It is stated in the Midrash (Sechel Tov Buber) in these words: "Who did not know Joseph"—meaning, he was ungrateful, as if he did not recognize Joseph and forgot all his kindnesses, who brought all the money to Pharaoh's house (Genesis 40:14), and bought them and their land for Pharaoh (Genesis 47:20), and now denied and betrayed him. And just as he denied Joseph, so he denied his Creator, for Joseph had told him, "What God is about to do, He has shown Pharaoh" (Genesis 41:28), and he said, "I do not know the Lord" (Exodus 5:2). Cursed are the wicked who are ungrateful, denying the one who does good to them, thus far.

Also, in Yaarot Devash (Part 1, Sermon 15), he pointed out Pharaoh's ingratitude—in relation to the Midrash's statement about him (Shemot Rabbah, Parsha 1, Siman 8), "Today, who did not know Joseph, tomorrow he will say, 'I do not know the Lord'" (Exodus 5:2)—and this is the language of Yaarot Devash: And this is the intention of the Midrash, "Who did not know Joseph, today he did not know Joseph, and tomorrow he will not know the Lord," and this is as we wrote, since he was so ungrateful and acted as if he did not know Joseph, who literally sustained all of Egypt, and without him, they would have perished in the famine, and gathered all the money that came to Egypt, and he was ungrateful to act as if he did not know. And if so, this bad trait will cause him to ultimately deny the Lord and not recognize that all kindnesses come from Him, being ungrateful and forgetting his Maker, and he will say, "The river is mine, and I have made it" (Ezekiel 29:3), and it is fitting that in the end, he said, "Who is the Lord that I should obey His voice." And so is the way of all those who walk in crooked paths, that their end is to deny the Lord. End of quote, see there further. And the Chida in Divrei Achadim brought these words and added much on the matter.

The Saba of Kelm (Chochma U'Mussar Part 1, Essay 22) also dealt with this matter, and this is his language: Joseph sustained all of Egypt for seven years, "and Joseph gathered all the money," and without him, they would have all died of hunger. Not only did they not die, but 'he gathered,' and it was brought to Pharaoh's house. Our father Jacob, peace be upon him, came to Egypt and was a great honor to Pharaoh and all of Egypt, as explained in Vayigash (second, verse 15), "And the voice was heard, etc., and it was good in the eyes of Pharaoh and in the eyes of his servants, etc., etc., and I will give you the best of the land of Egypt, etc." Also verse 20, "For the best of all the land of Egypt is yours." Is there a greater joy than what was for Pharaoh and all his servants? Also, one blessing from our father Jacob, peace be upon him, that he blessed the Nile that came to meet him and similar, that to this day the Nile raises itself and waters all the land of Egypt. Do you not see that even in his death it is said in Vayechi (sixth), "This is a great mourning for Egypt." And if Joseph had not sworn, Pharaoh would not have allowed him to be taken from Egypt. And afterward—"he did not know Joseph," and said, "Come, let us deal wisely," "and they were disgusted because of, etc.," and they enslaved them with hard labor, and threw their sons into the river, and in the end, even straw was not given to them. And it is explained in Midrash Rabbah (Parsha 5, Siman 19), when the Hebrew came to gather straw in the Egyptian field, he would strike his legs. See how ungrateful Pharaoh was, end of quote.

And the righteous genius Rabbi Eliyahu Lopian, of blessed memory, already noted in connection to this matter, that we see, even though Pharaoh was a murderer like no other, nevertheless, the sages did not see fit to call him Pharaoh the murderer, but Pharaoh the ungrateful.

Indeed, it seems that the matter requires much examination: what is the claim against Pharaoh for being ungrateful, when it is explicitly explained in the verse that his hostility towards the Israelites stemmed from concern for the safety of his people and land? As it is stated (Exodus 1:9-10): "And he said to his people, 'Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we. Come, let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply, and it come to pass that when there falls out any war, they also join our enemies and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land.'" This means that Pharaoh was compelled to oppress the Israelites and weaken their strength to prevent them from having the ability to fight against him and his people. Therefore, it is not ingratitude but rather fulfilling his duty to his people and land as a king and ruler.

Indeed, on the contrary, this teaches us that the obligation of gratitude is so great and immense that no calculation or argument in the world can free a person from it. Thus, if Pharaoh had not been ungrateful, he would not have considered oppressing and enslaving the Israelites due to any concern in the world.

Similarly, Maran Rabbi Aharon Yehuda Leib Shteinman zt"l wrote in "Eilat HaShachar," and this is his wording: "Who did not know Joseph" – Rashi explains, he acted as if he did not know. It implies that there was a claim against him for not remembering Joseph's kindness. Seemingly, since he saw that the Israelites were multiplying greatly, and later (verse 10) it is written that he feared that if war occurred, they would join to fight against them, should Pharaoh have waived this due to gratitude to Joseph for sustaining them during the famine, even if it meant losing control of the state?

It can be said that the Jews behaved properly, so why did Pharaoh fabricate accusations and suspect them of joining a war? It must be that he lacked gratitude, for only because he did not recognize the good, combined with his bad traits, did he imagine to such an extent that they wanted to rule. But if he had recognized the gratitude that Joseph saved them from famine and led the country without receiving anything special for it, he would not have reached the point of enslaving them harshly, decreeing that the males be thrown into the Nile, and slaughtering them to bathe in their blood, etc. All this resulted from a lack of gratitude.

Thus, our sages revealed to us that in truth, all these fears that when war would occur, the Israelites would join Egypt's enemies and fight against them were false fears and fabricated accusations that Pharaoh concocted in his heart. They revealed to us that what led him to this was the trait of ingratitude with which he was afflicted.

Go out and learn to what extent the disgrace of ingratitude reaches, from the words of the Da'at Zekenim from the Tosafists, who wrote, and this is their language: "A king arose" - this is the first Pharaoh. They said to him, come and join against this nation. He said to them, until now we have lived from them, how can we join against them? And he did not listen to them. They removed him from his throne for three months. When he saw this, he said to them, I will listen to you. Therefore, it is written 'a king arose.' End of quote. This means that Pharaoh himself was not devoid of the trait of gratitude, and on the contrary, he initially refused to heed the advice of his advisors and ministers who asked him to join against Israel, for the reason that 'until now we have lived from them,' and only after they forced him on the matter, and even removed him from his throne for three months, he was compelled to agree against his will - and yet the Sages did not judge him favorably in this, but called him 'ungrateful.' This shows us the extent of the disgrace of this trait, that it is better for a person to lose his kingdom than to deny the good of his fellow.

