geulah delayed is geulah denied

Hashem told Moshe that if the people ask him what G-d's name is, he should reply (3:14):

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹקים אֶל מֹשֶׁה אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה וַיֹּאמֶר כֹּה תֹאמַר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶהְיֶה שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם.

Why the repetition of וַיֹּאמֶר in the pasuk when only Hashem is speaking?  Rashi explains that between the lines there was actually a debate between Hashem and Moshe. Hashem revealed his name as אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה, meaning that He will be with Bn"Y not just now, but in future times of distress as well. Moshe was not happy with this esponse. אמר לפניו: רבונו של עולם, מה אני מזכיר להם צרה אחרת, דים בזו. Why mention future problems when the people have enough on their plate right now? Hashem agreed with Moshe's argument and said to tell the people just אֶהְיֶה שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם and omit any mention about the future.

Of course Moshe was not smarter than Hashem and didn't have a better read on the people than Hashem. Moshe's question was based on a misunderstanding of Hashem's response (see Gur Aryeh, Rashbam). Hashem first revealed to Moshe for the sake of Moshe's own private understanding what the essence of His "name" (whatever that means) is: וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹקים **אֶל מֹשֶׁה** אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה. Hashem knew that this would not fly with the masses. The response to the people is therefore different: וַיֹּאמֶר כֹּה תֹאמַר **לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל** אֶהְיֶה שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם. The shakla v'terya between Moshe and Hashem is not Moshe correcting G-d, but rather Moshe clarifying what G-d's message really was.

R' Nosson Ra'anan, son in law of Rav Kook, suggested a deeper meaning to Moshe's question (quoted here ). Earlier this year we discussed the question of whether it is better to do a mitzvah with zerizus right away even imperfectly or whether it is better do the mitzvah b'hidur even if it comes at the price of a delay. A halacha l'maaseh example: Is it be better to do the mitzvah of netilas lulav first thing sukkos morning even if it means using a less perfect lulav and esrog, or is it better to wait until later in the day if a more perfect esrog will be available only then? We discussed the Chasam Sofer on VaYeira who explains that Avraham told Sarah to prepare bread as quickly as possible for the guests that came to be mevaker choleh after his milah even if it meant using a less fine flour, but Sarah felt it was better to take the time to grind the flour properly and make better quality bread even at the cost of a bit of delay. R' Nosson suggested that this is the "debate" between Moshe and Hashem in our parsha. Moshe was bothered מה אני מזכיר להם צרה אחרת because there need not be a צרה אחרת. Bn"Y were supposed to be in Mitzrayim 400 years. Hashem knocked that down to 210 at the cost of the galus being incomplete and requiring successive galuyos to make up the difference. Moshe argued against doing this half baked job. Why rush -- zerizus -- a geulah that is not fully ready to happen? Why not wait whatever extra time it might take for the ideal geulah, one that could take place b'hidur, and do away with any need for future galuyos?

This approach to the argument sheds light on the episode of milah that took place as Moshe was en route back to Mitzrayim. Moshe stopped at an inn and delayed the milah of his son, placing his (or his son's, as the meforshim discuss) life in danger. R' Nosson explained that Moshe's delay was not because he did not take the mitzvah of milah as a serious priority. To the contrary, it was because he valued the mitzvah that Moshe delayed. What kind of bris milah would it ve when you just arrived at the motel, the luggage isn't even unpacked, and you haven't had even a moment to freshen up from the trip much less order the bagels? Better to take a few minutes to properly prepare and do the mitzvah b'hidur! The fact that Moshe is punished shows that Hashem rejected this thinking. Zerizus to bring a baby into the bris outweighs other considerations. Better to do the milah without the bagels, even before getting settled, then to delay even a moment.

This was Hashem's answer to Moshe's earlier argument as well. Zerizus sometimes is better than hidur. A partial geulah that provides immediate relief is still better than no geulah even it is only a temporary remedy. In terms of PR, maybe the people don't want to hear about future troubles, but they do want to hear, and are desperate to hear, that help and hope is on the way.

My wife's uncle, R' Immanuel Shochet z"l, was once asked what makes the Lubavitcher Rebbe's emphasis on moshiach special? There have been many other gedolim who yearned for moshiach and taught others to year for moshiach, e.g. the Chofetz Chaim was known to keep a suitcase packed, ready to go. Uncle Immanuel responded (and I'm paraphrasing, so blame any error in this on me) by saying that while he can't speak for the Rebbe, he thinks the difference is the following: Imagine there was a bas kol that came out from shamayim that told everyone that moshiach would be here in an hour. What would rabbonim do? Everyone would want to prepare in his own way for the monumental moment. Some gedolim would run to say Tehillim. Some would run to go to mikveh and put on Shabbos clothes and finery to greet moshiach. The real Litvishe would probably keep learning for that hour. "You know what the Rebbe would do?" asked Uncle Immanuel. "He would turn to Hashem and ask why we have to wait that extra hour.  The Rebbe would cry to Hashem to bring moshiach now."

All the preparations to greet moshiach b'hiddur cannot make up for having to suffer even just one more hour, or even one more moment, in galus. When the Jewish people need a yeshu'a, Hashem told Moshe, responding b'zerizus is more important than delaying even for the sake of a more perfect outcome.

"rav v'atzum" is not just about numbers

וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אֶל⁠־עַמּ֑וֹ הִנֵּ֗ה עַ֚ם בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל רַ֥ב וְעָצ֖וּם מִמֶּֽנּוּ

 Netziv points out that at this point in time, what Pharoah was saying was categorically false

 אע״ג שהיו אז עדיין מעט אנשי חיל מישראל נגד מצרים, ולא היה לחוש לעת עתה שיתגברו על מצרים

but Pharoah was anticipating what would happen given the growth rate of the population.  Ohr haChaim offers a different answer:

 ואומרו רב ועצום פירוש כי באמצעות היותם עם אחד ומיוחד הגם שיהיו מעטים בערך שאר האומות יחשבו לרבים ועצומים מהם לצד שהם כל אחד נותן נפשו על אחיו, וזה ידוע ליודעי ערך מלחמה

Strength is not just a matter of numbers.  A large force that lacks cohesion can be overcome by a smaller force that is unified.  Bn"Y may have been small in number, but they had an unmatched cohesiveness as a people, and were therefore considered רַ֥ב וְעָצ֖וּם.   Every individual was willing to give even his life for the sake of his friend.  

True then, still true today.

With this Ohr haChaim as background, we can better appreciate what happens later in the parsha where we read how Moshe came across an Egyptian who was striking a fellow Jew:

וַיִּ֤פֶן כֹּה֙ וָכֹ֔ה וַיַּ֖רְא כִּ֣י אֵ֣ין אִ֑ישׁ וַיַּךְ֙ אֶת⁠־הַמִּצְרִ֔י וַֽיִּטְמְנֵ֖הוּ בַּחֽוֹל

The Binah laItim explains that Moshe saw that there were other Jews who were standing there who witnessed this horrible attack, and yet וַיַּ֖רְא כִּ֣י אֵ֣ין אִ֑ישׁ none of them were willing to stand up for the victim.  

Moshe was willing to give these onlookers the benefit of the doubt.  Bn"Y are by nature rachmanin.  For better or worse, we avoid getting involved in street brawls or violence.  This was undoubtedly all the more true considering that the onlookers in this case were slaves who were subjugated by the Egyptians, and so psychologically they would have been all the more hesitant to take a stand against them.  Since no one else did anything, Moshe took it upon himself to be the אִ֑ישׁ where no one else could.  As Chazal tell us, במקום שאין אנשים ראוי להיות איש

Next day Moshe came across two Jews fighting among themselves:

וַ֠יֹּ֠אמֶר מִ֣י שָֽׂמְךָ֞ לְאִ֨ישׁ שַׂ֤ר וְשֹׁפֵט֙ עָלֵ֔ינוּ הַלְהׇרְגֵ֙נִי֙ אַתָּ֣ה אֹמֵ֔ר כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר הָרַ֖גְתָּ אֶת⁠־הַמִּצְרִ֑י וַיִּירָ֤א מֹשֶׁה֙ וַיֹּאמַ֔ר אָכֵ֖ן נוֹדַ֥ע הַדָּבָֽר 

Rashi comments:  נודע לי דבר שהייתי תמה עליו: מה חטאו ישראל מכל שבעים אומות להיות נרדים בעבודת פרך, אבל רואה אני שהם ראוים לכך.

Moshe now saw that it wasn't because of their nature as rachmanim that the Jewish onlookers avoid the conflict, v'ha'raayah, they are busy fighting with each other!  What happened to the  כל אחד נותן נפשו על אחיו that the Ohr haChaim described?  What happened to the ahavas yisrael?

אָכֵ֖ן נוֹדַ֥ע הַדָּבָֽר why Bn"Y were in the situation they were in.

Still, we can ask why seeing just these two people alone trading blows changed Moshe's perspective.  הָאִ֤ישׁ אֶחָד֙ יֶחֱטָ֔א וְעַ֥ל כׇּל־הָעֵדָ֖ה תִּקְצֹֽף?  Who says these two people are necessarily representative of the entire nation?

I have seen three answers to this question:

1) Midos ra'os are like a contagious virus.  The problem won't stay with just two people -- it will inevitable rub off on and spread to others (R' Gershon Edelstein). 

2) The fact that two people behave in such a way is indicative of the fact that the community has a whole has a lax attitude towards the issue (to some degree or other).  Let me give you an example.  When I was growing up, I don't think any kid wearing a yalmuka would ride a scooter on Shabbos, certainly not to shul.  It just wasn't done.  Recently my wife and I were walking on Shabbos and in front of one shul it looked like they needed a parking lot for the amount of scooters in front of the building.  Our attitude towards Shabbos has changed.  The kid riding the scooter didn't cause the change; he/she is just a siman. When we were kids we knew it wasn't done; now kids don't have that same innate sense that this is something off limits. I can say the same about our attitude towards kedushas beis ha'knesses -- does anyone think twice anymore about walking into minyan with a cup of coffee and cell phone out? -- or any number of things.  If there was a feeling that this was completely out of the norm of what our communal standards are, people would be far less likely to do it.  People no longer feel that way.  Moshe thought the same about the infighting that he witnessed.  If this was truly way beyond the pale of accepted behavior, it would never have happened.  The fact that it did showed that something in the bigger picture was off (R' Shteinman).

