๐พ Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to โบ scriptures โบ jewish โบ t โบ Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Levitiโฆ captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:55:23. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1 โ[1] ** ืืืงืจื ืื ืืฉื, ืืืืืจ, He called out to Moses and spoke, etc.** According to *Torat Kohanim* on this verse G'd always called to Moses before He addressed him from the Tent of Testimony. We have to explore why the Torah records such a call on three separate occasions instead of allowing us to conclude that if it was stated once it would form the basis of a *Mah Matzinu* type of exegesis, i.e. that just as G'd called to Moses on the occasion mentioned here, or elsewhere, so He did on every other occasion He spoke to him from the Tent of Testimony. The author of *Torat Kohanim* proceeds to explain why such an exegesis could not be applied: "There are only two other occasions when this "call" is recorded as having preceded the ืืืืจ, the speech. The first time it occurred when Moses had the vision at the burning bush; the second time was at Mount Sinai, and the third time is here. We cannot establish a common denominator between these three occurrences as at the burning bush Moses had never previously been addressed by G'd and there was a need to prepare him mentally for such an address. At Mount Sinai (Exodus 19,3) G'd wanted Moses to convey His message to the entire Jewish nation. Neither of these two instances could serve as a valid precedent for G'd addressing Moses out of the Tabernacle **on earth** after having issued a "call." The reason that even this latter occasion does not serve as a precedent for the other two occasions is that in both other instances G'd had manifested Himself out of fire as opposed to the present occasion.
โ[2] According to Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi, the source for the *Torat Kohanim* saying that the call at Mount Sinai came out of the fire is either Exodus 24,16: "G'd called to Moses on the seventh day," or Exodus 19,20 where the Torah writes: "G'd called Moses to (come up to) the top of the Mountain." It cannot be Exodus 19,3 where the Torah writes: "G'd called to him from the Mountain, etc." This follows the explanation of Rabbenu Hillel according to whom this latter verse was not addressed to Moses out of the fire and the *Torat Kohanim* has stated that the reason the three occasions cannot serve as precedent for one another is that at Sinai and at the burning bush G'd called out of the fire. Thus far Rabbi Mizrachi. With all due respect to Rabbi Mizrachi, the Rabbi was not quite exact in his observation. The premise of the *Torat Kohanim* was that inasmuch as the word ืืืงืจื is followed by the word ืืืืจ, we should have been able to deduce that what happened at the burning bush also happened at the Tabernacle seeing that we have a *gezeyrah shaveh*, the use by the Torah of similar wording. When we follow this principle the word ืืืงืจื should have been dispensed with in at least one of the three situations. I believe the proof is precisely from Exodus 19,3. The verse in Exodus 24,16 does not contain a single superfluous word as it serves as G'd's call for Moses to come up to the Mountain and to spend there the next forty days. The word ืืืงืจื in that verse is used **instead** of the word ืืืืจ not in addition to it. The only verses which were of interest to *Torat Kohanim* are the verses in which the word ืงืจืืื is used as a prelude to the word ืืืืจ. Even the verse in Exodus 24,16 does not really meet the criteria established by the author of *Torat Kohanim* as G'd **had to issue a call** to Moses to ascend the Mountain seeing he was down below. The word ืืืงืจื is certainly not superfluous then. That particular ืงืจืืื, call, could only have served as a prelude to G'd speaking to Moses **on the Mountain**. Had it been omitted, we would have assumed that G'd spoke to Moses while the latter was at the base of the Mountain, something impossible as the Torah itself testifies that G'd spoke to Moses while the latter was on top of the Mountain.
โ[3] As far as Rabbi Mizrachi finding support for his theory in Exodus 24,16 where G'd called out to Moses on the seventh day out of the cloud before addressing him in the subsequent verses in 25,1-2 is concerned, the venerable Rabbi has forgotten that the verses 24,17-18 which do not involve G'd's addressing Moses make it impossible to consider 25,1-2 as a continuation of His call to Moses in 24,16. There is absolutely no evidence that what G'd said to Moses in 25,1-2 occurred prior to Moses' ascending the Mountain. G'd may have given Moses all the instructions concerning the donations for the Tabernacle after the latter had already been on the Mountain for a number of days.