Another perspective on the severity of this matter is learned from the words of Maran the Gaon Rabbi Aharon Yehuda Leib Shteinman of blessed memory in Eilat HaShachar, and this is his language: "A new king arose" - Rashi explained, Rav and Shmuel, one said, truly new. And one said, his decrees were renewed. And behold, what Rashi explains about what is written later in the verse "who did not know Joseph," that the intention is that he made himself as if he did not know, is explained in Midrash Rabbah (Parsha 1, Sign 8) that this is only according to the one who said his decrees were renewed. And according to the one who said he is called 'new' because his decrees were renewed, we learn from this that a person who changes his conduct is considered a new person, and on Rosh Hashanah (16b) it is stated that changing one's name tears up a person's decree, and the Rambam (Chapter 2 of the Laws of Repentance, Law 4) wrote, "From the ways of repentance, etc., and changes his name, meaning, I am another and not the same person who did those deeds, and changes all his deeds for the better and the straight path." And it seems that the Rambam explains that the intention in changing the name is changing the conduct, and changing the name alone is not enough, but through changing the conduct he is considered a different person. End of quote. And we learn from his words that this bad trait of ingratitude is enough to call a person from the moment he adopts and holds it, 'new,' meaning, a new person, who has renewed for the worse...

And indeed, when we deepen our contemplation in the words of the Da'at Zekenim from the Tosafists, we will see that their words and the words of Rabbi Shteinman of blessed memory are one, for behold, Pharaoh the wicked, with his initial inclination to oppose the oppression of the people of Israel, as the Da'at Zekenim said, who argued to his advisors that there is ingratitude in this, and he only agreed to them after they forced him by removing him from his throne for three months, with all this, when he submitted and agreed to them, he no longer did it as one coerced by others and as if compelled by a demon, but harnessed himself to it with great desire and energy... And this is seemingly surprising, for since, as learned from the words of the Da'at Zekenim, Pharaoh did what he did only out of coercion and compulsion, he should have done it as one who comes to fulfill his obligation and no more, and how did his heart turn from one extreme to the other, from recognizing good to ungrateful cruelty. But necessarily the understanding in this is as the words of Rabbi Shteinman above, that ingratitude makes the one who holds it a new person, whose existence is a different existence, an existence that quickly and instantly degrades and lowers him to the lowest level, heaven forbid. And this is what happened to Pharaoh, that from the moment he submitted to his ministers and denied the good, immediately his previous existence was uprooted from him and he became a new existence, and in this new existence he pursued Israel to destruction with all his might and effort.

And as we have said about the great corruption that a person is corrupted by ingratitude, it is explained at length in Or Yahel by the righteous genius Rabbi Leib Chasman of blessed memory (Part 1, page 105).

And indeed, with contemplation on the matter, it seems that this trait of recognizing good, as well as its opposite, ingratitude, are interwoven like a thread throughout the sequence of events and matters, from Joseph's actions in Egypt, through Pharaoh's decrees, the redemption from Egypt in its details, and its remembrance for generations, as we shall see:

In the Parashat Vayigash, it is told (Genesis 47:20-22) how Joseph bought all the lands of Egypt for Pharaoh during the years of famine in exchange for bread given to the people, except for the lands of the priests, which he did not buy. The holy Shlah explains the reason for this (Parashat Vayigash, Derech Chaim, letter P) as follows: "Only the land of the priests he did not buy, etc. A person should not be ungrateful and should repay good for good, even to a non-Jew. The priests of Egypt did a favor for Joseph when his case was before them regarding the incident with Potiphar's wife. When they realized the truth was with him, they saved him from death, as stated in the words of our Rabbis (Targum Jonathan, Genesis 39:20), etc. Therefore, now he also did good to them."

This is found in Targum Jonathan (Genesis 39:14) regarding the incident of Joseph and Potiphar's wife: "And she threw the albumen of an egg on the bed and called the men of her house and said, 'See the semen that this Hebrew man, whom your master brought to us, came to mock us, came to lie with me, and I cried out with a loud voice.'" And what happened at the end of this plot is told in Targum Jonathan later (verse 20): "And Joseph's master took advice from the priests, who checked that it was albumen, and did not kill him, but put him in the prison where the king's prisoners were confined, and he was there in the prison."

This is the intention of the Shlah, that since Joseph was saved by the priests, he had gratitude towards them and rewarded them during the famine by not selling their lands. According to this, the phrase about Pharaoh 'who did not know Joseph' is interpreted in a new light, suggesting that Pharaoh did not recognize Joseph's trait of gratitude, and instead acted in its opposite, displaying terrible ingratitude.

Furthermore, we find with Joseph in his refusal of Potiphar's wife (Genesis 39:8-9): "But he refused and said to his master's wife, 'Behold, my master does not know what is with me in the house, and he has put everything he has in my hand. There is no one greater in this house than I, and he has not withheld anything from me except you, because you are his wife. How then can I do this great evil and sin against God?'" The Sforno writes about this: "This great evil – to repay evil for good." That is, in Joseph's eyes, the greatest evil possible is repaying evil for good – ingratitude.

Regarding the verse "who did not know Joseph," it is stated in Targum Jonathan and Targum Yerushalmi: "who did not have wisdom about Joseph and did not follow his customs." It seemingly requires explanation why they translated the knowledge of Joseph as 'wisdom' – 'who did not have wisdom' – what is the connection between knowing him and wisdom. They should have translated it as 'who did not recognize,' as they translated the verse (Genesis 42:8) "Joseph recognized his brothers, but they did not recognize him," since seemingly the knowledge mentioned here is also a form of recognition. Indeed, according to our words, it can be explained that it refers to the lack of gratitude towards Joseph, and therefore they translated it as a lack of wisdom, because gratitude depends on wisdom, as a fool, due to not understanding and not taking to heart that he received a favor, also does not recognize the favor.

This is also explained in the Midrash (Pesikta Rabbati section 12), and these are the words: Thus Rabbi Tanchuma opened in the name of Rabbi Aibo, as it is written (Psalms 32:9), "Do not be like a horse or a mule, without understanding, whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle, else they will not come near you." The Holy One, blessed be He, says to Israel: Israel, have understanding, do not be like a horse that has no understanding. What is the behavior of a horse? A person goes to put ornaments on it or to give it food, and it turns its neck and kicks, and so does the mule, but you should not be like that, rather have understanding, when you enter the land, remember to repay good for good, etc., "Do not despise an Egyptian, because you were a stranger in his land" (Deuteronomy 23:8), whether good or bad, you lived with them for many years, thus concludes the Midrash. Thus, the Holy One requests from Israel that they have 'understanding' to recognize good.