3) Once you get involved in breaking down the community between "those guys" who engage in the wrong behavior vs the rest of us, m'meila there is no longer a united klal, and Moshe understood that geulah can only come to the klal in the zechus of the klal. (R' Shteinman)

R' Shneur Kotler on Moshe Rabeinu's lashon ha'ra

In response to Moshe's argument  וְהֵן֙ לֹֽא⁠־יַאֲמִ֣ינוּ לִ֔י וְלֹ֥א יִשְׁמְע֖וּ בְּקֹלִ֑י כִּ֣י יֹֽאמְר֔וּ לֹֽא⁠־נִרְאָ֥ה אֵלֶ֖יךָ ה׳ (4:1), Hashem commanded Moshe to perform certain signs when he came to speak to Bnei Yisrael, the first of which was turning his staff into a snake, the second was his handing turning white, and lastly, turning water into blood.  Interestingly, Hashem also had Moshe perform each of these signs (except the last one) on the spot, while he was speaking with him.  Ramban asks: לא הבינותי למה עשה האותות למשה, כי מאמין היה משה שהקב״ה מדבר עמו, והראוי שיאמר: והמטה אשר בידך תשלך ארצה לפניהם והיה לנחש, וכן באות השני, כאשר אמר בשלישי  Why did Moshe need to do the signs for himself?  Did he need a practice run?  

Here is Ramban's second answer:

ואולי אף על פי שהודיעו השם הגדול שבו נברא העולם ובו נהיה כל דבר (שמות ג׳:י״ד-ט״ו), רצה להראותו כי בו יעשו אותות ומופתים משנים התולדת, למען יתחזק הענין בלבו של משה, וידע באמת כי על ידו יעשו בעולם דברים מחודשים,

As great as Moshe was, even he needed chizuk.  No matter how great the person, he cannot escape being human, and as humans, we are more impressed with what we see than with abstract knowledge and belief.  Therefore, Moshe performed the signs himself to that his faith would be complete  (See R' Chaim Elazari in Mesilos Chaim).

Hashem then continued and told Moshe that if the people don't believe the first sign, don't worry, they will believe the second  וְהָיָה֙ אִם⁠־לֹ֣א יַאֲמִ֣ינוּ לָ֔ךְ וְלֹ֣א יִשְׁמְע֔וּ לְקֹ֖ל הָאֹ֣ת הָרִאשׁ֑וֹן וְהֶֽאֱמִ֔ינוּ לְקֹ֖ל הָאֹ֥ת הָאַחֲרֽוֹן׃.  What made the second sign so special?  Rashi explains: 

משתאמר להם: בשבילכם לקיתי על שסיפרתי עליכם לשון הרע, יאמינו לך, שכבר למדו בכך שהמזדווגים להם לוקים בנגעים, כגון: פרעה ואבימלך בשביל שרה. .⁠

The second sign, the turning of Moshe's hand white, was a sign of tzaraas, which is the punishment for speaking lashon ha'ra.  Hashem told Moshe to tell the people that he spoke lashon ha'ra against them by questioning their belief, וְהֵן֙ לֹֽא⁠־יַאֲמִ֣ינוּ לִ֔י, and was punished for doing so.  That the people would undoubtedly believe because they have a track record of people trying to harm them getting punished.

(Isn't it incredible that the people would believe that Moshe was punished by Hashem on the spot for speaking lashon ha'ra against them while at that very moment Pharaoh was seemingly was getting away with physically enslaving them while suffering no punishment?  Isn't it also incredible that the people assumed that if Hashem stuck up for Sarah, a tzadakes and one of the Imahos, he would also stick up equally for them?)

R' Shneur Kotler has a beautiful insight on this episode.  One of the famous disputes in hil lashon ha'ra revolves around the issue of confessing to someone that you slandered them.  The  Chofetz Chaim held that if someone speaks lashon ha'ra against an innocent party and that party doesn't don't know about it, you have to tell them what was done and apologize in order to do teshuvah.  R' Yisrael Salanter disagreed with this psak.  The innocent party, said R' Yisrael, will only feel worse if he hears that he has been slandered.  The speaker's need to do teshuvah does not give him the right to cause more pain to the innocent party, even if well intentioned.  Halacha l'maaseh, we follow R' Yisrael (listen here  at about the 5:45 mark or see here  footnote 21). 

Given that background, why in our parsha did Hashem tell Moshe to go and announce to Bn"Y that he had doubted them and spoken against them?  Isn't that gufa what R' Yisrael Salanter wanted us to avoid?  Just like R' Yisrael Salanter did not see the speaker's need to do teshuvah as an adequate "matir" to allow him to cause pain to others by divulging his wrongdoing, here too, why was the need for Moshe to prove his bona fides an adequate "matir" to allow him to tell Bn"Y that he had slandered them?  Surely Hashem could have come up with another sign that would allow Moshe to prove himself to the people!

One should not have the misimpression that Bn"Y's willingness to believe in the shlichus of Moshe was not subject to an iota of doubt, and it's just Moshe who had a hang up and raised the issue of  וְהֵן֙ לֹֽא⁠־יַאֲמִ֣ינוּ לִ֔י.  Aderaba, the exact opposite would seem to be correct.  Had you asked Joe Ploni, the man on the street, before Moshe came along, whether Bn"Y would believe Moshe's message, his money would be on Bn"Y showing him the door.  No one would take your bet otherwise, as it was a sure thing.  The chiddush of the parsha is that even Moshe Rabeinu, even the adon ha'neviim who had such deep insight, even Moshe the great kateigor and defender of the Jewish people, even he also saw the people's disbelief as a sure thing too.

Had Hashem not responded in the way He did, every Joe Ploni  would think that he is right in thinking that the people lack faith.  No one would know otherwise! Therefore, Hashem did not just respond to Moshe privately, but rather instructed Moshe to reveal the response, his being stricken with tzaraas because he doubted Bn"Y, to all.  Hashem needed to teach everyone, from Joe Ploni to Moshe Rabeinu, that they were all wrong, that emunah was baked in the DNA of Klal Yisrael, and that should never be questioned or doubted.  Even if the strongest microscope can't find it, even if the greatest navi can't see it, Hashem is mechadesh to us in this parsha that it's there.  Our job is to find it and reveal it.

There is yet another chiddush here as well.  A person might think, "So what if I am a cynic and don't give the people the benefit of the doubt?  Who am I hurting?"  The end of Rashi lumps together those who would doubt the Jewish people together with  כגון: פרעה ואבימלך בשביל שרה, our enemies.  It's not just some kind of lack of middas chassidus.  To doubt, or even to sit on the fence and remain neutral -- waiting to be convinced -- is dangerous and harmful.  

A person who is afflicted with tzaraas is a metzora, which Chazal tell us is a combination of the words motzi- ra.  The slanderer brings out the bad in people.  Moshe, as the case with everyone else, did not see the emunah latent within Klal Yisrael.  He was therefore given the mission, which is out mission as well, of bringing out that goodness, of revealing otherwise.

inner strength

 Chazal tell us that Doeg was a gadol ha'dor, a brilliant talmid chacham, but his Torah was מן השׂפה לחוץ (Sanhedrin 106b).  It was all external trappings, but did not penetrate his soul.  Moshe Rabeinu, on the other hand, was the same on the inside as on the outside.  The Torah writes regarding the aron (Shmos 25:11) וצפית אתו זהב טהור מבית ומחוץ תצפנו, to plate it with gold on the inside, מבית, as well as on the outside.   בְּכׇל בֵּיתִי נֶאֱמָן הוּא Moshe was faithful not just on the outside, for show, but even מבית, even on the inside, throughout the depths of his being. 

The gemara in Taanis tells the story of חוני המעגל who people turned to to pray for rain.  Said Choni, בניך שמו פניהם עלי שאני כבן בית לפניך.  The reason Choni's tefilos were answered is because he had this midah of being faithful through and through, both on the inside, מבית -- he was  כבן בית -- and not just on the outside (Yismach Moshe).

I wanted to add my two cents that with this approach we can understand what the Torah tells (Shmos 1:21) us about the midwives of Bn"Y in Mitzrayim who refused to obey Pharoah's order to drown the babies:  וַיְהִי כִּי⁠ יָרְאוּ הַמְיַלְּדֹת אֶת⁠ הָאֱלֹקים וַיַּעַשׂ לָהֶם בָּתִּים  Through their yiras Shamayim the midwives built up their inner strength -- מבית -- and fortitude.

Did Bnei Ephraim try to leave Egypt early?

