broader context that can be identified throughout TaNaCh:

…And the correct understanding (of the doubling of the Tetragrammaton) is similar to (Beraishit 22:11) “Avraham, Avraham;” (Ibid. 46:2) “Yaakov Yaakov;” (I Shmuel 3:10) “Shmuel, Shmuel.” In the same manner (a doubling of My Name) you (Moshe) should call…

The Siphra explains what is meant in instances of a biblical doubling of a name, whether belonging to God or man:

Siphra on VaYikra 1:1 (Shemot 3:4) “And God Saw that he (Moshe) had turned aside to see (the phenomenon of the burning bush) and God Called to him from the midst of the bush and He Said: ‘Moshe, Moshe,’ and he said: ‘Here I am.’” “Moshe, Moshe”; “Avraham, Avraham”; “Yaakov, Yaakov”; “Shmuel, Shmuel”: Expressions of love and Calls for immediate action…22

21 E.g., Ibn Ezra—short commentary …The “Caller” is HaShem… Sephorno “And He Called”—HaShem, may He Be Blessed. R. S.R. Hirsch This verse is a fulfillment of Shemot 33:19 : “I (HaShem) will Pass My Goodness before Your Face, and I will Call by the Name of HaShem before you (Moshe).” 22 Siphra cites an alternate interpretation of the doubling of specifically Moshe’s name by HaShem: Another interpretation: He is Moshe before I spoke with him; He is Moshe after I spoke with him.

8

Combining Targum Yerushalmi’s approach with the Siphra’s understanding of the doubling of the Tetragrammaton leads to the conclusion that it is not only HaShem Who specially Calls upon the likes of Yaakov, Moshe and Shmuel by Indicating Love and Concern for them as well as Expectations of them, but in our verse, Shemot 34:6, perhaps Moshe is returning the favor, and we likewise, when we channel Moshe’s words by reciting the 13 Attributes, or for that matter engage in any other prayer experience, should strive to include these strong emotions and Supplications as we reach out to HaShem.

(The structure of this second interpretation parallels R. Yochanan’s understanding of the doubling of HaShem’s Name, i.e., “I will Be Compassionate before a man sins, and I will Be Compassionate after a man sins.” However there is a clear difference in the understanding of the two cases. In the matter of Moshe, the emphasis is upon the fact that Moshe did not let his functioning as a prophet go to his head, and he remained the ultimate humble individual both before and after receiving Divine Revelation. With respect to the person in need of Divine Compassion, it is more of an existential issue of his requiring God’s Compassion regardless of his state of or atonement, due to his vulnerability to sin and imperfection.)

9

תרגום ירושלמי שמות פרשת כי תשא פרק לד פסוק ו )ו( וַׁ ֲע ָב ַׁרת יְ ַׁקר ְש כינְ תיּה ַׁד ה' קֳדָ מוי וְ ַׁצ לי מֹשֶ ה וַׁ ֲא ַׁמר ה' אֱלָ קא ַׁר ֲח ָמנָא וְ ַׁחנָנָא ָר חיק ְר ַׁגז וְ ָק רב ַׁר ֲח מין ּו ַׁמ ְס גי ְל ֶמ ֱע ַׁבד Inחֶסֶ ד ּוקְ שוט:

אבן עזרא שמות )הפירוש הארוך( פרשת כי תשא פרק לד פסוק ו ...והנכון כי השם שתי פעמים כמו אברהם אברהם )ברא' כב, יא(, יעקב יעקב )שם מו, ב(, משה משה )שמות ג, ד(. ככה תקרא...

רש"ר הירש שמות פרשת כי תשא פרק לד פסוק ו "אני אעביר כל - טובי על - פניך וקראתי בשם ה' לפניך" )לעיל לג, יט ועי' פי' שם(

אבן עזרא - הפירוש הקצר שמות פרשת כי תשא פרק לד פסוק ו ...כי הקורא הוא השם...

