This week, we begin Sefer Vayikra, the Book of Leviticus! And with that new beginning, I want to take the opportunity to dig deep into the hidden nuances of the first verse.
The verse is as follows:
וַיִּקְרָ֖א אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֑ה וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר ה׳ אֵלָ֔יו מֵאֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵ֖ד לֵאמֹֽר׃
And [God] called to Moses, and YHVH spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting saying:
Before we go any further, yes, there’s a small א at the end of the first word, and there are many explanations for it. You can check out some of these materials on it.
Ok, now that we’ve gotten that out of the way. What else is going on here?
There are two things, in particular, I want to draw your attention to:
First, the use of verbs. Namely, I’m referring to the use of three different verbs for what would seem to be the same thing. In this verse we see, קרא to call, דבר to speak, and אמר to say.
Why is that? Why is God calling and then speaking? What can we understand from the different verbs here?
Second, the choreography. God is speaking or calling to Moses, or both, from the Tent of Meeting. Is that where Moses was already? Did he have to go there? What happened in what order?
This is where the Talmud comes in. The rabbis ask similar questions as we do, and approach the answer in an interesting way. Let’s unpack it together.
“And [God] CALLED to Moses”
From Masechet Yoma, we learn:
The Master said that when the Torah says: “And God called to Moses,” it means that Moses and all of the Jewish people were standing and listening.
This supports the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said that when the Torah says: “And God called to Moses,” it means that Moses and all of the Jewish people were standing and listening and the verse comes only to accord deference to Moses.
Rabbi Elazar explains here that the use of the word call means that the entire Jewish people heard God’s call. In the story, for the most part, only Moses heard from God, so for the people to hear God’s call now is fairly important.
So, if Moses and the people all hear God’s call, according to Rabbi Elazar, why is Moses named specifically? Why didn’t the text say, “And God called to the people and Moses…” or “And God called the people, and spoke to Moses…” or something more specific? Why is Moses mentioned in the calling at all?
According to Rabbi Elazar, the verse, which does not reflect the reality of the moment it describes, mentions Moses specifically in order to honor Moses and his status.
This articulates two profound ideas:
Moses’ status needed to be honored beyond what he was already getting.
The Torah is a purposeful, crafted document, not an objective description of what actually happened.
However, that’s not the end of the story.
The Gemara raises an objection:
We knew it wasn’t going to be that easy.
“And [God] called TO Moses”
Before we go into the objection, I want to highlight the important grammatical element it hinges upon.
In our verse, the preposition אל is used. Generally translated as “to” it carries with it a sense of directionality and motion. Another preposition ל is also translated as “to” and is used to denote the recipient of the action. In some cases, they are used similarly, and in others, differently.
All we need to know for now is that in our verse, אל is used, but elsewhere ל is used to say something similar.
The Gemara raises an objection: The Torah could have said: He heard the voice speaking to (ל) him; however, instead the verse said: He heard the voice speaking unto (אל) him, indicating that the voice reached him alone. Therefore Moses alone heard God’s voice and all of the Jewish people did not hear it.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult.
This case, where everyone heard God’s voice, was at Sinai. That case, where Moses alone heard God’s voice, was at the Tent of Meeting.
Or if you wish, say instead an alternative resolution. This is not difficult; when God addressed Moses by calling to him, everyone heard; that which God subsequently communicated by speaking, Moses alone heard.
So what is happening here?
First, the Gemara reasonably asks about word choice. Why this preposition versus another? How does that change the meaning?
Because of the use of the preposition אל, the Gemara interprets that it must mean that only Moses heard God’s call, in contradiction to Rabbi Elazar before. The use of a directed preposition would definitely make us think that God is speaking TO Moses and not everyone else around him too, not to mention the fact that there’s no hint that everyone else was there to hear anyway.
This makes more sense based on the text itself, but this leaves us with the question, what about everybody else?
Here, the Gemara offers two possible answers:
Everyone heard God at Sinai before, but here, this was proximate to the Tent of Meeting, and therefore only Moses.
When God called Moses, everyone heard, when God spoke, only Moses heard.
This gives us a few possibilities: that everyone heard or only Moses heard. Either way, everyone has an option that works for them.
Personally, including everyone in the call makes very little sense practically, but alas, Rabbi Elazar and the Gemara didn’t consult me.