โ[4] Rabbi Mizrachi rejected the opinion of Rabbenu Hillel that seeing the call at the Tabernacle in our verse was in lieu of G'd manifesting Himself out of the "fire" (seeing the divine fire had not yet descended on the altar). Accordingly, the Torah had to record G'd's call here. We cannot accept this argument either. Rabbi Mizrachi apparently thought that *Torat Kohanim* presumed that the "call" at the burning bush and at Mount Sinai was **accompanied** by Heavenly fire. This is not true. The author of *Torat Kohanim* only meant that the particular appearances by G'd to Moses were also followed or preceded by G'd manifesting Himself through fire, something that most certainly was not the case when G'd called to Moses here at the Tabernacle. G'd manifesting Himself through fire is an additional dimension to the degree of His manifestation and did not take the place of His "call" alerting the recipient of such a vision that he would shortly be addressed by G'd. Seeing that no such fiery manifestation took place in the encounter between G'd and Moses at the Tabernacle, it was important to record that G'd drew Moses' attention to an impending message by means of this "call."
โ[5] The author proceeds to insist that the principal proof that G'd always let the "call" precede His speaking to Moses is from Exodus 24,16. [I have abbreviated the polemics somewhat in the interests of brevity. Ed.]
โ[6]
โ[7] I find it difficult to understand the comment in *Torat Kohanim* that seeing that when G'd spoke to Moses at Mount Sinai this was something public, addressed to the whole nation, and that this is why He needed to introduce His address by a "call. After all, every commandment G'd revealed to Moses by speaking to him was intended for the whole nation. The author of *Korban Aharon* claims that when G'd addressed the whole of Israel He had to reduce the intensity of His voice seeing the people were not attuned to Him to the same degree as Moses. Accordingly, if the Torah uses the the word ืืืงืจื here it is to tell us that G'd **did not** reduce the intensity of voice He used when He addressed the people at large instead of only Moses. If we follow this approach we would have to understand the author of *Torat Kohanim* as saying that when he speaks about ืืื ืืฉืจืื he did not consider this as a compliment to Israel. This is quite difficult to accept. I believe that the ืืขืื, **compliment**, expressed by the word ืืืงืจื in Exodus 24,16 consisted in the fact that G'd included the whole of the people in what He was about to say instead of using Moses as His intermediary. The author of *Torat Kohanim* took the example of Exodus 24,16 as his cue to tell us that just as G'd employed the "call" as a compliment to the people at that timeโ He continued to use this "call" forthwith as a compliment to Moses, even though He addressed Himself to the ears of Moses alone.
โ[8] The *Torat Kohanim* we have quoted above concludes by saying that this call not only preceded addresses by G'd to Moses which were followed by the relatively harsh ืืืืจ, but included every time G'd spoke to Moses from the Tabernacle even when employing the softer ืืืืจื, or the word ืฆื, "command." The proof lies in the repetition of the word ืืืืืจ in verse one, followed immediately by the word ืืืจ at the beginning of verse two although no message had been delivered yet as a result of either the words ืืืงืจื or the word ืืืืืจ. Seeing no such apparently superfluous verbiage occurred either during the Torah's report of the vision of the burning bush or when G'd communicated with Moses at Mount Sinai, all we could have deduced from those occasions is that a "call" always preceded a ืืืืจ. We needed this verse and its unusual construction to teach us that such a "call" preceded every communication Moses received from G'd at the Tabernacle. In the other two instances G'd's appearances in that location were restricted to a single communication such as at the burning bush or to a communication extending over a few days such as immediately before the revelation at Mount Sinai. "Calls" reported on those occasions could not have served as precedents for G'd "calling" Moses every time He spoke to him from the Tabernacle, something that became a frequent occurrence during the next 38 years. The first such occasion therefore had to be introduced by the words "from the Tent of Testimony," in order to demonstrate that this form of communication set a pattern for future communications by G'd to Moses which emanated from the Tabernacle. In this instance the previously mentioned method of exegesis ืื ืืฆืื ื, could be employed as there would not be new and different factors governing G'd's speaking to Moses in the future. The *Torat Kohanim* needed to address the problem of the nature of G'd's addresses, i.e. the various terms the Torah employs when reporting that G'd spoke to Moses. The author wanted to establish proof that when G'd commenced speaking to Moses and the Torah describes this as ืืืืืจ ืืฉื, or ืืืฆื, that such communications were also preceded by a "call" to Moses. *Torat Kohanim* repeats once more that in view of the repeated use of the word ืืืจ or the very fact that the term ืืืจ reflects a "stronger" speech, I would have thought that only that type of speech was preceded by a "call." Therefore, to ensure that we do not misread the Torah, the Torah wrote ืืืจ ืืืืจ, to include all kinds of addresses by G'd as having been preceded by a ืงืจืืื, a "call."
