Welcome to KOE's project, dt@koe. Thank you to Jason Herman for contributing this week's dvar torah. If you want to participate in this project, through receiving or writing divrei torah, please contact Jason Herman at dt@koe.org. Shabbat shalom.

This week’s Parasha begins with a very troublesome passuk. God says to Moshe, “I appeared to Avraham, to Yitzchak and to Yaakov as El-Shaddai, but My Name Hashem (shem havaya) I did not make known to them.” The passuk is strange first of all because Hashem did refer to himself using the tetragrammaton at least twice in Sefer Bereishit. The first time was with Avraham at the establishment of the Brit HaBetarim, the covenant of the halves. The passuk there reads: “Then he said to him, ‘Behold I am the Lord (shem havaya) who took you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to assign this land to you as a possession.’” (15:7) The second time was to Yaakov during his dream upon leaving Canaan. Bresihit 28:13 reads, “And the Lord was standing beside him and He said, ‘I am the Lord (shem havaya) the God of your father Abraham, and the God of Isaac . . ..’”

So, why does Hashem say here that he did not make known to the forefathers the name of Hashem? Before proceeding to answer this question, I should note that in both cases Avraham and Yaakov state that they did not know of Hashem’s presence using the same word Yada’ as in our passuk. Avraham says in the following passuk (15:8), “Bamah Edah” “How will I know?” and then proceeds to dream of Hashem’s prophecy about slavery and the eventual return to Canaan. Yaakov upon waking up from his dream, says “surely the Lord’s presence is in this place and I did not know it!” (28:16).

It could be that the answer is just that simple, that the Avot did not actually recognize that Hashem’s presence was there as they both said. However, this would not explain our passuk in this week’s parasha because the name of Hashem had become known when they had awaken from their dreams. So, the manifestation of Hashem’s name that did not occur with the Avos must be something more than their statement that they did not know it.

Rashi explains that God made promises to the forefathers, which is a trait characteristic of the name Hashem but the Avos did not live to see them fulfilled. However, here Moshe would see this promise fulfilled. However, this also is not the case, since the promise in this parasha includes bringing Bnei Yisroel back to Eretz Yisroel, a prophecy that Moshe Rabeinu would not see to its conclusion. So, again another explanation is needed.

The Rambam also focuses on the difference between the prophecy of the Avos versus the prophecy of Moshe. He says in Moreh Nevuchim (2:35) that Moshe’s prophecy was superior because it involved seeing God face to face. This is of course a reference to the passuk in Devarim that “there arose no prophet like Moshe who knew God face to face.” (34:10)

The Rambam argues that only Moshe was able to see Hashem in the full glory of that name because of his ability to know God face to face. This argument is more plausible but it fails to account for the striking similarities in the two cases in which God does use the tetragrammaton with the Avos, and in this case with Moshe. All three involve an exodus: In Avraham’s case, God states, “I am Hashem that took you out of Ur Casdim.” Yaakov is leaving Canaan for Haran, and of course, Moshe is about to lead Bnei Yisroel out of Egypt. All three cases also involve God’s promise that Israel will inherit the land and will become a great nation.

Ramban offers several additional explanations. First, Ramban suggests that with the Avot, God reveals Himself through acts of nature not letting them see great miraculous events. However, the full manifestation of the shem havaya involves “shinui toladot,” changes in the natural order on a miraculous magnitude. R’ Menachem Liebtag points out this is a difference between hashgakha nisteret vs. hashgakha niglayt, God’s stewardship as being hidden vs. more evident.

Ramban also offers an alternative explanation in that the full manifestation of shem havaya is the giving of the Torah at Sinai. He writes that from this moment, Moshe no longer refers to God as El-Shaddai because the Torah was given by God’s great name (shem havaya). Once the Torah had been given, it is no longer appropriate to refer to God by any other name. The Revelation had been completed.

If indeed the ultimate revelation of shem havaya is Matan Torah, as this explanation of Ramban suggests, then even Rashi’s explanation might make more sense. Recall that Rashi stated that shem havaya implies the fulfillment of God’s promise. We had previously discounted Rashi’s claim since the Revelation of God’s name was to Moshe Rabbeinu who would not himself lead Bnei Yisroel to Eretz Yisroel. However, if the ultimate fulfillment of the promise of Yetizat Mitzrayim is Matan Torah, then indeed it would be fulfilled in his lifetime and under his leadership.

Thus, a reading of Rashi with accordance with the final opinion of Ramban suggests that the ultimate aim of the Exodus from Egypt is in fact, Matan Torah.