It is also stated at the beginning of the portion: "Joseph died, and all his brothers, and all that generation," and it is noticeable to the observer that there is an emphasis here, that not only Joseph died but also his brothers, and not only them but also all that generation. According to our words, it can be explained that the purpose of this emphasis is to draw attention to the fact that even though Joseph himself and all the people of that generation were no longer alive, nevertheless, the obligation of gratitude was upon Pharaoh – towards their descendants, and since he did not do so, he was ungrateful.

Another point: one of Pharaoh's decrees was, "Every son that is born you shall cast into the river" (later verse 22). It seems that Pharaoh wanted to show and demonstrate his denial of the good that Joseph the righteous did for his land during the famine, as Pharaoh, in his ingratitude, claimed that the river saved them and not Joseph, and therefore he decreed to kill the children of Joseph's people specifically in this manner of casting them into the waters of that river where he attributed his lies.

We will bring here what is written in the book Shofra D'Yisrael (Belozov, on the Torah page 81), that this event that happened to the people of Israel, that a king arose over them 'who did not know Joseph' and denied his good, was a punishment for the sale of Joseph. That is, as explained in the book of Chinuch (Mitzvah 33), the root of the commandment to honor one's father and mother is the matter of recognizing good: "It is fitting for a person to recognize and repay kindness to one who has done him good, and not be a scoundrel and ungrateful, etc. And he should consider that the father and mother are the reason for his existence in the world, and therefore it is truly fitting for him to do them all honor and benefit he can, for they brought him into the world, and also labored greatly for him in his youth." And behold, in the sale of Joseph, the tribes caused great sorrow to their father, who mourned for his son for many days, and in this, according to their high level, there was a flaw of ingratitude towards him, and therefore their children were punished by a Pharaoh who denied Joseph's good, thus are his words.

And it is possible to add a nice precision, that behold, we find in Joseph's words to his brothers, "He has made me a father to Pharaoh" (Genesis 45:8), and it turns out, therefore, that when Pharaoh denied his good and enslaved Israel, it was a form of denial of a father's good, and if so, it was truly measure for measure for the sin of selling Joseph, as even the aspect of ingratitude that was in this sin was towards a father – towards their father Jacob.

Within the story of the miracle of Moses' rescue from the basket in the waters of the Nile, it is told: "And the daughter of Pharaoh went down to bathe at the Nile, and her maidens walked along the Nile, and she saw the basket among the reeds and sent her maidservant to take it" (Exodus 2:5). The sages interpreted (Megillah 13a) that her purpose in going down to the Nile was to 'cleanse herself from the idols of her father's house.' It can be explained according to our way that the 'idols of her father's house' refer to the trait of ingratitude that prevailed in her father's house. To purify herself from this trait, she needed to bathe in the waters of the Nile specifically, because around the matter of the Nile, one of the prominent points of this ingratitude that her father was afflicted with was expressed. As we mentioned above, Pharaoh attributed the salvation of his land from famine to the Nile. Pharaoh's denial of the goodness of the Creator was also expressed in relation to the Nile, in his statement that we will bring below: "The Nile is mine, and I have made it for myself." Therefore, Batya went down to bathe at the Nile to declare that she was not like her father, but recognized the goodness of the Creator, the maker of the Nile, and the goodness of Joseph, through whom the salvation of the land of Egypt was brought about.

Additionally, it is possible that this is why Batya was destined to save a Jewish child from the waters of the Nile, to complete her purification from the idols of her father's house and his ingratitude, through an act that serves as a counterbalance to her father's ingratitude—a deed of kindness and goodness to a child of the Hebrews, whom her father cast into the waters of the Nile and enslaved their fathers, with terrible ingratitude.

When we further contemplate this matter of Batya and the act she did, we can find two additional expressions of gratitude: the first is the naming of Moses by this name. In the scripture (Exodus 2:10), it is explained that Batya, the daughter of Pharaoh, called him this because "I drew him from the water." It is indeed surprising why the Holy One, blessed be He, arranged that the name of our master Moses, the father of the prophets, the leader, and savior of Israel, would be determined by a foreign woman. Indeed, it is fitting, since the essence and root of the matter of the Egyptian exile are rooted in ingratitude, it was the will before Him, blessed be He, that the name of the redeemer who would save Israel from it would be based on the matter of gratitude. Therefore, his name was established as 'Moses,' as an acknowledgment of the good to Batya who drew him from the water and saved him.

The second is in Batya's own name, as it is stated in the Midrash that the Holy One, blessed be He, called her by this name, as an acknowledgment of the good for saving Moses. This is the language of the Midrash (Leviticus Rabbah 1:3), Rabbi Joshua of Sikhnin in the name of Rabbi Levi said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Batya, the daughter of Pharaoh, Moses was not your son, and you called him your son [as it is said, "and he became her son." Etz Yosef there], so you are not My daughter, and I call you My daughter, as it is said, "These are the sons of Batya," 'daughter of God.' Thus, Batya's name itself is based on gratitude, as the Holy One, blessed be He, acknowledged her goodness for raising Moses as her son.

It is fitting to bring here the words of Maimonides in his letter to his son (Letters of Maimonides): "And you, my son, should know that Pharaoh, king of Egypt, is truly the evil inclination. And all of Israel is also truly like a matter concerning human intellect, and you will understand this from the matter of the word and its composition. And Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, is the divine intellect. And Egypt as a whole is the body, meaning the body as a whole, the organs—the ministers, and the organs that are like servants to them and are the secondary matter, and the land of Goshen is the place of the heart." This means that the wicked Pharaoh is the matter of the evil inclination, denying goodness, while Moses our teacher is the opposite of this, the divine intellect, teaching us to recognize goodness.

It is also possible to consider this from another perspective, which may seem somewhat surprising: how is it possible that Moses, who grew up in Pharaoh's house, was the one through whom Pharaoh was struck with the ten plagues and the splitting of the Red Sea? Why was there no concern from God about a lack of gratitude? Indeed, it can be said, on the contrary, that to subdue Pharaoh's ungratefulness, a measure resembling ingratitude was needed, and this was fulfilled by Moses bringing the plagues.