In sefer Tehillim (78:9) there is an allusion to a battle fought and lost by Bnei Ephraim, בְּנֵי אֶפְרַיִם נוֹשְׁקֵי רוֹמֵי קָשֶׁת הָפְכוּ בְּיוֹם קְרָב.  Rashi quotes from Chazal that the Bnei Ephraim tried to leave Egypt early and were attacked and killed:

בני אפרים – שיצאו ממצרים בזרוע לפני הקץ ובטחו בגבורתם ובחציהם וסופם הפכו לנוס ביום קרב, כדמפורש בדברי הימים

I think that this Chazal is fairly well known, but less well known is the fact that al pi peshuto, it is not accepted by all.  In Divei haYamim I 7:21 we read:

 וְזָבָד בְּנוֹ וְשׁוּתֶלַח בְּנוֹ וְעֵזֶר וְאֶלְעָד וַהֲרָגוּם אַנְשֵׁי⁠ גַת הַנּוֹלָדִים בָּאָרֶץ כִּי יָרְדוּ לָקַחַת אֶת⁠ מִקְנֵיהֶם

Radak comments:

ולפי דעתי כי ״הנולדים בארץ״ שב לבני אפרים; ולפי שזכר בבני אפרים הנולדים במצרים, והם בניו ובני בניו כמו שאמ׳ ״וירא יוסף לאפרים בני שלשים״ (בראשית נ׳:כ״ג), אמ׳ כי בני אפרים הנולדים בארץ – שהוליד הוא בארץ – ירדו לארץ גת לקחת מקניהם והרגום אנשי גת. וזה היה במדבר; כי בארץ ישראל לא יכול להיות, לפי שאמ׳ ״ויתאבל אפרים אביהם ימים רבים״ (להלן פס׳ כב), ואפרים לא נכנס לארץ, כי לא נכנסו מיוצאי מצרים מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה כי אם יהושע וכלב (במדבר י״ד:כ״ט-ל׳). לפיכך אני אומר כי המעשה הזה היה במדבר או בארץ הגלעד, ועדין אפרים חי; כי זה יכול להיות, כי מכיר בן מנשה היה מכובשי ארץ גלעד (יהושע י״ז:א׳), והנה בני מכיר בן מנשה ילדו על ברכי יוסף (בראשית נ׳:כ״ג). ומה שמוכיח הפיר׳ הזה, כי תמצא מספר בני אפרים בצאתם ממצרים כשנמנו במדבר סיני בשנה השנית ארבעים אלף וחמש מאות (במדבר א׳:ל״ג), וכשנמנו בכניסתן לארץ בערבות מואב בשנת הארבעים לא היו אלא שנים ושלשים אלף וחמש מאות (במדבר כ״ו:ל״ז); ואלו שמונת אלפים שחסרו במדבר הם שהרגו בני גת.

According to Radak, this episode of Bnei Ephraim being killed took place after yetzi'as Mitzrayim while Bn"Y were wandering in the desert.  Interestingly, according to Radak, Ephraim himself was alive still and mourned the death of his grandchildren. This stands in contrast to the Chazal that teaches that the shibud in Egypt started only after all the shevatim died.

The Daat Mikra (ibid) quotes a fascinating comment of R"Y haChassid on the pasuk  כִּי תִקְרֶאנָה מִלְחָמָה וְנוֹסַף גַּם הוּא עַל שֹׂנְאֵינוּ וְנִלְחַם בָּנוּ וְעָלָה מִן הָאָרֶץ.  According to R"Y haChassid, there were members of Bn"Y that stayed behind in Eretz Yisrael while the rest of the family went down to Egypt.  These stragglers worked the land, raised crops, and helped support their brethern in Egypt.  At some point the Bnei Ephraim attempted to build up communities on the border between Egypt and Israel to join these two communities together, and it was the fear of the internal Jewish community uniting with the community outside the borders of Egypt that concerned Pharoah.  R"Y haChassid then quotes a R' Yitzchak mi'Russia who explained that the community in Israel paid a tax to their brothers in Egypt, and the conflict with Pharoah started when Pharoah tried to divert this tax to his own treasury. In either case, it is the failed attempt to link the community in Egypt with that in Eretz Yisrael which the pesukim are referring to. 

to act or not to act -- Moshe's internal deliberations

 וַיִּ֤פֶן כֹּה֙ וָכֹ֔ה וַיַּ֖רְא כִּ֣י אֵ֣ין אִ֑ישׁ וַיַּךְ֙ אֶת־הַמִּצְרִ֔י.  Rashi explains that Moshe saw that there was no one worthy, no "ish," who would come out of this Mitzri, and so he killed him.  The Netziv, however, learns the the "ish" referred to here is someone of authority.  Moshe was looking around him to see whether there was someone he could report this crime to, e.g, a police officer.  Was there a 911 to report a crime in progress and get someone to stop it?  Netziv writes וירא כי אין איש – להגיד לפניו את העול, כי כולם עצרת בוגדים ושונאי ישראל.  Cries of anti-semitism fell then, as now, on deaf ears.  When that happens, the only solution is  וַיַּךְ֙ אֶת־הַמִּצְרִ֔י, because if no one else is going to defend you, at least defend yourself.  

Abarbanel sees Moshe as internally conflicted:

ויפן כה וכה וירא כי אין איש שחשב משה מחשבות מצד אחד ראה שאין ראוי לעשותו כי מה לו ולצרה ההיא ואולי שהמצרי יהרוג אותו. ומצד אחר ראה שהאדם המעולה הבט אל עמל לא יוכל ושבמקום שאין אנשים ראוי שישתדל להיות איש וזה אמרו ויפן כה וכה שהן שתי הבחינות שזכרתי

On the one hand, why get involved?  On the other hand, how can unjustice be ignored?

וירא כי אין איש רוצה לומר שלא יקרא משה איש ואמיץ לבו בגבורים אם לא שינקום דמי אחיו ולכן ויך את המצרי  When the opportunity for action presents itself, one can seize the moment, albeit the cost or danger involved, or one can turn away and forever lose that chance for greatness, to become an "ish."  Moshe chose the former path and this set him on his way to become a leader.

It is certainly not pshat, but I wonder if the pasuk here is derech remez perhaps alluding to the Chazal quoted by Rashi at the beginning of Matos  משה נתנבא בכה אמר ה׳ כחצות הלילה וגו׳ (שמות י״א:ד׳), והנביאים נתנבאו בכה אמר, מוסף עליהם משה שנתנבא בלשון זה הדבר.  Moshe was foresaw וַיִּ֤פֶן כֹּה֙ וָכֹ֔ה both how the brutality of Egypt would lead to the end game of makkas bechoros, as well as perhaps the fact that everyone else was on the level of כה but he felt pulled to do more and rise above that.

I found a similar interpretation to Abarbanel in the Oznayim laTorah later in the parsha.  When Moshe encounters the shepherds who were harassing Yisro's daughters, the pasuk tells us (2:17)  וַיָּ֤קׇם מֹשֶׁה֙ וַיּ֣וֹשִׁעָ֔ן.  Why do we need the extra word וַיָּ֤קׇם here?  Rav Sorotzkin explains that the Torah is alluding to what was going on in Moshe's head and the dilemma he faced.  Moshe had gotten involved when he saw the Egyptian striking a Jew; he had gotten involved when he saw two Jews fighting with each other.  Look where it got him!  He was now an outlaw with a price on his head.  Why make the same mistake a third time, especially under these circumstances where he was a wanted man and could not afford the notoriety?  On the other hand, who else would step in to help if he were to walk away?  וַיָּ֤קׇם מֹשֶׁה֙, Moshe pushed himself to take action even though there was that voice in his head warning him that he was asking for trouble and perhaps endangering his own life.

According to Netziv, I understand why there is a וַיִּ֤פֶן כֹּה֙ וָכֹ֔ה before Moshe acted.  If only there had been someone to take responsibility, he would not have had to resort to vigilante justice.  Taking matters into your own hands is not a li'chatchila.  But according to Abarbanel, why record this inner turmoil of Moshe's?  Is it  למעליותא that Moshe had to think about whether to get involved or not?    

I think it is למעליותא.  Any hot head can jump into every fight without regard to the consequences.  That's who they are.  They are not being heroic -- they just enjoy conflict.  What the Torah here is telling us is that that's not who Moshe was.  Moshe had to deliberate before jumping into the fray. There is a וַיִּ֤פֶן כֹּה֙ וָכֹ֔ה, considering the options and consequences before taking action.  That too is a sign of great leadership. 

long term vision

At the end of the parsha, after so many years of slavery, just as Moshe appeared on the scene and geulah was around the corner, rather than things getting better for Bn"Y, they actually got worse.  Instead of being provided with the straw needed to make bricks, Pharoah ordered that nothing be given, but he demanded the same output of bricks.  R' Avraham ben haRambam writes (5:19):

וכאן הגיע סוף קישוי השעבוד כי מרה תהיה באחרונה וכמו כן יש בכלל הכתובים כי בקץ הצרה בגלות זו שאנחנו בתוכה יקל מעלינו אמר הכתוב בצר לך ומצאוך וג׳

This is how geulah is meant to unfold, as many other parshiyos and pesukim tell us.  Things get worse before they can get better.  Don't feel bad if this is surprising, because Moshe Rabeinu himself did not expect things to work out that way.  Ramban asks: why was Moshe perplexed לָמָה הֲרֵעֹתָה לָעָם הַזֶּה when Hashem had already forewarned him that Pharoah would not give in, וַאֲנִי יָדַעְתִּי כִּי לֹא⁠ יִתֵּן אֶתְכֶם מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם לַהֲלֹךְ וְלֹא בְּיָד חֲזָקָה?  He quotes Ibn Ezra's answer:

כי חשב משה כי מעת דברו אל פרעה בשליחות השם יקל מעליהם ויחל האלקים להצילם, והנה פרעה הכביד והרע, וזה טעם למה הרעותה, כי זה הפך מה שאמרת לי: ראה ראיתי את עני עמי (שמות ג׳:ז׳), וארד להצילו (שמות ג׳:ח׳)

Moshe thought that even if Pharoah would hold out and the end of galus would not come immediately, there would still be some change in Klal Yisrael's fortune and things would at least begin to turn around.  Instead, the opposite happened.

Ramban rejects this interpretation.  איננו נכון בעיני, בעבור שאמר והצל לא הצלת, ואין ההצלה רק יציאתם מן הגלות.  Moshe's concern, according to Ramban, was whether geulah was at hand or not.  That's the meaning of הצלה -- not just a betterment of circumstance.  Parenthetically, this gives a whole new meaning to Yaakov's prayer in VaYishlach  הַצִּילֵנִי נָא מִיַּד אָחִי מִיַּד עֵשָׂו.  See Chizkuni there:

 הצילני נא – אמ׳ ר׳ אל[י]עזר (פרקי דרבי אליעזר מח) ה׳ אותיות כפולות בתורה. מנצפ״ך. ובכולן נגאלו. כ״ף. בו נגאל אברהם שנ׳ אשר הוצאתיך מאור כשדים (בראשית טו:ז) לך לך כו׳ (בראשית יב:א). [מ״ם. בו נגאל יצחק שנ׳ לך מעמנו כי עצמת ממנו מאד (בראשית כו:כז)] נו״ן. בו נגאל יעקב שנ׳ הצילני נא. פ״א. בו נגאלו ממצרים שנ׳ פקוד פקדתי (שמות ג:טז). צד״י (צד״י). עתידין ישראל להגאל שנ׳ איש (צדיק) [צמח שמו] ו[מ]תחתיו יצמח (זכריה ו:יב)

Rashi comments on  עַתָּה תִרְאֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶעֱשֶׂה לְפַרְעֹה that Moshe was punished for his question.  