โ[9] I have seen that Rabbi Abraham ben David, (ืจืื"ื) quotes a version of the Torat Kohanim according to which the proof is contained in the words "ืืืจ, ืืืืืจ, ืืืืืจ" occurring consecutively in our verse. This version makes much more sense than the one I am quoting from which does not strictly conform to the text in the Torah. According to that version, *Torat Kohanim* used the word ืืืืืจ which was unnecessary seeing that the word ืืืจ followed immediately. Actually, the word ืืืืืจ would not have been extraneous at all; the Torah is full of constructions such as ืืืืืจโฆืืืืืจ. What is extraneous is the repetition of the words ืืืืืจโฆืืืจ. We must consider the text of the *Torat Kohanim* at the disposal of the ืจืื"ื as the authentic one.
โ[10] I must add that as far as the *Torat Kohanim* proving that the word ืืืงืจื in our verse is indispensable is concerned as we could not have assumed that such a call preceded G'd's communications to Moses from other instances such as the burning bush, etc., the fact is that the word is absolutely necessary **regardless** of the arguments advanced. How else would I have known that G'd's "call" preceded all other communications to Moses from the Tent of Testimony barring the first one were it not for that word?
โ[11] We must, however, pay closer attention to the text of the *Torat Kohanim*. Why did that author not question the word ืืืงืจื as being superfluous in either the appearance of G'd at the burning bush or at Mount Sinai in conjunction with a "call," so that we could have deduced that such a call had taken place by deducing this from what happened when G'd spoke to Moses from the Tabernacle? The problem that the *Torat Kohanim* posed by saying that a combination of the use by the Torah of the word ืืืงืจื either at the burning bush and at Sinai, or at the Tent of Testimony and at Sinai would not have served as a precedent to teach us concerning the third ocurrence would then not have to be raised at all. Furthermore, seeing that *Torat Kohanim* used the extraneous words ืืืื ืืืขื to prove that all subsequent communications from the Tabernacle were preceded by "calls," what is to stop him from applying that ืืืื also to what happened at Sinai and at the burning bush, so that the word ืืืงืจื in both of those instances would be superfluous?
โ[12] I have read the commentary of Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi who was very aware of all these problems, but I must confess that I do not feel that his answers put my mind at rest. The venerable Rabbi argues that the reason that G'd had to record the call as preceding His speaking to Moses at the Tent was that Moses was afraid to enter unless invited. (The Torah had described the Tent as filled with G'd's cloud of glory and Moses being unable to enter in Exodus 40,35.) In other words, the **reason** for the call there was that it could not serve as precedent for G'd's need to "call" either at the burning bush or at Sinai. Why would the author of *Torat Kohanim* have been afraid to point out something as simple as that? I believe that had the Torah omitted mention of the word ืงืจืืื either at the burning bush or at Sinai, I simply would have considered the ืงืจืืื here as something new which had **not** occurred previously instead of assuming it had occurred without the Torah having mentioned it. [At this point the author continues in his polemic against the conclusions offered by Rabbi Mizrachi. The interested reader is referred to the original for further study. Ed.]
โ[13]
โ[14]
โ[15]
โ[16]
โ[17] **ืืืงืจื ืื ืืฉื. He called to Moses**. Why did the Torah not identify the caller? While it is true that the Torah identifies the caller as being G'd when it goes on to say: "G'd spoke to him from the Tent of Testimony," the omission of G'd as the subject at the beginning of this verse is most remarkable.