ספורנו שמות פרשת כי תשא פרק לד פסוק ו )ו( ויקרא. הקל יתברך:

http://www.havabooks.co.il/shut.asp?cat=23&page=7

שאלה: בשבת, שליח הציבור שר פעמיים את הפסוק "למען אחי ורעי" שבסוף "אין כאלהינו". האם מותר הדבר, או יש בזה איסור של כפילת תיבות?

תשובה: כתב המהר"ם שיק, שאין לחזנים לכפול תיבות, מפני כמה טעמים: " .1בל תוסיף", שמוסיף על הנוסח שתיקנו חכמים.

.2לפעמים זה נחשב כהפסק, מפני שמכניס מילים זרות שאינן שייכות לנוסח התפילה.

.3לפעמים זה הפך האמת, כגון אם כופל תיבות ב"קדושה", שהרי אומר שם שנקדש כמו שמקדישים המלאכים, אבל המלאכים אינם כופלים תיבות.

.4שבכך משעבד את הכתוב למנגינה, במקום להתאים את המנגינה לכתוב שהוא עיקר ולא המנגינה, "התורה חוגרת שק ואומרת: עשאוני בניך כמין זמר" )סנהדרין קא .ועיין שו"ע או"ח תקס מ"ה ס"ק יד.(

" .5הקריבהו נא לפחתך" - שיש להגיש לריבונו של עולם דיבור מתוקן כמו אל מלך, ובוודאי אף אחד לא היה מדבר אל מלך בהכפלת תיבות לכתחילה )שו"ת מהר"ם שיק או"ח ס� לא.( וכן כתב ערוך השלחן: "ואסור לכפול התיבות" )נג יג(. וכן דן הרב משה פיינשטיין אם חייבים להשתיק חזנים שכופלים תיבות )אגרות משה, או"ח ח"ב ס �כב.( ועתה, לגבי הפסוק שעליו שאלת, נראה שמותר הדבר בגלל צירוף של שתי סיבות: א( אין הוא מופיע בגוף התפילה, אלא בהוספת פסוקים וקטעי משניות שבסופה; ב( אין זו כפילת תיבה אחת, אלא חזרה על פסוק שלם.