הרהרת על מדותיי, לא כאברהם שאמרתי לו: כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע (בראשית כ״א:י״ב), ואחר כך אמרתי לו: העלהו לעלה (בראשית כ״ב:ב׳), ולא הרהר אחריי. לפיכך עתה תראה – העשוי לפרעה תראה, ולא תראה העשוי לשבעה מלכי אומות כשאביאם אל הארץ.

Rav Zevin explains the midah k'neged midah here.  Moshe saw only the immediate problem before him, the suffering.  He did not appreciate that this was necessary for the process of geulah.  (Bn"Y were supposed to be in Egypt for 400 years, but Hashem compacted the suffering and slavery into a shorter time frame in order to get to the finish line faster.)  Therefore, Moshe was not in a position to witness the wars necessary to conquer Eretz Yisrael.  Only someone with long term vision can appreciate how the battles and wars would ultimately lead to the final goal.

Chazal tell us that Moshe corrected this sin at shiras Yam Suf:

דָּבָר אַחֵר, אָז יָשִׁיר משֶׁה, הֲדָא הוּא דִּכְתִיב (שיר השירים ד, יא): נֹפֶת תִּטֹּפְנָה שִׂפְתוֹתַיִךְ, אָמַר משֶׁה רִבּוֹן הָעוֹלָמִים בַּמֶּה שֶׁחָטָאתִי לְפָנֶיךָ בּוֹ אֲנִי מְקַלֶּסְךָ. אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי בַּר חִיָּא מָשָׁל לִמְדִינָה שֶׁמָּרְדָה עַל הַמֶּלֶךְ וְאָמַר הַמֶּלֶךְ לַדֻּכָּס שֶׁלּוֹ נֵלֵךְ וְנִלָחֵם בָּהּ, אָמַר לוֹ דֻּכָּס אֵין אַתָּה יָכוֹל, הֶחֱרִישׁ הַמֶּלֶךְ וְהָלַךְ בַּלַּיְלָה בְּעַצְמוֹ וּכְבָשָׁהּ. יָדַע דֻּכָּס עָשָׂה עֲטָרָה וְהֵבִיא לַמֶּלֶךְ, אָמַר לוֹ הָעֲטָרָה הַזּוֹ לָמָּה, אָמַר בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁחָטָאתִי בְּדָבָר וְאָמַרְתִּי לְךָ אֵין אַתָּה יָכוֹל. כָּךְ אָמַר משֶׁה לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁחָטָאתִי לְפָנֶיךָ בְּאָז, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות ה, כג): וּמֵאָז בָּאתִי אֶל פַּרְעֹה, וַהֲרֵי טִבַּעְתָּ אוֹתוֹ לַיָּם, לְכָךְ אֲנִי מְשַׁבַּחֲךָ בְּאָז, הֲדָא הוּא דִּכְתִיב: אָז יָשִׁיר משֶׁה. בֹּא וּרְאֵה דֶּרֶךְ הַצַּדִּיקִים בַּמֶּה שֶׁהֵם סוֹרְחִים הֵם מְתַקְּנִים, הֱוֵי: נֹפֶת תִּטֹּפְנָה שִׂפְתוֹתַיִךְ כַּלָּה,

Rashi comments that אז ישיר is written in the future rather than the present tense because אמרו רבותינו: מכאן רמז לתחיית המתים מן התורה.  Az yashir represents the ultimate long term view toward the future.  Moshe was not singing just for the here-and-now, but was singing for eternity.  

"zeh lecha ha'os" -- the sign Moshe was given

Moshe was reluctant to assume the mantle of leadership.  He said to G-d:

 וַיֹּ֤אמֶר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־הָ֣אֱלֹקים מִ֣י אָנֹ֔כִי כִּ֥י אֵלֵ֖ךְ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה וְכִ֥י אוֹצִ֛יא אֶת־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִמִּצְרָֽיִם

The Midrash comments:

רִבּוֹן הָעוֹלָמִים, כְּשֶׁיָּרַד יַעֲקֹב לְמִצְרַיִם לֹא כָּךְ אָמַרְתָּ לוֹ:: אָנֹכִי אֵרֵד עִמְּךָ מִצְרַיְמָה וְאָנֹכִי אַעַלְךָ גַּם עָלֹה (בראשית מ״ו:ד׳), וְעַכְשָׁיו אַתָּה אוֹמֵר לִי: לְכָה וְאֶשְׁלָחֲךָ אֶל פַּרְעֹה, לֹא אָנֹכִי הוּא שֶׁאָמַרְתָּ לוֹ: וְאָנֹכִי אַעַלְךָ גַּם עָלֹה

Moshe said to G-d, "You promised that you would be with the people in their exile and that you would redeem them.  I am not you!  It is not my place to take on this task."

To which G-d answered,  כִּֽי־אֶֽהְיֶ֣ה עִמָּ֔ךְ.  I, אָנֹ֔כִי, am the redeemer, but I will act through you.  

The pasuk (3:21) then continues that Hashem gave Moshe a sign:

 וְזֶה־לְּךָ֣ הָא֔וֹת כִּ֥י אָנֹכִ֖י שְׁלַחְתִּ֑יךָ בְּהוֹצִֽיאֲךָ֤ אֶת־הָעָם֙ מִמִּצְרַ֔יִם תַּֽעַבְדוּן֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֱלֹקים עַ֖ל הָהָ֥ר הַזֶּֽה׃

How does this sign help Moshe prove his bona fides or prove that G-d is with him?  The fact that mattan Torah will take place 50 days after yetzias Mitzrayim will not help Moshe up front, before yetzi'as Mitzrayim takes place, when he has to convince the people to follow him?!

Meshech Chochma and Ohr haChaim say an amazing pshat here.  You have to put the period in the right place in the pasuk.  וְזֶה־לְּךָ֣ הָא֔וֹת כִּ֥י אָנֹכִ֖י שְׁלַחְתִּ֑יךָ -- period, full stop.  This is the sign!  What is the "this" they are talking about?  It's the previous sentence.  There are a lot of people who, if offered the chance to become the leader of a nation, would jump at the chance.  There are people who would demur, but out of a false sense of humility.  That works when you are speaking to a human being, but it does not work when you are speaking to G-d, as He is able to tell exactly what is in your heart and can tell whether you really want the job or not.  False modesty does not work.  It's only a Moshe Rabeinu who can say b'lev shalem, with sincerity and in absolute truth, מִ֣י אָנֹ֔כִי כִּ֥י אֵלֵ֖ךְ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה, I really don't think I am worthy of the job. Hashem told Moshe, "That is the only sign you need."  People can detect true humility and sense sincerity.  They will recognize that only someone of your caliber, only someone who would turn down the job, could possibly be the one chosen by Hashem.

The proof that humility is the quality that defines who the go'el is בְּהוֹצִֽיאֲךָ֤ אֶת־הָעָם֙ מִמִּצְרַ֔יִם תַּֽעַבְדוּן֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֱלֹקים עַ֖ל הָהָ֥ר הַזֶּֽה. The same זֶה, the same humility, that characterized Moshe's response, is the same זֶה -- the mountain of הָהָ֥ר הַזֶּֽה--  that made Har Sinai into the mountain where mattan Torah would take place.  As Chazal tell us, it's not because Har Sinai was the tallest or greatest mountain that it was chosen; it's because it was the lowest mountain, symbolizing the humility necessary to be a conduit of dvar Hashem.

what Moshe did to merit seeing the burning Moshe

When Moshe sees the burning bush, he turns towards it to see what is going on.  

וַיַּ֥רְא ה׳ כִּ֣י סָ֣ר לִרְא֑וֹת  וַיִּקְרָא֩ אֵלָ֨יו אֱלֹקים מִתּ֣וֹךְ הַסְּנֶ֗ה וַיֹּ֛אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֥ה מֹשֶׁ֖ה וַיֹּ֥אמֶר הִנֵּֽנִי׃

As a result, a Hashem appears and calls to him.

What's so special about Moshe turning to see what's going on that elicits this call from Hashem to make him the leader of Klal Yisrael?  Wouldn't any of us who came across an inexplicable phenomenon, הַמַּרְאֶ֥ה הַגָּדֹ֖ל הַזֶּ֑ה מַדּ֖וּעַ לֹא־יִבְעַ֥ר הַסְּנֶֽה, come closer to take a look?

Says the Midrash:

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק, מַהוּ כִּי סָר לִרְאוֹת – אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא סָר וְזָעֵף הוּא זֶה לִרְאוֹת בְּצַעֲרָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמִצְרַיִם,

It's not Moshe's turning his attention to look at the burning bush which the pasuk is referring to; it's referring to Moshe's having turned his attention to the suffering of his bretheren in Mitzrayim.  The words סָר לִרְאוֹת is talking about what we read in the previous chapter (2:11),  וַיִּגְדַּ֤ל מֹשֶׁה֙ וַיֵּצֵ֣א אֶל־אֶחָ֔יו וַיַּ֖רְא בְּסִבְלֹתָ֑ם.

The tnai rishon to be zocheh to see hashra'as haShechina, to be zocheh to וַיִּקְרָא֩ אֵלָ֨יו אֱלֹקים, is to first open your eyes and see the suffering and needs of your fellow Jew.

Mi Anochi?