โ[18] Perhaps the Torah wanted to let us know the essence of G'd's "voice" which is such that even if it called extremely loudly it would be audible only to someone attuned to it and waiting to hear it. The words ืืืงืจื ืื ืืฉื, must mean that although G'd called out generally, only Moses heard it and not any other person standing in front of him [i.e. **closer** to the source of the voice. Ed.] Had the Torah written: "G'd called to Moses, etc.," I would have understood that G'd called out in a powerful voice but that by the time the sound-waves reached the ear of Moses they were considerably weaker than at their source. Moses would then have had to gauge by the volume of sound he heard from where that sound had emanated. He would also not have been surprised that people standing behind him had not heard that voice at all seeing those people were even further removed from the origin of that sound than he himself. At any rate, there would not have been any miraculous element in this call by G'd to Moses out of the Tabernacle. By writing ืืืงืจื ืื ืืฉื, the Torah draws our attention to the fact that Moses indeed heard a very powerful voice and that the super-natural element in this call was that he was the only one who heard it.
โ[19] Another reason why the name of G'd was not recorded in the Torah as associated with this "call" was that G'd was more interested in having His name associated with the commandments He was about to give to Moses than merely to record that it was His **voice** which invited Moses to receive a communication from Him, or as a sign of G'd showing him respect, if we want to adopt the approach of *Vayikra Rabbah* 1,8. According to that *Midrash*, Aaron, his sons and the elders had been wondering who was most beloved in G'd's eyes; They decided amongst themselves that they would find out by observing to whom G'd would turn first after the Tabernacle [Aaron's domain Ed.] was erected. When G'd called to Moses they realised that G'd liked Moses best of all. There was no cause for the Torah to mention Moses by name as the test was the call itself.
โ[20] By following the approach of the *Midrash* we can also understand why the Torah had to add the word ืื ืืฉื instead of merely saying: ืืืื, "to him," seeing that Moses' name had appeared at the end of the last portion (Exodus 40,35). The Torah could have done the same as in Genesis 18,1 where we are told: "G'd appeared to him" (Abraham), without mentioning Abraham's name seeing he had been the subject of the last paragraph in *Parshat Lech Lecha*. In our situation G'd had to convince the sons of Aaron and the elders of His fondness for Moses.
โ[21] **ืืืืืจ ืืณ ืืืื ืืืื ืืืขื. G'd spoke to him out of the Tent of Testimony.** The reason that the Torah had to emphasise that G'd spoke only to Moses, i.e. that only Moses heard His voice, was to prevent misunderstandings. While it was understandable that the ordinary people did not hear G'd's voice, we could have thought that any priest inside the Tabernacle who had business there at the time G'd wished to address Moses would be privy to hearing G'd's voice. The Torah therefore emphasised that only Moses was privy to this voice by writing ืืืื, "to him exclusively."
โ[22] **ืืืื ืืืขื, from the Tent of Testimony, etc.** Why didn't the Torah first mention the site from which G'd's voice emanated before telling us who did the talking? Here the Torah reverses the norm completely by first telling us to whom the voice spoke, then telling us who did the speaking and only at the very end telling us from where G'd's voice emanated. When we consider the comments of *Torat Kohanim* which we quoted earlier, i.e. that **all** of G'd's communications from the Tent of Testimony were preceded by a call to Moses, it does make sense that this information was reserved for the end of the verse. Matters which will occur at a later stage deserve to be mentioned later than those which occur in the immediate future.
โ[23] *Torat Kohanim* also deduces from the wording of this verse that G'd's voice was "cut off, and did not travel beyond the confines of the Tabernacle." How could this be deduced from our verse seeing *Torat Kohanim* had already deduced the nature of the "call" from the same wording? Furthermore, if indeed the voice of G'd did not travel beyond the confines of the Tabernacle, why did the Torah have to word things in such a way that we learn that the Israelites could not hear this voice? Of course they could not hear a voice which was confined to the Tabernacle! I have seen that Rabbi Mizrachi answers this problem saying that the exegesis is based on the Torah not writing: ืืืงืจื ืื ืืฉื ืืืื ืืืขื, but writing instead: ืืืื ืืืื ืืืขื. The meaning is that the voice travelled in a straight line from the Tabernacle to Moses and stopped there. Our second question is answered by the ืจืื"ื who says that the Torah had to tell us that the voice of G'd being audible only to Moses was something new; previously it was either audible to the people who were assembled at Mount Sinai, or in the case of the burning bush, it would have been audible had there been anyone else present beside Moses. It was only after G'd took up residence in the Tabernacle that His voice reached only Moses.