However, even if this is true, it was only in this specific instance. Generally, the entire conduct related to the Exodus from Egypt was pure and free from any trace of ingratitude, and this was the main force in breaking Pharaoh's ungratefulness. Thus, we find in the plagues of blood and frogs, which struck the Nile, that they were specifically carried out by Aaron. As it is said in the plague of blood: "And the Lord said to Moses, 'Say to Aaron, take your staff and stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt...'" (Exodus 7:19). Similarly, in the plague of frogs: "And the Lord said to Moses, 'Say to Aaron, stretch out your hand with your staff over the rivers...'" (Exodus 8:1). Rashi writes (Exodus 7:19), "Say to Aaron – because the Nile protected Moses when he was cast into it, therefore it was not struck by him, neither in the plague of blood nor in the frogs, but was struck by Aaron."

In the plague of lice, we also find (Exodus 8:12) that the striking of the earth to produce lice was specifically by Aaron. Rashi writes there as well, "Say to Aaron – the earth was not worthy to be struck by Moses, because it protected him when he killed the Egyptian and buried him in the sand, and it was struck by Aaron." This shows the great care in the process of redemption to avoid any trace of ingratitude, even towards inanimate objects, because only in this way could Pharaoh's ungratefulness be broken.

Another expression of the issue of ingratitude in the redemption process can be seen in the fact that several of the plagues that God inflicted on the Egyptians were related to the Nile – the plague of blood was directly on the Nile. The frogs began from the Nile, with the staff stretched over it and the frogs emerging from it, and before the plague of wild animals, there was a warning to Pharaoh on the bank of the Nile. According to our understanding, this emphasizes that God's intention and purpose with the ten plagues was to subdue the Egyptian ungratefulness. Since Pharaoh's ungratefulness was a key aspect, it was fitting that the Nile, which embodied a significant part of Pharaoh's ingratitude, be struck. Pharaoh denied the goodness of Joseph, who saved Egypt during the famine, claiming that the Nile saved them. Moreover, in the end, he denied God's goodness, arrogantly saying, "The Nile is mine, and I made it."

Another instance of the concept of gratitude in the context of the Exodus from Egypt can be found in what is said in the Song of the Sea: "Horse and its rider He has thrown into the sea" (Exodus 15:1). At first glance, it is difficult to understand why, if the Egyptian horse rider sinned, the horse itself was condemned to be cast into the sea with him. Indeed, we previously mentioned the words of the Pesikta, which state that the nature of the horse is that it does not recognize gratitude. Therefore, according to our understanding that the Egyptians' sin was also related to this, it follows that they were punished by being cast into the sea, and it is fitting that their horses were included in their punishment, as it is just that the horse should be judged with its rider for its ingratitude, since it too is ungrateful like him.

It seems that for this reason, no verse in the Chapter of Song is dedicated to the horse, despite the fact that there are many verses in the Bible dealing with horses. Since the entire essence of the Chapter of Song is thanksgiving and gratitude, the horse, being ungrateful, has no place there.

Another point regarding the splitting of the Red Sea: The Torah describes how the Israelites stood by the sea before it split, with the sea on one side and their Egyptian pursuers on the other, and they were in great fear. It is stated there (Exodus 14:10-12): "And Pharaoh drew near, and the children of Israel lifted their eyes, and behold, the Egyptians were marching after them, and they were very afraid, and the children of Israel cried out to the Lord. And they said to Moses, 'Is it because there are no graves in Egypt that you have taken us to die in the wilderness? What have you done to us by bringing us out of Egypt? Is this not the word that we spoke to you in Egypt, saying, 'Leave us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians'? For it would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the wilderness.'" At first glance, it is puzzling, for the Egyptians were then 'graduates' of ten terrible plagues and were presumably very weakened, both physically and spiritually, while the entire Israelite community numbered six hundred thousand men aged twenty and above. So why did they not wage war against them? See Ibn Ezra (Exodus 14:13) who addressed this, saying, "Stand still and see the salvation of the Lord, for you will not fight, only see the salvation of the Lord which He will do for you today." It is surprising how a large camp of six hundred thousand people could fear those pursuing them, and why they did not fight for their lives and their children. See there for his explanation according to his approach.

Indeed, according to our understanding, it can be said that the people of Israel delved into the depths of the matter and understood that the root of Pharaoh's impurity was the issue of ingratitude. Therefore, they recognized and understood that it was impossible to defeat him through any conduct that contained even a trace of this impurity. Thus, they could not fight the Egyptians and harm them, because although the Egyptians were, and still are, their enemies in heart and soul, who enslaved them cruelly for hundreds of years, and even now came upon them with the intent to return them to slavery or kill them, nevertheless, within all this evil, there was also a little good, as the Israelites lived in their land. As it is said (Deuteronomy 23:8), "You shall not abhor an Egyptian, for you were a stranger in his land." It follows that in fighting the Egyptians and harming them, there would be a slight trace of ingratitude, a remnant of it, and in order not to touch any of this forbidden matter—which would make the victory over Pharaoh's impurity impossible—the Israelites refrained from fighting and harming them, but instead lifted their eyes to heaven in prayer.

It may even be said more sharply that their very abstention from this war, for the reason of gratitude, itself helped them to subdue and break the impurity of Egypt, which is ingratitude.

We are commanded to increase the telling of the Exodus from Egypt during the Passover Seder, as it is said in the Haggadah, "Whoever increases the telling of the Exodus from Egypt is praiseworthy." It seems that the purpose of this commandment is to uproot from within us the negative trait of ingratitude and to instill in us its opposite, the trait of gratitude, to recognize the goodness of the Holy One, blessed be He, who redeemed us and our ancestors. According to our understanding, there is an additional, deeper layer, where the essence of the Exodus from Egypt was to leave the hand of Pharaoh, whose nature is ingratitude, and to become grateful. Thus, by recognizing the good through the story, we strengthen, complete, and continue the essence of this Exodus from Egypt.