When Hashem charged Moshe with the mission of acting as the go'el of Bnei Yisrael, Moshe responded (3:11)

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־הָ֣אֱלֹקים מִ֣י אָנֹ֔כִי כִּ֥י אֵלֵ֖ךְ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה וְכִ֥י אוֹצִ֛יא אֶת־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִמִּצְרָֽיִם

To which Hashem responded:

וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ כִּֽי־אֶֽהְיֶ֣ה עִמָּ֔ךְ וְזֶה־לְּךָ֣ הָא֔וֹת כִּ֥י אָנֹכִ֖י שְׁלַחְתִּ֑יךָ בְּהוֹצִֽיאֲךָ֤ אֶת־הָעָם֙ מִמִּצְרַ֔יִם תַּֽעַבְדוּן֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֱלֹקים עַ֖ל הָהָ֥ר הַזֶּֽה

How does that answer the question?  How does the fact that there will be a kabbalas haTorah serve as a response to מִ֣י אָנֹ֔כִי? 

Moshe later complained that Bn"Y will not believe his message (4:1)

וַיַּ֤עַן מֹשֶׁה֙ וַיֹּ֔אמֶר וְהֵן֙ לֹֽא־יַאֲמִ֣ינוּ לִ֔י וְלֹ֥א יִשְׁמְע֖וּ בְּקֹלִ֑י

Why did he doubt them?  Yosef had told them before he died (Braishes 50:24)

 וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יוֹסֵף֙ אֶל־אֶחָ֔יו אָנֹכִ֖י מֵ֑ת וֵֽאלֹקים פָּקֹ֧ד יִפְקֹ֣ד אֶתְכֶ֗ם וְהֶעֱלָ֤ה אֶתְכֶם֙ מִן־הָאָ֣רֶץ הַזֹּ֔את אֶל־הָאָ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר נִשְׁבַּ֛ע לְאַבְרָהָ֥ם לְיִצְחָ֖ק וּֽלְיַעֲקֹֽב

The people had this tradition that the use of the code words פָּקֹ֧ד פָּקֹ֧דתי would be a sign that the go'el was legitimate.  So why would they not believe if Moshe had the right code?

R' Mordechai Greenberg, the nasi ha'yeshiva of Kerem b'Yavneh, explains based on the writings of R' Kook, that  Bn"Y is singled out from the nations of the world in two respects: 1) we are a moral, law abiding people, not like the primitive tribes of the past; 2) we have a spiritual connection with Hashem beyond what other nations have.  Even if other nations attain culture, abide by laws, become civilized, and become our equal with respect to #1, we still excel above them with respect to #2.

This double-blessing is the meaning of Hashem's promise to Yaakov (Braishis 46:4) 

אָנֹכִ֗י אֵרֵ֤ד עִמְּךָ֙ מִצְרַ֔יְמָה וְאָנֹכִ֖י אַֽעַלְךָ֣ גַם־עָלֹ֑ה

The double-אָנֹכִ֗י is a two fold promise.  One is the promise that Hashem will be with Bn"Y even in the tumah of Mitzrayim and preven them from descending to the level of primitiveness and lawlessness of a backward society. Secondly, there is the promise that redemption will bring them close to Hashem, to spiritual heights like no other people have reached.

And this is the meaning of the promise of פָּקֹ֧ד פָּקֹ֧דתי, also doubled.  A redemption that just releases the people from the chains of bondage without giving their lives spiritual content and meaning is insufficient -- the go'el must deliver both.  

This was Moshe's challenge to Hashem.  "You Hashem promised אָנֹכִ֗י אֵרֵ֤ד עִמְּךָ֙ מִצְרַ֔יְמָה וְאָנֹכִ֖י אַֽעַלְךָ֣ גַם־עָלֹ֑ה.  That role can only be fulfilled by You, but מִ֣י אָנֹ֔כִי, I or any other human being cannot be that אָנֹ֔כִי." 

And this is why Moshe doubted that the people would believe.  There was no magic to saying the right code words.  Those words reflected the double promise, the promise of both physical and spiritual redemption.  That is what Moshe thought he would be unable to fulfill.  To break the shackles of slavery is one thing, but to give the nation a spiritual identity -- that's a different story.

Hashem's response to Moshe is that indeed He is the One who will fulfill the promise of אָנֹכִ֖י אַֽעַלְךָ֣, but it will be done through Moshe, כִּֽי־אֶֽהְיֶ֣ה עִמָּ֔ךְ.  

The culmination of that promise of אָנֹכִ֖י אַֽעַלְךָ֣ will take place at Sinai, where the people will hear אָֽנֹכִ֖י֙ ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ אֲשֶׁ֧ר הוֹצֵאתִ֛יךָ מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרַ֖יִם מִבֵּ֣֥ית עֲבָדִֽ֑ים.   

shenayim mikra or pesukei d'zima -- which takes precedence

The Baal haTurim has a cute remez on the first pasuk of the parsha about the importance of shenayim mikra v'echad targum (=Shmot).

An interesting question that was posed to R' Shach: l'chatchila shenayim mikra is supposed to be done before seudas shabbos.  When R' Shmuel David Munk, who went on to become Av Beis Din in Haifa, was a bachur in the yeshiva he was behind in shenayim mikra, and because of scheduling, would not have time to finish before the seudah.  He asked whether it would it be better for him to skip pesukei d'zima (except for maybe ashrei and nishmas) and do shenayim mikra in the time gained since m'dina d'gemara most of pesukei d'zima is not obligatory but shenayim mikra is, or should he not change the tzurah of tefilah?

R' Shach paskened that shenayim mikra takes precedence; the Chazon Ish disagreed.  (see here and here #129)  

from 'ki yarei l'habit' to 'temunas Hashem yabit'

The Midrash writes that because Moshe was afraid to look at G-d's presence in the burning bush, וַיַּסְתֵּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ פָּנָ֔יו כִּ֣י יָרֵ֔א מֵהַבִּ֖יט אֶל האלקים (3:6), he was rewarded with being zocheh to  וּתְמֻנַ֥ת ה׳  יַבִּ֑יט (BaMidbar 12:8).

R' Izelele m'Volozhin asks why Moshe not wanting to look at Hashem's presence is such a big deal and worthy of reward.  It is basic yiras shalayim to be afraid, to be in awe of G-d, when one is standing directly in His presence.  

In order to understand what our pasuk means we need to review some definitions.  Back in parshas Lech Lech (12:8)Hashem told Avraham to look at the stars, as his descendants will be as numerous as they are.  וַיּוֹצֵ֨א אֹת֜וֹ הַח֗וּצָה וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ הַבֶּט־נָ֣א הַשָּׁמַ֗יְמָה וּסְפֹר֙ הַכּ֣וֹכָבִ֔ים  Rashi there quotes a Midrash: דבר אחר: הוציאו מחללו של עולם והגביהו למעלה מן הככבים, וזהו לשון הבטה – מלמעלה למטה.  The word הַבֶּט, says Rashi, always means looking down from on high.  Hashem raised Avraham above the heavens so that he was looking down on the entire universe of stars.

We once discussed this point in the context of the story at the end of Chukas of the snake that Moshe put on a staff so that anyone who looked at it would be healed from the bite of poisonous snakes.  It seems strange and almost smacks of avodah zarah to have people look toward an image for a cure -- what's going on?  

Look carefully at what Moshe told the people: וְהִבִּ֛יט אֶל־נְחַ֥שׁ הַנְּחֹ֖שֶׁת וָחָֽי (baMidnbar 21:9)  The whole point is not to look up to avodah zarah, but on the contrary, to look down on it.  The word הַבֶּט, again, always means looking down from on high.  We are better than the avodah zarah and stand higher than it.

Hashem in our parsha appeared to Moshe in a low bush because עמו אנכי בּצרה, the Shechina suffers along with us.  If Klal Yisrael are downtrodden slaves, the Shechina itself is kavyachol low and humbled as well.  Bnei Yisrael cried out to Hashem in pain from their work and their suffering, but what they failed to see and cry over was the pain of the Shechina that was suffering along with them.  

The gadlus of Moshe was that he could not bear to see the Shechina so low, so reduced, while he remained standing.  כִּ֣י יָרֵ֔א **מֵהַבִּ֖יט** אֶל האלקים .  He could not stand to be on a higher plane looking down, הַבֶּט, on G-d's presence.  

As we explained once before, when Hashem said  וּתְמֻנַ֥ת ה׳  יַבִּ֑יט, Hashem was telling Aharon and Miriam that they do not compare to Moshe.  When they see an ordinary Jew,  someone who of course is on a lower madreiga than they are, they see all that person's faults and shortcomings.  When Moshe, who stood head and shoulders above everyone else in ruchniyus, sees an ordinary Jew, especially a Jew who is in trouble and in pain, he sees תְמֻנַ֥ת ה׳  יַבִּ֑יט, he sees the presence of the Shechina below him and cannot bear its suffering.  

What our Midrash is telling us is that those same antenna of Moshe that were attuned to the suffering of the Shechina here at the burning bush were also attuned to the suffering of the Shechina within each Jew, and that is what made him the greatest of our prophets.

asura na -- turning toward or away from the burning bush?

1)  וּבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל פָּר֧וּ וַֽיִּשְׁרְצ֛וּ וַיִּרְבּ֥וּ וַיַּֽעַצְמ֖וּ בִּמְאֹ֣ד מְאֹ֑ד וַתִּמָּלֵ֥א הָאָ֖רֶץ אֹתָֽם

Wouldn't it be grammatically more correct to say  וַתִּמָּלֵ֥א הָאָ֖רֶץ מהם and not וַתִּמָּלֵ֥א הָאָ֖רֶץ אֹתָֽם?  (See Netziv)

In kri'as shema we pledge to serve Hashem "b'chol levavcha u'bchol nafshecha ub'chol m'odecha."  Chazal darshen that "b'chol m'odecha" means with all of your money, no matter how high the price of kosher food or how much the tuition bill is.  R' Simcha Sofer explains the word "me'od" in our pasuk the same way.  פָּר֧וּ וַֽיִּשְׁרְצ֛וּ וַיִּרְבּ֥וּ וַיַּֽעַצְמ֖וּ בִּמְאֹ֣ד מְאֹ֑ד means that Bnei Yisrael grew wealthy living in Egypt.  They weren't living in cramped apartments on the Lower East Side of Raamses anymore.  They had moved up in the world and had luxurious homes like we have in the 5 Towns, baruch Hashem.  Having a kosher pizza store was not thrilling any more.  Now, it was steak houses and butchers that offered prime cuts of beef on every corner.  