โ[24] I must confess that I am not happy with either one of these two answers. As to the argument of Rabbi Mizrachi that the mention of the words ืืืื ืืืขื at the end of the verse after ืืืื indicates that the voice came directly to Moses and not to the people, how do we know where exactly Moses stood at that time? If Moses had stood in a spot adjoining the Tent of Testimony, the fact that no one else heard the voice does not prove they would not have heard it if he had stood some distance away. If Rabbi Mizrachi is correct, the voice should have been mentioned first followed by its objective, i.e. ืืืื ืืืขื ืืืื. The fact that the Torah writes the word ืืืื first makes it plain that it was not the Torah's intention to convey to us the exclusivity of G'd's voice by means of this wording. Why would the Torah reverse the normal syntax by telling us the end before the beginning? It is much easier to accept that the Torah imparts the information about G'd's voice being ื ืคืกืง, cut off, from the sequence "ืืืื ืืืขื ืืืืืจ," instead of the sequence "ืืืืืจ ืืณ ืืืื ืืืขื ืืืื ืืืืืจ." If the Torah had not intended for us to deduce the various ืืืืืื, the rules of syntax would have required the Torah to first identify the place the speaker spoke from, followed by the identification of whom it spoke to. Now that the Torah did not do so, we have "room," i.e. a sufficient number of departures from the norm to allow for **all** the deductions we have been taught by *Torat Kohanim.* The additional words ืืืื ืืืขื teach that from that time onwards a "call" preceded every communication by G'd to Moses. The word ืืืืืจ may be used to include not only those communications by G'd which used the word ืืืจ. The fact that the Torah did not write ืืืงืจื ืืืื ืืืขื attests to the nature of G'd's voice, i.e. that only Moses was attuned to it. The sequence ืืืื ืืืขื ืืืืืจ teaches that the voice emanated from the Tabernacle, i.e. ืืืืืจ, and travelled only as as far as Moses and was not heard outside.
โ[25] As to the ืจืื"ื's answer to our second question that the Torah had to exclude previous calls which emanated from G'd as not having been exclusively for Moses' ears, and that this is why the Torah had to write the words ืืืื ืืืขื where it did, his words are nothing short of astounding. Surely the Torah had provided us with the words ืืื ืืืขื both in Exodus 25,22 and in Numbers 7,89. In both these instances G'd's voice is reported as emanating from the Tabernacle or a certain spot within it. Why would the ืจืื"ื need the words ืืืื ืืืขื **in our verse** to teach us such an exclusion? It is therefore much more plausible to believe that what *Torat Kohanim* focused on was not that the **voice** was cut off inside the Tabernacle but that the **communication**, i.e. the speech, the ืืืืจ was audible only inside the Tabernacle. When G'd called, i.e. invited Moses, His voice was audible outside the Sanctuary. When He spoke to Moses (after the latter had entered the Sanctuary), His voice was audible only to Moses, i.e. it was ื ืคืกืง.
โ[26] Rabbi Mizrachi opines that the author of *Torat Kohanim* clearly holds that Moses was inside the Tabernacle at that time and that this was only possible because the cloud had withdrawn at that time. [It is assumed that the readers are familiar with a Tannaitic disagreement as to whether Moses was inside the Tabernacle when G'd spoke with him **at this point** or not. Please refer to Exodus 40,35 where the Torah told us that Moses could not enter the Tabernacle due to the cloud containing the glory of G'd filling the Tabernacle. Some opinions (*Yuma* 4) hold that G'd took hold of Moses and placed him inside the Tent. On the other hand we have Numbers 7,89 from which it is evident that G'd spoke to Moses while he was inside the Tabernacle. Rabbi Mizrachi, based on Rashi, holds that the solution to the apparent contradiction in the verses we quoted is in the words "because G'd's cloud rested upon it" (Exodus 40,35); once the cloud moved Moses was able to enter. Ed.] We also find that Moses was able to "enter the cloud" in Exodus 24,18. The same may be presumed to have occurred in connection with this "call" in our verse here. As far as I am concerned the matter is very simple as it is not reasonable to assume that Moses had to wait until the cloud removed itself fom the Tabernacle and that Moses heard the call only then. Upon examination you will find that Rabbi Mizrachi quoted the text of the first part of *Torat Kohanim* 1,9 (The *Midrash* refers to Exodus 25,22 where G'd told Moses He would henceforth communicate with him inside the Tent of Meeting, G'd's voice emanating from between the cherubs which were situated on the lid of the Holy Ark): "When G'd said: 'I will communicate with **you** there,' He meant to exclude the Israelites who had not