Indeed, even in the customs of the Passover Seder, we find several that aim to express gratitude to the Holy One, blessed be He, for redeeming us from Egypt: For example, regarding the custom of placing three matzot on the Seder plate, the Mordechai (Pesachim, hint 471) writes that three matzot are needed as a remembrance of the bread of thanksgiving, as it is said (Berachot 54b), four must give thanks, and one of them is one who is released from prison, and now they were also redeemed from the bondage of Egypt, and in the bread of thanksgiving, there were three types of matzah (Menachot 77a). Even though there were forty loaves in the bread of thanksgiving (ibid.), if one baked four loaves after the fact, he fulfilled his obligation (ibid. 76a), and three were from matzah and the fourth from leavened bread. Thus, the three matzot correspond to the three matzot required for the thanksgiving offering at least after the fact. It is explained that the root of this law is the expression of thanks and gratitude for the release from the prison of Egypt.

Regarding the four cups that must be drunk at the Seder, the Maharsha (Chiddushei Aggadot Berachot 54b) writes that they correspond to the four who must give thanks, which is also along the same lines.

See also the words of the righteous Rabbi Yerucham zt"l (Da'at Chochma U'Musar, Part 1, page 138), who elaborated on the matter of faith in the hidden, and that the existence of the hidden is not less than the existence of the revealed, and it may even surpass it. He explained that this is why we say in the Haggadah, "Therefore, we are obligated to thank... to the One who did all these miracles for our ancestors and us" – in a hidden language, and not 'Therefore, we are obligated to thank... to the Lord our God who did for our ancestors' – in a revealed language. This aligns well with our words, that the Passover Seder is a time when gratitude is a primary matter, and therefore it is appropriate to express gratitude even in a hidden language, whose importance is great as explained in his words.

We can connect and relate to the foundation of our words another prominent matter in the commandment of telling the Exodus from Egypt – that the main practical fulfillment of this commandment is based and founded on the recitation of the verses of the Bikkurim declaration, as we learned in the Mishnah (Pesachim, Chapter 10, Mishnah 4), "And expound from 'An Aramean tried to destroy my father' until he completes the entire section," as a brief examination of the order of the Haggadah shows. This matter requires an explanation, why the Bikkurim declaration was chosen to establish and found the main commandment of telling the Exodus from Egypt.

Indeed, according to our understanding, it can be explained, as the Kabbalists wrote, that the commandment of Bikkurim is a rectification for the sin of the first man with the Tree of Knowledge. They explained this based on what we learned in the Mishnah (Bikkurim, Chapter 3, Mishnah 1): "How do they separate the Bikkurim? A person goes down into his field and sees a fig that has ripened, a cluster that has ripened, a pomegranate that has ripened, ties it with a reed and says, 'These are Bikkurim.'" It seems necessary to understand why the Mishnah precedes the fig to the cluster and the pomegranate, and they explained that the Tanna holds like the one who says in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 70a) that the Tree of Knowledge was a fig, and therefore the Mishnah precedes it, to hint that the Bikkurim are a rectification for the sin committed with it.

We can add and explain this according to our understanding, that at the root of the sin of the Tree of Knowledge was also the matter of ingratitude, as Rashi wrote on the verse (Genesis 3:12) "And the man said, 'The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate'" – here he denied the good. Whereas the commandment of Bikkurim, its entire essence is the matter of gratitude, as we say in the Bikkurim declaration (Deuteronomy 26:3), "I declare today to the Lord your God that I have come to the land which the Lord swore to our fathers to give us," and Rashi explained: "And you shall say to him – that you are not ungrateful." If so, the words of the Kabbalists are well understood that this commandment is a rectification of the sin of the Tree of Knowledge, that the rectification of ingratitude is through the recognition of good.

From here we return to our matter, where we sought a reason to base the telling of the Exodus from Egypt on the verses of the Bikkurim declaration – indeed, according to our understanding and the above, it is well understood that since the foundation and purpose of the commandment of telling the Exodus from Egypt is the recognition of the goodness of the Holy One, blessed be He, it is fitting and proper to fulfill this by reciting the verses of the Bikkurim declaration, which are also about gratitude.

The fundamental and essential aspect of gratitude in remembering the Exodus from Egypt can be learned from the fact that even towards the animals that assisted the Israelites in their departure from Egypt, the Torah teaches us to act with gratitude:

Regarding the dog, we find in the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah, Parsha 31, Siman 9) the following language: "And flesh that is torn in the field you shall not eat; you shall throw it to the dog" (Exodus 22:30) – Why to the dog? The Holy One, blessed be He, said, you owe the dogs, for at the time I killed the firstborn of Egypt, and the Egyptians were sitting all night burying their dead, and the dogs were barking at them, but they did not bark at the Israelites, as it is said (Exodus 11:7), "But against any of the children of Israel, a dog shall not sharpen its tongue." Therefore, you owe the dogs, as it is said, "You shall throw it to the dog."

Indeed, regarding the dog, there is another angle related to gratitude – it is stated in the Gemara (Horayot 13a) that the dog recognizes its owner. That is, it is loyal to its owner because he provides it with its meager sustenance and guards it diligently day and night. Therefore, it can be said that for this reason, it was chosen from among other animals to assist in the Exodus from Egypt, as the trait of gratitude is intertwined with the root of the redemption from Egypt, and it is fitting to choose for this assistance an animal endowed with this trait.

This also adds emphasis to the words of the aforementioned Midrash, that for this reason, the Torah commanded to throw the torn flesh to the dog, as an expression of gratitude for its assistance during the Exodus from Egypt – the dog's recognition of gratitude increases the moral obligation to treat it with the same currency and acknowledge its contribution.

We also find gratitude towards another animal that assisted in the Exodus from Egypt, the donkey: it is stated in the Gemara (Bechorot 5b) in the following language, Rabbi Hanina said, I asked Rabbi Eliezer in the great study house, why are the firstborn of donkeys different from the firstborn of horses and camels [that we are only commanded to redeem the firstborn of a donkey, and not the firstborn of other impure animals]? He said to me, it is a decree of the scripture. Moreover, they assisted Israel at the time of their Exodus from Egypt, as there was not a single Israelite who did not have ninety Libyan donkeys loaded with the silver and gold of Egypt. Thus, we have gratitude towards the donkey.

We will conclude this matter with a most novel expression of gratitude – gratitude towards the Egyptians. Even though this has already been mentioned above, due to its novelty, it is worth emphasizing again. Thus, we are commanded (Deuteronomy 23:8), "You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were a stranger in his land." That is, even towards the wicked Egyptians, who enslaved us with terrible cruelty for several generations and harmed us greatly in many ways, nevertheless, we must feel a bit of gratitude towards them, since, after all, we were strangers in their land, as the language of the Pesiqta mentioned above states, "whether good or bad, you lived with them for several years."