וַתִּמָּלֵ֥א הָאָ֖רֶץ אֹתָֽם, "artziyus," mundane pleasure, as opposed to "ruchniyus," is what filled people's lives  This, of course, is a recipe for spiritual disaster and what leads to a deeper, darker galus.

2) Later in the parsha, Moshe sees the burning bush, and he says  אָסֻֽרָה־נָּ֣א וְאֶרְאֶ֔ה אֶת־הַמַּרְאֶ֥ה הַגָּדֹ֖ל הַזֶּ֑ה, "Let me turn away from where I am and go see this amazing sight."  Rashi comments: אסרה – מכאן להתקרב שם.  What does Rashi add to our understanding of the pasuk here?  Is he just translating the word אסרה ?  And before we even get to Rashi, I ask you: don't you always have to move away from where you are now to get someplace else, wherever it may be?  Why does the pasuk itself need to mention אסרה ?

The Taz answers that this second question is what Rashi is coming to answer. להתקרב שם does not mean in the physical sense of coming in closer proximity to the burning bush.  Moshe obviously saw the bush where he was standing, so he didn't need to move in order to see it.  What להתקרב here means is to draw spiritually closer.  Moshe discerned that the burning bush was something miraculous that he was being called to.  You can't just walk up to something like that with all your baggage of chol, of "artziyus," of mundane life.  אסרה – מכאן להתקרב שם  You have to leave all that behind in order להתקרב שם, to draw closer to a spiritual place   There is a sibah and m'sovev here, a cause and effect, between אסרה and להתקרב, not just a chronological sequence of events.  

Perhaps Rashi explains אָסֻֽרָה as Moshe moving away from where he was and moving toward the burning bush because he is coming l'afukei the pshat of the Tzror ha'Mor, who says that it means exactly the opposite.  Moshe thought himself but a simple shepherd who lacked the ability to apprehend a great spiritual manifestation like the burning bush.  Therefore, says the Tzror haMor, he said to himself אָסֻֽרָה־נָּ֣א, let me turn away for now.  Perhaps one day in the future, וְאֶרְאֶ֔ה אֶת־הַמַּרְאֶ֥ה הַגָּדֹ֖ל הַזֶּ֑ה, I might be able to see and appreciate such a sight.  Yet paradoxically, precisely because he turned away, precisely because of his humility, G-d called Moshe back to witness the revelation of His presence,  וַיַּ֥רְא ה׳  כִּ֣י סָ֣ר לִרְא֑וֹת וַיִּקְרָא֩ אֵלָ֨יו אלקים מִתּ֣וֹךְ הַסְּנֶ֗ה.  

3) Moshe was supposed to go to Pharoah with the leaders of Klal Yisrael and declare (3:18) ה׳ אלקי הָֽעִבְרִיִּים֙ נִקְרָ֣ה עָלֵ֔ינוּ .  Rashi comments: נקרה עלינו – לשון מקרה.  G-d "happened" to appear to us, like an accidental meeting.  The Meforshei Rashi ask: Rashi in sefer VaYikra (1:1) writes that this term of "mikreh," happenstance,  is used when describing G-d's revelation to non-Jews like Bilam, but to Moshe and our prophets the term used is "vayikra," a calling, an intentional invitation to speak 

 לכל דברות ולכל אמירות ולכל ציווים קדמה קריאה, זו לשון חיבה, לשון שמלאכי השרת משמשין בו: וקרא זה אל זה (ישעיהו ו׳:ג׳). אבל לנביאי אומות העולם נגלה עליהם בלשון גנאי ועראי, בלשון טומאה: ויקר אלהים אל בלעם 

Why then does our pasuk use this term?

Maharal answers: הכי פירושו, שאמרו לו ״אלהי העברים נקרה עלינו״ בארץ מצרים בטומאה, לפי שכל הארץ מלאה גילולים, לכן ״נלכה במדבר דרך ג׳ ימים״ כדי שיהיה נקרה עלינו בקדושה  

The word "nikrah" is used here because this revelation took place in Mitzrayim, a land filled with tumah and idolatry.  In that environment, any revelation of G-dliness is only a haphazard, temporary affair.  That is why, Moshe was told to tell Pharoah, they needed leave to go outside Mitzrayim to properly worship Hashem.  

Even in galus, a person can experience moments of inspiration -- a great davening, a great shiur, a meaningful chessed project.  But those do not make for a **life** of inspiration.  Those moments of uplift are נקרה עלינו – לשון מקרה, haphazard, almost chance encounters.  

milah done by a katan

Shitas haRambam (Milah 2:1) is that a katan can do milah.  Where did the Rambam get this from?  R' Chaim Kanievski cites the gemara (A"Z 27) that tries to prove that a woman can do milah from the fact that Tziporah did milah.  The gemara rejects the proof and says maybe Tziprah asked someone else to do the milah, not that she did it herself.  Who else could she have asked who was Jewish, says R' Chaim, other than her other son Gershom, who was a katan?    

(Parenthetically, as for how a katan can have kavanah for the mitzvah [as the Minchas Chinuch asks], see the Chelkas Yoav 1:33 who writes that mitzvos tzerichos kavanah only applies when the mitzvah is a one time act, not when it is a 'peulah ha'nimsheches' like milah is.)

R' Ben Tzion Aba Shaul quotes a kashe that was asked to R' Chaim on this.  We learned 2 weeks ago that according to shitas haRambam all future descendants Keturah, not just her immediate children, are chayav in milah.  If so, maybe Tziporah asked one of the bnei Keturah to do the milah, not her own son?

R' Chaim answered by quoting a Mes Sofrim that says that when Avraham banished the bnei Keturah, they were imprisoned somewhere and could not escape, and so they could not have been present with Tziporah.  R' Ben Tzion Aba Shaul quotes gemaras that seem to not assume like that Midrash.

Based on the chakirah of R' Erlanger in his Birchas Avraham that we discussed, the kashe is not a kashe.  Yesh lachkor: is the pasuk that is mechayeiv the bnei Keturah in milah a new din, or an extension of the chiyuv milah given to Klal Yisrael?  If it is a new din, then the bnei Keturah cannot be mal someone from Klal Yisrael, as the chiyuv milah is not the same chiyuv, even if it is the same act.

what it takes to be a leader

The Yalkut Shimoni (Shmos ch 3) writes:

 וּמֹשֶׁה הָיָה רֹעֶה, כְּתִיב (תהלים י״א:ה׳) ״ה׳ צַדִּיק יִבְחָן״, אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק, בַּמֶּה בּוֹחֵן אֶת הַצַּדִּיקִים, בְּמִרְעֶה. דָּוִד נִבְחָן בְּמִרְעֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״מֵאַחַר עָלוֹת הֵבִיאוֹ לִרְעוֹת בְּיַעֲקֹב עַמּוֹ״. [עָמוֹס] נִבְחָן בְּמִרְעֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (עמוס ז׳:ט״ו) ״וַיִּקָּחֵנִי ה׳ מֵאַחֲרֵי הַצֹּאן״. אַף מֹשֶׁה נִבְחָן בְּמִרְעֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וּמשֶׁה הָיָה רֹעֶה.

Hashem tests tzadikim to see if they are worthy of leading Klal Yisrael before he turns over the reins to them.  How does he test them?  By seeing how they behave as shepherds.  If they can manage a flock of sheep, then Hashem turns over his flock of Klal Yisrael to them.

Let's look back at how Moshe got that job of being a shepherd.  Moshe was a prince in Egypt, but he threw away his position and intervened when he saw a Jewish slave being abused.  Pharoah wanted to kill him, so he was forced to flee.  When he got to Midyan, he saw the shepherds there treating the daughters of Yisro unfairly, and once again he intervened to set things right and stand up for the underdog when no one else would.  

None of that was sufficient to earn him the job of leader of Klal Yisrael.  Yet if a little sheep ran off on its own away from the flock and Moshe had to chase it down and carry it back, that proved that he was fit to be the leader of Klal Yisrael.  

It's not the one time act of heroism or bravery that proves someone has what it takes to lead.  It's the day in and day out show of caring in doing what seems like a mundane and thankless job that proves it.  (from R' Nissim Yagen)

persecution is a symptom, not the problem

 וָאֵרֵ֞ד לְהַצִּיל֣וֹ׀ מִיַּ֣ד מִצְרַ֗יִם וּֽלְהַעֲלֹתוֹ֮ מִן־הָאָ֣רֶץ הַהִוא֒ אֶל־אֶ֤רֶץ טוֹבָה֙ וּרְחָבָ֔ה אֶל־אֶ֛רֶץ זָבַ֥ת חָלָ֖ב וּדְבָ֑שׁ אֶל־מְק֤וֹם הַֽכְּנַעֲנִי֙ וְהַ֣חִתִּ֔י וְהָֽאֱמֹרִי֙ וְהַפְּרִזִּ֔י וְהַחִוִּ֖י וְהַיְבוּסִֽי׃

A number of meforshim ask the following question (I took this quote from Maor vaShemesh) in one form or another:

 גם מה לבשר להם תיכף שביאתם תהי לארץ טובה זבת חלב הלא לעת כזאת רב להם אם ינצלו מהעבודה הקשה אשר עובד בם

Klal Yisrael was suffering bitterly under Egyptian slavery.  They were not looking to be brought to a land of milk and honey -- they were just looking for a day that they did not have to wake up and face an Egyptian taskmaster holding a whip over their heads.  Why did Hashem introduce the plan for them to enter Eretz Yisrael  now?  Why not leave that discussion until after the exodus?