“From the Tent of Meeting”
The previous object does leave us with a question of logistics and choreography.
Rabbi Zerika raised a contradiction between verses before Rabbi Elazar, and some say that Rabbi Zerika said that Rabbi Elazar raised a contradiction:
It is written in one place: “And Moses was not able to enter into the Tent of Meeting because the cloud dwelt on it” (Exodus 40:35), as Moses was unable to enter the cloud.
And it is written elsewhere: “And Moses came into the cloud” (Exodus 24:18).
This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be God, grabbed Moses and brought him into the cloud since he could not enter on his own.
Rabbi Zerika, or Rabbi Elazar, raises a new issue from our singular verse.
In some places, Moses cannot enter the Tent of Meeting due to the Cloud, representing God’s presence, and in some places, Moses can enter.
So which is it?
The Gemara presents an interesting answer, God, godself, pulled Moses through the Cloud, which was otherwise impassable. However, that’s not the only option:
The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: There is a verbal analogy that resolves this contradiction.
It is stated here: “And Moses came into the cloud,” and it is stated below, in another verse: “And the children of Israel went into the sea on dry land” (Exodus 14:22);
Just as below, there was a path within the sea, as it is written: “And the water was a wall for them” (Exodus 14:22), here too, there was a path through the cloud, but Moses did not actually enter the cloud.
It wasn’t that God pulled Moses through the Cloud, God treated the cloud like the Red Sea, creating a safe passage for Moses to walk.
On the surface, this tells us that Moses was not already in the Tent. He needed to be called and supported on his way there.
“From the Tent of Meeting SAYING”
We have focused thus far on the logistics of this encounter, but the Talmud concludes this discussion with a different approach:
Why does the verse mention calling before speaking, and God did not speak to him at the outset?
The Torah is teaching etiquette: A person should not say anything to another unless he calls him first.
This supports the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Ḥanina said: A person should not say anything to another unless he calls him first.
According to the Gemara, the Torah is not just teaching us about this encounter with the Divine, we learn about human-to-human communication etiquette. We must draw one another’s attention by calling them before we can speak to them.
There is some sense to this, as there is nothing more annoying than speaking to someone and having them look at you and say, “what did you say?"
Rabbi Hanina already holds this view which is now supported by this verse.
The Talmud goes on to share another lesson of etiquette:
With regard to the term concluding the verse: “Saying,” Rabbi Musya, grandson of Rabbi Masya, said in the name of Rabbi Musya the Great:
From where is it derived with regard to one who tells another some matter, that it is incumbent upon the latter not to say it to others until the former explicitly says to him: Go and tell others?
As it is stated: “And the Lord spoke to him from within the Tent of Meeting, saying [lemor].”
The use of the word lemor, meaning “saying,” our final verb of the sentence, teaches us that we must keep one another’s privacy unless explicitly permitted to share.
Rabbi Steinsaltz suggests, “Lemor is a contraction of lo emor, meaning: Do not say. One must be given permission before transmitting information.”
However, I think it is more reasonable to suggest that instead of “do not say” which is the opposite of the text itself, that we must be given permission in a positive sense, “you may say this.”
Ok, now what?
There are a few important lessons we can learn from this single verse:
First, that a close reading of the Torah, truly all of the texts of our Tradition, can reveal lessons and insights that a quick read would miss. It is incumbent on us to take the time to dig deeper. Most of what the rabbis read into this verse isn’t there, barely hinted at, if you must give them an out. This is an invitation to read, like them, between the letters.
Second, we can understand that the Torah is a purposeful, crafted document. Regardless of the author or your theology of how it came to us, it is meant to teach us things. It is not just a description of events. Rabbi Elazar’s teaching that the Torah endeavored to honor Moses is evidence of this.
Third, the Torah cares about how we interact with each other. Whether it was Rabbi Hanina or Rabbi Musya who articulated one explanation or another, or you were inspired by something you read in the text, the rabbis are constantly reminding us that the Torah wants us to care about how we treat each other.
Finally, we remember that meaning is something we give as a reflection of our intent and our attention. Few things are inherently meaningful.
When we look at texts like this and exasperatedly look at the rabbis and shout, “none of that is in there!” To an extent, that’s true. On the other hand, we give it meaning, depth, power, and inspiration through our actions and our care.