been deemed fit to ascend Mount Sinai; He also meant to exclude everybody else including Aaron, barring the ministering angels. Moses could not enter the Tabernacle until he had been summoned. This proves that at the time G'd called to him (in our verse) Moses was standing outside. The Torah writes that the voice came ืืืื, to him, i.e. from the inside of the Tabernacle and was cut off." Thus far the quote from *Torat Kohanim*. It is clear that the author of that *Midrash* was convinced that Moses stood outside the Tabernacle at the time G'd's voice called him. You may ask "how did the author of that *Midrash* know that the call preceded the communication (i.e. the substance of what G'd wanted to say)?" Seeing that the "call" was needed to invite Moses into the Tabernacle as he was afraid to enter unless summoned, how can we derive any additional ืืืื, exegetical content, from this word? The answer is that if G'd had wanted to He could have removed Moses' fear and he would have entered the Tabernacle without a special "call." Seeing G'd did not do this, this is proof that the "call" was something that had to precede the communication proper as we have outlined previously, and that Moses remained afraid to enter without invitation. He stationed himself close to the Tabernacle so as to be mentally prepared as soon as he would receive G'd's "call" at which time he would enter the Tent. The sound of the call to Moses "left" (was audible beyond) the Tabernacle, whereas the sound of G'd's communication to Moses never left the confines of the Tabernacle and thus was not heard by anybody else. Not even an echo of it was audible [as had been during the last eight commandments at Mount Sinai. Ed.].
โ[27] A moral-ethical approach to our verse sees in it a message to Moses to relate to the Israelites everything G'd would command him **while he was still in the Tabernacle**. This is the deeper reason why the text wrote the words ืืืื ืืืขื ืืืืืจ, "**from the Tent of Testimony to say**," in that order. There is a sound psychological reason for this. If the Israelites would hear G'd's commandments as emanating from the Tabernacle, it would inspire them to relate to them with far more reverence than if Moses were merely to tell them these commandments while assembling the people inside the camp. They would accept these commandments knowing that Moses would not have dared to add or omit a single word while he was communicating G'd's word at a place where the ืฉืืื ื was present.
โ[28] There is yet another message contained in the words ืืืื ืืืื ืืืขื. Moses merited being called by G'd and addressed by Him as a sign that G'd had forgiven the sin of the golden calf and had taken up residence within the Tabernacle to signify this forgiveness. G'd wanted Moses to communicate this message to Israel. This is why the Torah wrote: "from the Tent of Meeting to say." When you find that *Torat Kohanim* interprets the substance of the message hinted at in the word ืืืืืจ as being ืืืจื ืืืืฉืื ืืฉืืืืื, "words of rebuke for your sake G'd communicates to me, etc.," this refers to Deuteronomy 2,16 where Moses told the people that G'd had resumed speaking with him using the friendly term ืืืืจื only after all the people who were 20 years and over when the spies returned from their ill-fated misssion had died. This was 38 years after the moment described in our portion. This comment is in line with what I have said. The only difference is that *Torat Kohanim* derives the entire exegesis from the word ืืืืืจ, without dissecting the verse as carefully as we have done. ื*Torat Kohanim* states there that in the event we thought that G'd communicated with Moses because of His own concerns we should know ืืืืืจ, that it was only on account of the Israelites. The *Midrash* means that the word ืืืืืจ is to be understood as a ืืขืื, an exclusion. G'd made it clear that He would not have spoken to Moses on that occasion were it not for the fact that He did so for the benefit of the people, i.e. He wanted to speak to them. This teaches that the whole purpose of G'd speaking to Moses from the Tabernacle was in order for Moses to communicate sections of the Torah to the people. When we are told in *Avot* 1,1 that Moses received the Torah at Sinai and he delivered it to Joshua, etc., this means that Moses handed over the entire tradition; he neither omitted any part nor added something of his own. Every secret G'd had entrusted to Moses, Moses in turn faithfully communicated to the leader of the next generation. Israel are compared to Moses when it came to Torah knowledge, the only difference being that Moses had received the Torah directly from G'd.
Version: Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk
Source: http://www.urimpublications.com/or-hachayim-commentary-on-the-torah-5-vols.html
License: CC-BY