It is possible that the purpose of this commandment is to distance us greatly from falling into and failing in this Egyptian trait, the trait of ingratitude, so that by adopting the opposite stance from them, to the extent that we recognize gratitude towards these wicked ones for having lived in their land, a deep aversion and repulsion from this bad trait will be engraved in our souls.

Let us now return to the matter we mentioned at the beginning of our discussion – that from denying the goodness of one's fellow, a person is liable to come to deny the goodness of the Creator, and from there to deteriorate until they come to deny the fundamental belief, God forbid. We brought in this context what is said in the Haftarah of our portion (Ezekiel 29:3): "Speak and say, thus says the Lord God: Behold, I am against you, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lies in the midst of his rivers, who has said, 'My river is mine, and I have made it for myself.'" This means that by coming to deny the goodness of the Holy One, blessed be He, by saying 'My river is mine,' which is a denial of the greatest goodness, for it is the Holy One who made the river from which all of Egypt's life flows – from this, he came to deny the fundamental belief, by saying 'I have made myself,' meaning that it was not the Creator who created me, but I made myself.

And what is the explanation for this deterioration from denying the goodness of the Creator to denying His existence? – The explanation is that denying goodness, even the goodness of a human being, is not possible unless the denier denies the very existence of the benefactor. Otherwise, how could he deny the goodness when he knows in his heart that the other has done good to him, and he cannot deny it? Indeed, it is easier for him to completely deny the very existence of the other, as is commonly said, 'I do not know you,' meaning, 'I do not recognize you,' and since he does not recognize his existence, the basis for recognizing his goodness is automatically removed. And the same applies to the Creator, that it is easier for a person to deny the very existence of the Blessed One, God forbid, and from this to deny His goodness, than to recognize and believe in Him and yet deny His goodness.

And here is the language of the Midrash Hagadol, "Who did not know Joseph" – and yet until this day Egypt knows the kindness of Joseph, but he knew and did not pay attention to it and denied his goodness, and in the end denied the goodness of the Holy One, as it is said (Exodus 5:2), "I do not know the Lord." From this, you learn that denying goodness is equated with denying the fundamental belief. Rabbi Avun said, to what is this similar? To one who took a stone and threw it at the icon of a duke, the king said, 'Behead him, now it is for the duke, tomorrow he will do it to me.' So the wicked Pharaoh, now 'did not know Joseph,' tomorrow, 'I do not know the Lord.' There is nothing more difficult in the world than an ingrate, for he causes goodness not to exist in the world, therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, warns Israel and says, "I am the Lord your God" (Exodus 20:2), be careful not to deny My goodness, for an ingrate cannot accept the kingdom of heaven. And so Joshua says to Israel, if you deny this goodness, you will not be able to serve the Lord, and they answer him, as it is said (Joshua 24:17), "For the Lord our God is He who brought us and our fathers up from the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage, and who did those great signs in our sight," end of the Midrash. And so it is in Midrash Rabbah. It is explicitly stated that denying goodness ultimately leads to denying the Holy One, blessed be He, God forbid.

Indeed, it seems necessary to understand in these words of the Midrash, that from the parable brought about the one who threw a stone at the icon of a duke, and the king said to behead him because he will eventually do the same to the king, it implies that one can judge and punish a person for their future actions, and it is difficult because it is known that the Holy One, blessed be He, judges a person only according to their state at that time, as it is stated in Midrash Rabbah (Genesis Parsha 53, Siman 14) on the verse (Genesis 21:17) "where he is now": "Rabbi Simon said, the ministering angels jumped to accuse him, they said before Him, Master of the Universe, a person who is destined to kill your children with thirst, you are bringing up a well for him. He said to them, what is he now, righteous or wicked? They said to Him, righteous. He said to them, I judge a person only at their time." And if so, why is the ingrate judged as a denier of the fundamental belief for the future?

However, it is brought (Maamarei Shlomo by the holy Gaon Rabbi Shlomo Harkavi, Part 1, page 123) in the name of the great Gaon Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, that the one who denies the goodness of his fellow already has within him the root of denial of the Holy One, blessed be He, only it is still hidden and has not yet come from potential to actual, and since it already exists within him, it is appropriate to judge him for it even now.

And now, based on these words, we can add another layer to the understanding of the depth of the Exodus from Egypt, which we explained above, that its essence is the departure from the shell of ingratitude, and now it should be added that this matter also serves as a prelude and preparation for the giving of the Torah, that by departing from the shell of ingratitude, one distances themselves from the denial associated with it, and merits faith in the Holy One, blessed be He, and becomes worthy to receive the first utterance of the Ten Commandments: "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage" (Exodus 20:2).

It is puzzling how it is possible that Pharaoh acted as if he did not know. How can an entire Egyptian nation forget its own history? Especially when it concerns very recent history. Could the name of the revered, wise, and unparalleled viceroy, who was the source of sustenance for the entire people and saved the entire land from complete destruction during the terrible famine, be forgotten so quickly?

To explain this matter, we will first address another issue mentioned in our portion:

It is recounted (Exodus 5:6-7) how Pharaoh increased the burden on the Israelites after Moses and Aaron came before him with the demand to release the Israelites: "And Pharaoh commanded the same day the taskmasters of the people and their officers, saying, 'You shall no longer give the people straw to make bricks as before; let them go and gather straw for themselves.'"

It is necessary to understand why Pharaoh chose to increase the burden on Israel specifically by stopping the supply of straw, when he could have done so more simply by increasing the quota of bricks assigned to each person. I have seen explanations that Pharaoh had a diabolical intention in this—to incite quarrels and disputes among the Israelites themselves, as the amount of straw available for gathering was presumably limited, which would inevitably create competition among the slaves for every piece of straw. Pharaoh, in his cruelty, aimed for this desperate competition, stemming from the pressure of meeting quotas, to generate fights and conflicts among the Israelites themselves, leading to moral corruption and a terrible moral decline.

In truth, this 'patent' is not new in Pharaoh's 'school,' as we have already seen him employing this ugly tactic by appointing Hebrew officers over the Hebrew slaves, as mentioned in the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah, Parsha 1, Siman 28): "The taskmasters were Egyptians, and the officers were Israelites. A taskmaster was appointed over ten officers, and an officer was appointed over ten Israelites." It is known that the accursed Nazis, may their name and memory be erased, also appointed Jewish officers and 'kapos,' intending to sow fraternal hatred and moral decay among the Jews.