One can interpret the question in two ways: 1) Psychologically -- if the goal is to give Klal Yisrael hope to sustain them, then it would be enough to tell them that their slavery would end.  There was no need to add the cherry on the cake of coming to Eretz Yisrael.   2) Existentially -- the response to the threat against Jewish well being should be to save them from danger.  Why introduce coming to the land into the mix?

The answer, I think, can be gleaned from modern Jewish history.  In 1903, when the sixth World Zionist Congress met, Herzl introduced a proposal that neatly caused a rift in the entire Zionist movement.  Russian Jews were in immanent danger; anti-semitism was rampant.  The dream of a homeland in Israel seemed exactly that -- a dream.  So Herzl proposed that they look elsewhere in the interim, to establish a colony in Uganda or some other territory that could be more easily attained, and in this way provide a means of escape for those Jews whose lives were on the line.

רָאֹ֥ה רָאִ֛יתִי אֶת־עֳנִ֥י עַמִּ֖י

וָאֵרֵ֞ד לְהַצִּיל֣וֹ׀ מִיַּ֣ד מִצְרַ֗יִם

Let's talk about saving Jews and put this Israel thing on the back burner.

Herzl's proposal was ultimately rejected.  There were pragmatic flaws that would render the whole plan moot, but what is more significant is the ideological opposition to it.  

Writing a few decades later, Ben Tzion Dinur, who would become one of Israel's education ministers, wrote, "Zionism is a revolution against Exile, a declaration of war on it  The first requirement for victory is to know the enemy, {which is} Jewish life in Exile" (quoted in We Stand Divided - The Rift Between American Jews and Israel, by Daniel Gordis, p61, as translated by Gordis). 

Yetzi'as Mitzrayim is the template for geulah.  Therefore, it is critical, as Dinur wrote, "to know the enemy," to define what geulah hopes to achieve and overcome.  The enemy is not slavery or persecution; redemption is not about getting a respite from work or a respite from being beaten up.  That is but a partial solution, a stop along the way.  Those afflictions are but symptoms of the underlying disease.  The only way to truly fix the cycle that repeats itself over and over during our history in exile, i.e. we find safe heaven in a country for a few decades, maybe even a few centuries, persecution starts, eventually we get kicked out and are forced to take up home elsewhere, and then the process repeats itself all over again, is for us to come back to our own homeland.  

Yes, Hashem could have told Moshe to tell the Jews in Egypt that their suffering would be alleviated and left it at that and the people would have been happy.  But the Torah wants to give us more than that -- it wants to give us the recipe to fix the underlying problem, not just a bandaid.  That can only be done by our return to Eretz Yisrael.  

you can't ignore the little things

You would think after all the pleading Hashem does back and forth with Moshe to get him to accept the role of being the shliach to bring geulah to Klal Yisrael, Hashem would at least let the trip to Egypt go smoothly.  Yet the Torah tells us that's not how it worked out right from the get-go .  Moshe and wife stopped at a hotel along the way, and because he did the check-in, or maybe unloaded the luggage before giving a milah to Eliezer, a malach came and tried to kill him.  It would be like a baseball team that wines and dines a prospect in order to sign him, and then after finally reaching an agreement after some very tense negotiations, on the first day the player shows up at the clubhouse the team gives him a fine for some petty offense.  You worked so hard to get this player in order to boost your club -- why risk upsetting the apple cart over some minor infraction?

The lesson, says R' Shlomo Amar, is that we don't cut corners on the road to geulah.  The end, no matter how important, does not justify not taking the time to make sure to dot the i's and cross the t's and do all the little things right.

We have the same idea in the story of Yehudah and Tamar.  Tamar's children are the progenitors of moshiach.  Yet, when Tamar is being taken to be burned, she does not blurt out that Yehudah is the father of her children.  She simply says that whoever claims the signet ring and other property left with her is the father.  What if Yehudah had not stepped forward to accept responsibility?  

Tamar recognized that you can't take the shortcut of being malbin pnei chaveiro b'rabim and get to mashiach.  The end, no matter how great, does not justify ignoring "niceties" and treating others poorly.

the power of a name

 At the burning bush Hashem told Moshe that he saw the suffering of Bnei Yisrael (3:7):

 רָאֹ֥ה רָאִ֛יתִי אֶת־עֳנִ֥י עַמִּ֖י אֲשֶׁ֣ר בְּמִצְרָ֑יִם וְאֶת־צַעֲקָתָ֤ם שָׁמַ֙עְתִּי֙ מִפְּנֵ֣י נֹֽגְשָׂ֔יו כִּ֥י יָדַ֖עְתִּי אֶת־מַכְאֹבָֽיו׃

What does it mean כִּ֥י יָדַ֖עְתִּי אֶת־מַכְאֹבָֽיו, I know their pain?  If the people are crying out in suffering, is it such a big kuntz to know that they are in pain?  

I assume this is what was bothering Rashi and elicited his comment  כי שמתי לב להתבונן ולדעת את מכאוביו ולא העלמתי עיניי לאטום אזני מצעק׳.  Meaning, the pasuk is not telling us just that G-d knew about the suffering, but it's telling us that G-d gave it his attention and could not ignore it.  That's no small thing.  We all hear about a lot of suffering these days.  Do we pay attention?  

Ibn Ezra explains: ואת צעקתם – ששומעים הכל, אני שמעתי.

ומה שיש בלבו – המכאוב אני ידעתי.

There is the pain people complain about that everybody knows about, but then there is the pain that is in people's hearts that they don't share with others.  Do any of us have an idea of how many people we may have bumped into in shul this morning who are suffering in business because of the pandemic but they go on with life as usual and don't show it?  How many people didn't sleep last night because they have a child looking for a shidduch, a kid who is heading off the derech, or a problem them can't resolve with their spouse?  The pasuk is telling us that Hashem was sensitive even to that pain that only he who can see into people's hearts can know.

We can maybe sharpen the Ibn Ezra's point a little bit with a diyuk of the Netziv.  The pasuk says that the people were crying out מִפְּנֵ֣י נֹֽגְשָׂ֔יו, because of the taskmasters forcing them to do work.  One of my kids cries out every day about how hard her life is -- when you are at a certain age having to get up and go to or zoom to classes and do a few chores appears to be Sisyphean labor.  Lot of people complain about their work and think their boss is a taskmaster; some of those complaints are more valid than others.  So the pasuk here ends כִּ֥י יָדַ֖עְתִּי אֶת־מַכְאֹבָֽיו׃, Hashem says, "I know in this case the people are **really** suffering."  It's not just the usual complaints you hear everyday, but it's something that hits at the core of who they are.

What's amazing is just two pesukim later the Torah seems to repeat the same thing:

 וְעַתָּ֕ה הִנֵּ֛ה צַעֲקַ֥ת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בָּ֣אָה אֵלָ֑י וְגַם־רָאִ֙יתִי֙ אֶת־הַלַּ֔חַץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר מִצְרַ֖יִם לֹחֲצִ֥ים אֹתָֽם׃

The meforshim all go bananas trying to explain the repetition - Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ramban, etc.  I wanted to share an idea from the Maor vaShemesh.  

Our sefer opens  וְאֵ֗לֶּה שְׁמוֹת֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל הַבָּאִ֖ים מִצְרָ֑יְמָה.  There seems to be a special emphasis not just on our knowing who came down to Egypt, but specifically on their names.  The Midrash comments:

וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל – עַל שֵׁם גְּאֻלַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל נִזְכְּרוּ כָּאן, רְאוּבֵן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: רָאֹה רָאִיתִי אֶת עָנִי עַמִּי (שמות ג׳:ז׳). שִׁמְעוֹן, עַל שֵׁם: וַיִּשְׁמַע אֱלֹהִים אֶת נַאֲקָתָם (שמות ב׳:כ״ד). לֵוִי, עַל שֵׁם שֶׁנִּתְחַבֵּר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְצָרָתָם (שמות ג׳:ב׳): מִתּוֹךְ הַסְּנֶה, לְקַיֵּם מַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר: עִמּוֹ אָנֹכִי בְצָרָה (תהלים צ״א:ט״ו). יְהוּדָה, עַל שֵׁם שֶׁהוֹדוּ לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. יִשָּׂשׂכָר, שֶׁנָּתַן לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שְׂכַר שִׁעְבּוּדָם, בִּזַּת מִצְרַיִם וּבִזַּת הַיָּם, לְקַיֵּם מַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ט״ו:י״ד): וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן יֵצְאוּ בִּרְכֻשׁ גָּדוֹל, זְבוּלֻן, עַל שֵׁם שֶׁהִשְׁכִּין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שְׁכִינָתוֹ בְּקִרְבָּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְעָשׂוּ לִי מִקְדָּשׁ וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹכָם (שמות כ״ה:ח׳), וְאֵין זְבוּלֻן אֶלָא בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: בָּנֹה בָנִיתִי בֵּית זְבֻל לָךְ מָכוֹן לְשִׁבְתְּךָ עוֹלָמִים (מלכים א ח׳:י״ג). וּבִנְיָמִן, עַל שֵׁם (שמות ט״ו:ו׳): יְמִינְךָ ה׳ נֶאְדָּרִי בַּכֹּחַ. דָּן, עַל שֵׁם: וְגַם אֶת הַגּוֹי אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹדוּ דָּן אָנֹכִי וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן יֵצְאוּ בִּרְכֻשׁ גָּדוֹל (בראשית ט״ו:י״ד). נַפְתָּלִי, עַל שֵׁם תּוֹרָה וּמִצְוֹת שֶׁנָּתַן לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהֶם: וּמְתוּקִים מִדְּבַשׁ וְנֹפֶת צוּפִים (תהלים י״ט:י״א). גָּד, עַל שֵׁם הַמָּן שֶׁהֶאֱכִילָם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁהוּא (שמות ט״ז:ל״א): כְּזֶרַע גַּד. אָשֵׁר, עַל שֵׁם שֶׁהָיוּ מְאַשְׁרִין אוֹתָן כָּל שׁוֹמְעֵי גְּאֻלָּתָן וּגְדֻלָּתָן, דִּכְתִיב: וְאִשְּׁרוּ אֶתְכֶם כָּל הַגּוֹיִם כִּי תִהְיוּ אַתֶּם אֶרֶץ חֵפֶץ אָמַר (מלאכי ג׳:י״ב) ה׳ צְבָאוֹת. יוֹסֵף, עַל שֵׁם שֶׁעָתִיד הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְהוֹסִיף וְלִגְאֹל אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמַּלְכוּת הָרְשָׁעָה כְּשֵׁם שֶׁגָּאַל אוֹתָם מִמִּצְרַיִם, דִּכְתִיב (ישעיהו י״א:ט״ז): וְהָיָה בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא יוֹסִיף ה׳ שֵׁנִית יָדוֹ וגו׳ וְכָל הָעִנְיָן.