10

שו"ת אגרות משה אורח חיים חלק ב סימן כב הנה בדבר החזנים שכופלין איזה תיבות בחזרת הש"ץ ודאי אין רוח חכמים נוחה מהם וכבר צוחו קמאי דקמן ולא הועילו והחזנים עושין את שלהם אף חזנים שומרי תורה. כי הפסק אין בזה כשרק החזירו עוד פעם ואמרו כסדר התפלה, דאם היה הפסק אף באם אחד לא נתכוין באיזה תיבות שודאי אף בהברכות שיוצאין גם בלא נתכוין טוב יותר קודם שאמר השם של החתימה לחזור ולומר ואם היה הפסק היה אסור כיון שיוצא גם בלא מתכוין. אבל הוא דוקא כשחוזר ואומר כסדרן, דאם הוא אומר לנגוניו שלא כסדר הברכה יש חשש הפסק, כמו שיש חזנים שאומרים בישמחו וקוראי עונג שבת וקדשתו שבת. ומסתבר שהוא הפסק. וכן יש שאומרים בברכת יוצר כי הוא לבדו פועל גבורות כי הוא לבדו עושה חדשות הוא הפסק כיון שאינו אומר כסדר הברכה. ולענין אם צריך לחזור לראש הברכה נראה לפום ריהטא שבאם יש פירוש להדברים שאומר כגון בכי הוא לבדו א"צ לחזור לראש. ואם יש פירוש שקר כגון ויתענגו מטובך שבת צריך לחזור לראש שהמטובך קאי על מטוב הקדוש ברוך הוא ולא על מטוב שבת. ואם אין פירוש כלל להדברים תליא אם לא היה במתכוין אלא על ידי רהיטות הנגינה אמר זה הוי זה רק כאיתקל מלוליה שא"צ לחזור, ואם בכוונה יסד לנגן כן, הוא כאומר בעלמא דברים אחרים שצריך לחזור. ולכן לענין אם צריך להשתיק אם הוא באופן שאומר כסדרן כשחוזר אף שאין רוח חכמים נוחה מזה אין צריכין, דהא רק על מודים מודים משתקין מהטעם דמיחזי כשתי רשויות ולא מטעם שלא אמר כהנוסח שתיקנו חכמים, וכן במוסיף שבחים משתיקין מהטעם דגנאי הוא לו כדאיתא בברכות דף ל"ג משמע דבליכא טעם להשתיקם על מה שכפל והוסיף אף שאין זה בנוסח שתיקנו לנו אין משתקין אף שודאי אינו עושה כהוגן. וגם הא מפורש שם שגם כשהוא מגונה אין משתקין אם לא נראה כב' רשויות. והנה לכאורה יש לדחות דבמודים מודים משתקין אף בלא נתכוין בפעם ראשון אף שבעצם הי"ל לחזור ולומר מודים, מ"מ משתקין אותו מטעמא דמיחזי כב' רשויות כדאמר התם אביי חברותא כלפי שמיא על הא דלא נתכוין מתחלה, אבל בשארי דברים אם לא נתכוין יכול לומר פעם אחרת דפעם ראשון הוי כליתא ואף במקום שיצא אף בלא כוונה מ"מ בשביל המעלה לומר בכוונה אין להחשיבו כמשנה מנוסח שתיקנו חכמים, אבל החזנים שכופלין בלא צורך אולי יש להשתיק בכל אופן שכופל. אבל לא משמע הכי בגמ' דהא ר"פ הקשה לאביי ודלמא מעיקרא לא כיוון דעתיה ולבסוף כיוון דעתיה, הרי היה סבור שבאם האמת כן שלא כיוון דעתיה מעיקרא אין משתקין, ופי' המשנה לענין מודים והא דר"ז לענין שמע דאיירי בסתמא שלא ידוע משתקין וע"ז הקשה דאין להשתיקו בסתמא דיש לתלות מצד חזקת כשרות דלא כיוון דעתיה מעיקרא מלחשדו ח"ו בכפירה ומינות וא"כ לא היה לן להשתיקו, ואם כל הדין דמודים מודים ושמע שמע משתקין דבכה"ג בדברים אחרים אין משתקין, איירי דוקא בלא כיוון דעתיה מעיקרא לא היה שייך להקשות בלשון ודלמא דהא איירי בברור שלא כיוון דעתיה ומ"מ משתקין ואם ר"פ סובר בסברא דיש לו לחזור כשלא כיוון דעתיה מעיקרא ולא להשגיח על מה שמיחזי כב' רשויות היה לו לאקשויי בלשון ואמאי משתקין הא לא כיוון דעתיה מעיקרא, אלמא דלר"פ שהיה סבור שלצורך אין משתקין אף במודים ושמע איירי מתני' והא דר"ז בשלא לצורך ומ"מ רק במודים מודים ושמע שמע משתקין ולא בדברים אחרים. ואביי לא פליג עליה בזה אלא שמתרץ ונותן טעם על מה שמשתקין אף בסתמא ואף בודאי לא כיוון דעתיה מעיקרא משום שהוא חברותא כלפי שמיא שלא להתכוין באלו שיש לטעות ח"ו בדבריו. אבל גם לדידיה גם בכיוון דעתיה מעיקרא אין משתקין אלא במודים ושמע ולא בשא"ד דלא מצינו שפליג על ר"פ בזה. והנה לכאורה יקשה דהא משם איכא ראיה דבשארי דברים אינו מגונה ג"כ דהרי רק בק"ש תניא שה"ז מגונה בכפל אף באופן שלא מיחזי כב' רשויות, משמע דבשא"ד ליכא שום קפידא דלא כדכתבתי שאין רוח חכמים נוחה מזה ואולי זהו טעם החזנים שכופלין בשא"ד. אבל אינו כלום דעל מגונה לא הקשה ר"פ משום דאיירי אף בלא כיוון דעתיה מעיקרא שבק"ש הוא מגונה אף שהאמת כן שמוכרח לחזור דמ"מ הוא מגונה על שלא כיוון דעתיה והוצרך לחזור דידע על זה טעם אביי, ובשא"ד אינו מגונה אם לא נזהר לכווין דעתו ויצטרך לחזור, אבל לחזור שלא לצורך גם בשא"ד הוא מגונה על שמשנה מנוסח שתיקנו חכמים. וקצת משמע מסוכה דף ל"ח דבפסוקי הלל מאודך ולמטה תנן מקום שנהגו לכפול יכפול לפשוט יפשוט, דבמקום שנהגו לפשוט יש קפידא שלא יכפול וא"כ כ"ש שיש קפידא בברכות שלא לכפול. ומוכרח זה לרש"י דמפרש דמגונה הוא בחוזר תיבה תיבה ולא משתקין וכתב הטעם משום שדומה למתלוצץ, וטעם זה שייך גם בכל דבר שכופל תיבה תיבה, וא"כ אף לפירוש הרי"ף והרמב"ם נמי יש לפרש כן. ואף אם נימא לפירושם שבפסוקא פסוקא אינו גם מגונה משא"ד דרק בק"ש שבתיבה תיבה משתקין הוא