However, Pharaoh now sought to 'refine' this method by adding sin to crime. While the damage from the decree of appointing officers was limited, as it only created a barrier between the officer class and the slave class, within the slave class itself, there was still brotherhood among those in distress. From now on, Pharaoh thought, even this brotherhood would be shattered, as within a few days, each person would turn against his fellow in the struggle for survival in gathering straw.

Indeed, as we know from the words of the Sages, Pharaoh's scheme did not succeed, at least concerning his first plot of appointing Jewish officers. Therefore, we might hope that his second scheme also failed. In any case, the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Shemot, Remez 163) states regarding the officers of the Israelites: "He appointed Egyptian taskmasters over the officers of Israel. The taskmasters would come and count the bricks, and if they were found lacking, the officers were beaten for the rest of the people, and they would not hand them over to the taskmasters, saying it is better for us to be beaten than for the rest of the people to stumble." And what was their reward for this? The Midrash continues: "Therefore, when the Almighty said, 'Gather for Me seventy men' (Numbers 11:16), Moses said, 'Master of the Universe, I do not know who is worthy and who is not.' He said to him, 'Those whom you know to be the elders of the people and their officers,' those who gave themselves to be beaten for them in Egypt, they shall come and receive this greatness."

According to this, we can explain the wording of the verse (Exodus 1:9), "And he said to his people, 'Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more numerous and stronger than we,'" where the words 'the people of the children' seem redundant, as it would have sufficed to say 'the people of Israel' or alternatively 'the children of Israel' as later (verse 12). Why does the scripture use both 'people' and 'children'?

Indeed, according to our approach, it can be interpreted as a hint to Pharaoh's anger and wrath over the wonderful unity that prevailed among the people of Israel. Regarding this unity, he referred to them as 'the people of the children of Israel,' meaning a 'people' whose conduct is like 'the children of Israel,' that is, in remarkable brotherhood as children of one father.

We can further explain in this way what is stated later (verse 12), "But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and spread, and they were disgusted because of the children of Israel," where the words 'the children of Israel' seem superfluous, as it could have said 'and they were disgusted because of them' or 'and they were disgusted because of him,' following the way the verse began by saying 'the more they afflicted him.' Why was it necessary to specify 'because of the children of Israel'? Here too, we can say according to the aforementioned approach that the main frustration of the Egyptians, which caused them to be disgusted with their lives, was because Israel behaved as 'the children of Israel,' that is, as brothers, children of one man, as mentioned above.

In our discussion, several questions that commentators have struggled with regarding the story of the midwives at the beginning of the parasha are addressed:

Firstly, why did Pharaoh need to impose the killing of the sons on the midwives, and not kill them himself? Even if we say that it was preferable for him to assign this task specifically to the midwives, in any case, he could have imposed it on the Egyptian midwives, so why did he choose the Hebrew midwives for this?

Indeed, the Maharsha (Chiddushei Aggadot Sanhedrin 57b) has already addressed this, based on the Gemara that a son of Noah is liable even for the murder of fetuses. He writes: "In this, I have said to resolve in the book of Exodus, where the text is precise in saying 'And the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives' – for surely Pharaoh did not ask them to kill the males with their own hands, as a son of Noah is warned against bloodshed. Therefore, he did not say this to the Egyptian midwives who are warned against bloodshed even of fetuses, but to the Hebrew midwives he said, 'It is permitted for you to kill a fetus in its mother's womb,' etc."

However, I encountered a problem here, which is that I found in Yalkut Shimoni (Joshua, Remez 9) in the name of Midrash Tadshe, which holds that the midwives Shifra and Puah were not Yocheved and Miriam as the common opinion according to the Sages (Sotah 11b), but rather they were righteous Egyptian converts, meaning righteous gentiles who, through their righteousness, recognized the greatness of Israel and sought their welfare. See there in the Midrash, which lists other righteous gentile converts: Hagar, Asenath, Tzipporah, Pharaoh's daughter, Rahab, Ruth, and Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite. In any case, according to this Midrash, Shifra and Puah were gentiles, and thus the above question returns: why did Pharaoh choose these midwives specifically to impose the killing of the children on them?

It is worth noting in passing that there is a thought-provoking point in this Midrash: why did the midwives who delivered the Hebrews recognize their greatness to the extent that they converted? It is possible that the love prevailing in the Jewish family was revealed to them in its splendor when they were midwifing the Hebrews, prompting them to convert.

Let us return to the words of the Maharsha, and according to the common assumption in the words of the Sages that Shifra and Puah were Jewish, being Miriam and Yocheved – indeed, it still seems necessary to question, that even though it is indeed true that the Egyptians were warned against spilling the blood of fetuses, nevertheless Pharaoh could have circumvented this prohibition by forcing them to violate it, in which case it would be permitted for them, since a Noahide is not like an Israelite who is obligated to sacrifice his life for the three cardinal sins (Sanhedrin 74b), and thus ruled the Rambam (Chapter 10 of the Laws of Kings, Halacha 2): "A Noahide who is coerced to violate one of his commandments, it is permitted for him to do so, even if coerced to worship idolatry – he may worship."

Indeed, I found in "Parashat Derachim" (Derech Ha'atarim, Discourse 2) that it is specifically for idolatry and sexual immorality that a non-Jew is not commanded to be killed rather than transgress, but for bloodshed, he is commanded to sacrifice his life and not kill another. And see there the reason for this, that the rule of being killed rather than transgressing idolatry and sexual immorality is learned in the Gemara (Sanhedrin there) from a verse, and thus it applies specifically to Israelites, but the rule of being killed rather than transgressing bloodshed is explained in the Gemara there as being logical, "Who says that your blood is redder? Perhaps the blood of that man you seek to kill to save yourself is redder," and thus, there is no distinction in this between an Israelite and a non-Jew.

According to his words, there is no difficulty, for even if Pharaoh had forced the midwives to kill the boys, it would still have been forbidden for them, and they would have been obligated to sacrifice their lives for it.

In truth, the above question can be simply resolved by saying that the non-Jewish midwives were not present with the Hebrew women, and Pharaoh was compelled to assign the killing of the boys to the Hebrew midwives who were present with their Hebrew sisters giving birth.