Now, we know that Leah named Reuvain because she was thinking about Hashem seeing her problems, and the same with Shimon -- she was thinking about Hashem hearing her problems, etc.  She wasn't thinking about yetzias Mitzrayim.  Why would the Midrash connect the names of the shevatim from their birth to the events in Egypt?  

Here's the Maor vaShemesh:

 נ"ל כי ידוע שתורתינו הקדושה היא נצחיית וישנה בכל עת וזמן מחמת כי רוח הקודש הוא דבר שאין לה הפסק והגם כי בעת שנאמר רו"הק הוא על ענין שהוא באותו זמן אעפי"כ נתלבש באותו רו"הק ענין נצחיי וא"ס ולכן כמו כן בקריאת שם השבטים הגם שנקראו בשמות ע"ש המאורע כמבואר בהפסוקים מ"מ כיון שנקראו בשמות עפ"י רו"הק בוודאי שנתלבש בקריאת שמותם ענין נצחיי וזהו כוונת מאמרם ז"ל שהשבטים הוזכרו כאן ע"ש הגאולה ראובן ע"ש ראה ראיתי את עני עמי כו' וכן כולם והענין הוא כי כל אחד משבטים בבואם למצרים המשיך משרשו גאולת מצרים לעתיד לבוא ראובן המשיך ענין ראיתי את עני עמי וכן כולם שיראה ה' בעניות של ישראל וישמע צעקתם בהתחננם אליו ית"ש ויתחבר להם בכל צרתם לו צר כביכול וכמו שאמרו חז"ל שבזכות השבטים נגאלו ישראל וזהו פי' ואלה שמות בני ישראל הבאים מצרימה כו' ר"ל שבעת בואם למצרים אלה שמותם ע"ש ביאתם למצרים שנרמז בשמותם ענין המשכתם גאולות העתידות וזהו הבאים לשון הוה כי בכל הגליות זכות השבטים עומד לנו לגאלינו וזהו ואלה מוסיף על הראשונים היינו שנתוסף ענין קריאת שמותם ע"ש ביאתם למצרים להמשיך הגאולה על אשר מקודם

When Leah called her son b'ruach ha'kodesh (and every parent is given ruach hakodesh when it comes to naming their children) the name Reuvain because Hashem saw her suffering, she may have had a particular event in her life in mind, but ruach ha'kodesh is nitzchiyus, is about eternity.  By calling her child Reuvain, Leah implanted in his identity, in his name, the power of Hashem to see human suffering, no matter what the suffering, no matter what the time or place.  

וְאֵ֗לֶּה שְׁמוֹת֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל is not about the person Reuvain or the person Shimon, but rather it's that call to Hashem to see human suffering = Reuvain, to hear our cries = Shimon, to feel our pain = Levi, which the Torah wants to tell us came to Egypt with us, and is always in fact with us.  

Our pasuk, עַתָּ֕ה הִנֵּ֛ה צַעֲקַ֥ת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בָּ֣אָה אֵלָ֑י, is not speaking about the cries of the people being hit by the taskmasters or the pain of being forced to struggle in slavery -- that was 2 pesukim ago.  What the Torah here is telling us here is that Hashem finally now -- וְעַתָּ֕ה-- long after the those tefilos were offered, long after the names of the shevatim were given, heard the prayers implicit in those names.  The call to Hashem to see suffering, as embodied in the name Reuvain, the call to Hashem to hear the cries of pain embodied in the name Shimon, etc. was now finally realized.

more on who gets the credit for the good deed

Yesterday we talked about the gemara that says the braying of Yaakov's donkey that alerted Leah to Yaakov's arrival home is the "cause" of Yisachar being born.  There is a Midrash in our parsha that has a similar idea, i.e. credit is given to something/someone that seems far removed from the person taking action.

When Moshe first arrived in Midyan, he stopped at the local well where he saw the daughters of Midyan being prevented from watering their sheep by the local shepherds.  Moshe intervened to help them.  Yisro was surprised when his daughters returend home earlier than expected, and they explained (2:19) that  וַתֹּאמַ֕רְןָ אִ֣ישׁ מִצְרִ֔י הִצִּילָ֖נוּ מִיַּ֣ד הָרֹעִ֑ים וְגַם־דָּלֹ֤ה דָלָה֙ לָ֔נוּ וַיַּ֖שְׁקְ אֶת־הַצֹּֽאן׃  The simple pshat in the pasuk is that when they said "ish Mitzri" they meant Moshe, who they thought was an Egyptian.  However, the Midrash explains:

אִישׁ מִצְרִי – מָשָׁל לְאֶחָד שֶׁנְּשָׁכוֹ הֶעָרוֹד וְהָיָה רָץ לִתֵּן רַגְלָיו בְּמַיִם, נְתָנָן לַנָּהָר וְרָאָה תִּינוֹק אֶחָד שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹקֵעַ בַּמַּיִם, וְשָׁלַח יָדוֹ וְהִצִּילוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ הַתִּינוֹק אִילּוּלֵי אַתָּה כְּבָר הָיִיתִי מֵת. אָמַר לוֹ לֹא אֲנִי הִצַּלְתִּיךָ אֶלָּא הֶעָרוֹד שֶׁנְּשָׁכַנִּי וּבָרַחְתִּי הֵימֶנּוּ, הוּא הִצִּילֶךָ. כָּךְ אָמְרוּ בְּנוֹת יִתְרוֹ לְמשֶׁה, יִישַׁר כֹּחֲךָ שֶׁהִצַּלְתָּנוּ מִיַּד הָרוֹעִים, אָמַר לָהֶם משֶׁה אוֹתוֹ מִצְרִי שֶׁהָרַגְתִּי הוּא הִצִּיל אֶתְכֶם, וּלְכָךְ אָמְרוּ לַאֲבִיהֶן אִישׁ מִצְרִי, כְּלוֹמַר מִי גָרַם לָזֶה שֶׁיָּבוֹא אֶצְלֵנוּ, אִישׁ מִצְרִי שֶׁהָרַג.

The Midrash compares Moshe's situation to someone bit by a wild donkey who runs to the river to put the wound in water and save himself.  At the river, the person sees a child drowning and saves the child as well.  The child thanks the man, but the man responds that it is the donkey that deserves the credit, because had he not been bitten, he would never have run to the river.  

So too, Moshe said that he doesn't deserve credit for intervening to help the daughters of Yisro, but rather it is the "ish Mitzri" that he killed in Egypt which led to his being forced to flee who deserves the credit. 

Again, credit seems to go to the "alarm clock," if you will.  Moshe could have walked away and not gotten himself involved in Yisro's daughter's situation.  Why should the Mitzri that caused him to flee and find himself on the spot get any credit for Moshe's choice to act?

I suppose the idea Chazal are trying to teach us here is that events that look bad on the face of things can ultimately lead to positive results.  If you think about it, the whole story of how Moshe came to meet Yisro's daughters seems unnecessary -- we don't learn much about Yisro from the episode or about his daughters, and we already know that Moshe is the type person who intervenes when he sees injustice being done.  Why include it?  Perhaps the whole point is to show on a micro level the good that can come out of a bad situation, which in turn may be telling us something about on the macro level about the galus in general.  As Sefas Emes writes in connection with the burning bush:

 אך זה באמת רצה הקב"ה להראות לו כי אדרבה לפי גודל החושך והגלות נסתר בו אור גדול גנוז והוא בחי' הגאולה. כי הגלות הוא סימן על הגאולה. וכפי רוב קישוי הגלות מורה על תוקף הגאולה. וז"פ הכתוב וכאשר יענו אותו כו' וכן יפרוץ. פי' הכתוב מתרץ עצמו אשר לא יהרהרו אחר הבורא ית' איך הניח לענות את עמו כ"כ כי כפי רוב העינוי כן יהי' אח"כ תוקף הגאולה:

The greater the darkness and difficulty, the greater the light that will emerge in the end.

Amram's separation from Yocheved -- B'hadei kavshei Rachamana lamah lach?

Yesterday I mentioned the gemara (Sota 12) quoted by Rashi that Amram divorced Yocheved because he did not want to have any more offspring given Pharoah's gezeira to kill all male babies.  When Klal Yisrael saw what Amram did, they followed suit.

Everyone is learning daf yomi these days, so Brachos 10 is inyana d'yoma: Chizkiyahu was on the verge of death and so Hashem sent the navi Yishayahu to go visit him and tell him that he is being punished for not fulfilling the mitzvah of having children (Since when is a bitul aseh a reason to be chavay misa?  Sorry, not my topic for now.)  Chizkiyahu argued that he cannot be blamed -- how can he have children when he knows that from him will come the wicked king Menashe?  Better to not have children then to bring such evil into the world!  Yishashayu, however, rejected that reasoning.  "B'hadei kavshei Rachamana lamah lach?"  Your job, Chizkiyahu, is to fulfill Hashem's command, not to make calculations and cheshbonos as to whether that will end up being a good thing or a bad thing.  Chizkiyahu relented.

Achronim ask how to fit this gemara together with the gemara quoted by Rashi.  Why should Amram have worried about how he can have children in light of the danger of Pharoah's decree?  "B'hadei kavshei Rachamana lamah lach?"  Our job is to just do the mitzvah, not make cheshbonos.

You don't need lomdus for this -- some basic chilukim are enough to answer the question.