11

מגונה בכל כפילא כדי שלא יבא לכפול באופן שמשתקין ולא בשא"ד, נמי לא קשה משום דמגונה הוא גרוע מאין רוח חכמים נוחה מזה שמשמע מהא דסוכה. אבל יותר נראה כדכתבתי דגם זה הוא מגונה. והנה לכאורה יש מקום לפרש דגם לאביי מיירי בסתם שמתרץ דלא יתלו שהוא מחמת שלא נתכוין מעיקרא מצד חזקת כשרות מאחר שגם שלא להתכוין הוא עולה דחברותא כלפי שמיא, ויהיה ראיה רק דבשא"ד בסתמא אין משתקין משום דיאמרו דמעיקרא לא כיוון דעתיה אבל בידוע שהוא שלא לצורך כהא דחזנים משתקין אף בשא"ד. אבל לא מסתבר כלל לומר כן דאף אדם שלא זהיר מלהתכוין ודאי יש לו נמי חזקת כשרות שאינו מהכופרים והמינים ח"ו דחשוד לקל הא אינו חשוד לחמור ובפרט בענין כוונה שהוא דבר קשה מאד עד שהתוס' כתבו בברכות דף י"ז אף על דורם שאנו בשום פעם אין מכוונים היטב. וניחא לפ"ז מה שבכ"מ פ"ב מק"ש הי"א איתא שכשלא נתכוין מעיקרא לא יחוש על מה שמגונה, משמע דעל מה שמשתקין הוא אף בידוע שלא כיוון דעתו מעיקרא לא יחזור, ואם נפרש דאיירי בסתם הרי אף באופן שמשתקין יחזור, אלא הוא משום שא"א לפרש כן באביי, אלא דאף בידוע שלא נתכוין אסור לו לכפול באופן שמשתיקין כדפירשתי תחלה. וממילא הוא ראיה ממה שלא פליג על ר"פ דבשא"ד אין משתיקין. ידידו מוקירו, משה פיינשטיין. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Schick

alternatively spelled as ,משה שיק :Moshe Schick (1 March 1807 – 25 January 1879; Hebrew Shick, Shik, Shieck) was a prominent Hungarian Orthodox rabbi. Schick was born in Birkenhein, Kingdom of Hungary (contemporary Brezová pod Bradlom, Slovakia), the son of Rabbi Joseph Schick. The family were descended from Rabbi Hanoch Heinich Schick of Shklov. At the age of 11, Moshe Shik was sent to study with his uncle, Rabbi Yitzchak Frankel, the Av Beth Din in Regensdorf. When he was 14, he was sent to learn under Moses Sofer in Pressburg, where he stayed for six years. Sofer called his prodigious student "a treasure chest full of holy books". When he was 20, Moses Shik married his cousin, Gittel Frankel. They had several children. He was appointed Rabbi of Yeregin in 1838, where he opened a yeshiva. He taught students there for three decades. In 1861 he became Rabbi of Huszt, present-day Ukraine, and moved his 800-student yeshiva with him. Schick was a leading figure in the Orthodox camp during its struggle with Neolog Judaism, which promoted moderate Reform and embraced the policy of the government. On 28 December 1867, shortly after the Austro-Hungarian Compromise, the Jews of Hungary were legally emancipated. Minister of Religion József Eötvös sought to establish a national Jewish organization which would represent the various communities before the government. The Orthodox, fearing the institution will be dominated by their rivals, held a rabbinical assembly in Pest between 24 November and 3 December 1868. Samuel Benjamin Sofer was elected president, and Schick had no official position, yet he emerged as leader. It was he who decided to send Eötvös a letter declaring that the Orthodox will not accept the resolutions of the upcoming National Jewish Congress – which was convened in Pest, between 10 December and 23 February 1869, to form the new organization – unless it would conform with their rabbis' opinions. Schick and Sigmund Kraus, a lay activist, led the Orthodox campaign to secede from the directory.[1] On 15 November 1871, the new Minister of Religion Tivadar Pauler recognized the Central Bureau of the Autonomous Jewish Orthodox Communities in Hungary (Magyarországi Autonóm Orthodox Izraelita Hitfelekezet Központi Irodája), which was separate and independent from the Neolog- oriented National Jewish Bureau (Az Izraeliták Országos Irodája).[2] In rabbinical commentary Maharam is the acronym for ;(מהר"ם שיק) Shik is commonly known as the Maharam Schick Moreinu Harav Moses, which means "Our Teacher Rabbi Moshe" in Hebrew. He died in 1879.

12

Maharam Shik authored responsa on all four parts of the Shulchan Aruch and the 613 Mitzvot; these She'elot U'Tshuvot - MaHaram Shik contain over 1000 discussions, on all issues of life, and are published in 3 volumes. Other works include:  Chidushe ha-Maharam Shik - Novellae on the Talmud  Derashot Maharam Shik - Sermons  Sefer Maharam Shik al ha-Torah - Torah Commentary  Maharam Shik al taryag mitsvot - on the 613 commandents

13

This week’s Parashat HaShavua contains two of the most famous verses in the entire Tora, the thirteen Divine Attributes ,י"ג מדות Shemot 34: 6-7, known as the Which we invoked a number of times this past Ta’anit Esther, As part of the Selichot prayers and the reading of the Tora.

שמות פרק לד )ו(

1( יְק ָֹֹ֣וק׀ יְקֹוִָ֔ק 2( קל 3( ַׁר ֶ֖חּום 4( וְ ַׁח ָ֑נּון 5( ֵֶ֥א ֶרְך ַׁא ֶַׁ֖פי ם 6( וְ ַׁרב־ ֵֶ֥ח ֶסד 7( וֶאֱמֶ ִֽת:

)ז(

8( נ ֹ ֵ֥צר חֶֶ֙סֶדֶ֙ ָל ֲא ָל ִ֔ פים 9( נ ֹ ֵ֥שא עָוֹ֛ן 10( וָ ֶֶ֖פ ַׁשע 11( וְ ַׁח ָט ָָ֑אה 12( וְנַׁ ק ֶ֙ה לֹ֣ א יְנַׁ ִֶ֔קה 13( פ ֹ ֹ֣קד׀ עֲוֹ֣ן ָאב֗ ות ַׁעל־ ָבנ י ֶ֙ם וְ ַׁעל־ ְב ֹ֣ני ָב ִ֔נ ים ַׁעל־ ש ל ֶ֖שים וְ ַׁעל־ ר ב ִֽעים:

Moshe had asked HaShem to help him understand better the inscrutable God with Whom he was dealing, and according to most commentators, HaShem Responded by Reciting this litany of adjectives and qualities.

When we think about the goals of Jewish belief and practice, these verses are incredibly important, in the spirit of the Talmudic passage in Sota 14a: תלמוד בבלי מסכת סוטה דף יד עמוד א ואמר רבי חמא ברבי חנינא, מאי דכתיב: )דברים יג:ה( “אחרי ה' אלקיכם תלכו? וכי אפשר לו לאדם להלך אחר שכינה? והלא כבר נאמר: )דברים ד:כד( "כי ה' אלקיך אש אוכלה הוא"! אלא להלך אחר מדותיו של הקדוש ברוך הוא,

In other words, the verses from Shemot 34 ought to serve as a blueprint for how each of us can bring to realization the Tzelem Elokim, the Image of God, that is inherent within every human being.

To what extent are we RaChum—merciful, Chanun—compassionate, Erech Apayim—slow to anger, VeRav Chesed—and exceedingly kind…etc.

However, it must also be noted, that just as we should strive to emulate HaShem in terms of most of these attributes, numbers 12 and 13 12( וְנַׁ ק ֶ֙ה לֹ֣ א יְנַׁ ִֶ֔קה 13( פ ֹ ֹ֣קד׀ עֲוֹ֣ן ָאב֗ ות ַׁעל־ ָבנ י ֶ֙ם וְ ַׁעל־ ְב ֹ֣ני ָב ִ֔נ ים ַׁעל־ ש ל ֶ֖שים וְ ַׁעל־ ר ב ִֽעים:

Are, according to the Tora itself, not within the human purview:

Due to our biases and inabilities to know what the true intentions of others are, we are not capable of accurately and precisely avenging wrong

14

and casting blame over the course of generations, HaShem Relegates such matters exclusively to Himself.

It seems to me that the most curious and evocative aspect of this list of Divine Attributes, are the first two words, ostensibly the repetition of the Tetragrammaton, at the beginning of v. 6.

Repeating words of Jewish liturgy is generally frowned upon in the Halachic codes and responsa, .לכתחלה certainly

The earliest source that addresses such repetitions is the Mishna in Berachot 5:3 : משנה מסכת ברכות פרק ה משנה ג ]*[ האומר ...מודים מודים משתקין אותו ...

ר' עובדיה מברטנורא מודים מודים - דמיחזי כמקבל עליו שתי אלוהות.

A Baraita in the Gemora on 33b continues the theme: תלמוד בבלי מסכת ברכות דף לג עמוד ב מיתיבי: הקורא את שמע וכופלה - הרי זה מגונה. רש"י שאין זה דומה למקבל עליו שתי מלכיות, אלא למתלוצץ, joking

While the example of Modim Modim could limit the objection to those areas where it might be inferred that multiple deities are being addressed, in effect challenging the idea of monotheism, RaShI’s claim that indiscriminate repetition of words reflects a lack of seriousness vis-à-vis the liturgy and the Tora’s verses, would appear to apply to even relatively non-theological examples.

One of the evocative explanations offered by MaHaRaM Shick, a prominent 19th century Hungarian Rav, in a responsa dealing with the topic of repeating words during prayers, contends that if during prayer we should view ourselves as if we are offering supplications on our behalves before a King, would we ever intentionally address a human king by repeating some of the words of our petitions?

Returning to our verse in Shemot 34, it would seem that saying God’s Name twice in succession .one better מודים מודים does

Doesn’t saying HaShem, HaShem suggest two Reshuyot, Deities, Cosmic forces?

15

16