Another question that commentators have struggled with regarding the actions of the midwives is that Pharaoh's decree had no benefit in eradicating the name of Israel. After all, the females whom the midwives would keep alive would marry Egyptians, and the offspring born to them would be Jewish. Perhaps Pharaoh thought that no Egyptian would want to marry a Hebrew woman, as the Egyptians loathed the people of Israel, as explicitly stated in the verse (Exodus 1:12), so there would be no continuity through the females alone.

Indeed, it seems appropriate to suggest that at the core of Pharaoh's insistence on assigning the task of killing the male infants specifically to the Hebrew midwives was the same diabolical scheme embedded in his decree regarding straw, as we explained earlier. The scheme was to sow discord and create conflicts and struggles among the people of Israel among themselves, thereby causing moral corruption. We have already noted that this was also the vile practice of the accursed Nazis, may their name and memory be erased, as a large part of their brutal oppressions and murders were carried out, to our shame and disgrace, with the assistance and through Jewish collaborators, thereby sowing division, fraternal hatred, and moral degradation among the Jews.

Therefore, Pharaoh insisted on imposing this vile task of killing all the male infants specifically on the Hebrew midwives, as nothing has the power to unravel all the threads of brotherhood and social trust, the trust between a person and their fellow, and between a woman and her companion, more than turning the midwife—whose essence is mercy and compassion, life and renewal—into a deceitful and cruel predator, who speaks peace to the birthing mother, while one hand reaches out to heal and ease her pains, the other hand is sent to seize and kill the newborn, the tender infant who has just emerged into the world.

This also resolves our second question of how Pharaoh thought to annihilate the people of Israel by killing the males, as the females could marry Egyptians and bear children with them—since, according to our explanation, Pharaoh's goal was not the annihilation of Israel, but rather the disruption of their brotherhood and the corruption of their morality.

Let us now return to the question with which we opened this discussion, regarding Rashi's words in the name of the Sages, that the intention of "who did not know Joseph" is that he acted as if he did not know. We wondered how such a denial of the obvious reality and the well-known recent history could be possible. According to our words now, it can be interpreted and said that indeed the intention is not that he acted as if he did not know Joseph himself, meaning the personality named Joseph, the man and his deeds, but rather his quality and characteristic of brotherhood, which was unparalleled. Pharaoh acted as if he did not know this, and by ignoring it, he sought advice and schemes on how to uproot this trait from Israel.

Where is Joseph's trait of brotherhood expressed? Go and learn from his conduct with his brothers during their years of dwelling in Egypt. Despite all the bitterness he received from them, for all the troubles and hardships he endured over the years, in Potiphar's house and in prison, were all a result and consequence of the sale they made of him—despite all this, he treated them with remarkable brotherhood and did not hold a grudge against them at all. As told in the portion of Vayigash (Genesis 45:3), immediately after he revealed to them that he was Joseph, he drew them close and appeased them: "And Joseph said to his brothers, 'Please come near to me,' and they came near. And he said, 'I am Joseph your brother, whom you sold into Egypt.'" And it is said in the Midrash (Sechel Tov there): "And he said, 'I am Joseph your brother'—he said to them, 'I will behave with you in the way of brotherhood, even though you sold me into Egypt.'"

Similarly, we find how after their father's death, when they feared him lest he repay them for their deeds, he comforted them and spoke to their hearts, as told at the end of the portion of Vayechi (Genesis 50:15-21): "And Joseph's brothers saw that their father was dead, and they said, 'Perhaps Joseph will hate us and will certainly repay us all the evil which we did to him.' So they sent a message to Joseph, saying, 'Your father commanded before his death, saying, "Thus you shall say to Joseph, 'I beg you, please forgive the trespass of your brothers and their sin, for they did evil to you.' Now, please forgive the trespass of the servants of the God of your father."' And Joseph wept when they spoke to him. Then his brothers also went and fell down before his face, and they said, 'Behold, we are your servants.' Joseph said to them, 'Do not be afraid, for am I in the place of God? But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive. Now therefore, do not be afraid; I will provide for you and your little ones.' And he comforted them and spoke kindly to them."

This explains Pharaoh's statement to his people, "Come, let us deal wisely with them" (Exodus 1:10), which at first glance seems unclear as to what cunning was required here. Indeed, according to our explanation, Pharaoh's cunning was in understanding the essence of the Israelites and realizing that direct hostility would not succeed in destroying them. He could only succeed if he managed to lead them onto a path of self-destruction. To this end, he said to his people, "Come, let us deal wisely with them," to incite them against each other until their unity was broken and they would be destroyed on their own.

This was Pharaoh's wicked scheme. However, the midwives, in their bravery, thwarted his plan and risked their lives for the sake of brotherhood by defying his orders, as the Torah testifies: "The midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them; they let the boys live" (Exodus 1:17).

Similarly, the officers of the Israelites, whom Pharaoh appointed to enforce the labor upon their brethren, as we explained, did not fall into the trap set by the wicked one. Instead, they sacrificed their bodies on the altar of brotherhood by allowing themselves to be beaten, as recounted at the end of the portion (Exodus 5:14): "The Israelite officers, whom Pharaoh's taskmasters had set over them, were beaten and asked, 'Why did you not complete your quota of bricks yesterday and today, as before?'" As we cited from the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Shemot, Remez 163), they said, "It is better for us to be beaten than for the rest of the people to stumble."

It should be added that the completeness and excellence in this trait of brotherhood is also found in Moses our teacher, peace be upon him. Indeed, it is possible that because of this he was chosen to serve as the leader and redeemer of Israel, since this trait was central to the essence of the exile in Egypt, as explained. Therefore, it is fitting that the person chosen to lead the exodus from this exile would be someone who was perfected in this trait.

And so we find with Moses: "And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens" (Exodus 2:11). And Rashi comments: "And looked on their burdens – he set his eyes and heart to be distressed over them."

Thus, even in that first outing to his brethren, we see how he risked his life for brotherhood: "And he saw an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew, one of his brethren. And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian and hid him in the sand."

As great as the feeling of brotherhood that filled his heart for his brethren, so was his pain and sorrow at the sight revealed to him the next day: "And he went out the second day, and behold, two Hebrew men were fighting." Out of an unconquerable pain, Moses turns to the one who was striking, violating the covenant of brotherhood, and rebukes him: "And he said to the wicked one, 'Why do you strike your fellow?'"

From all this, we see how deeply rooted the feeling of brotherhood for his people was in Moses our teacher.

In truth, when we delve deeply into the matter, we see that this concept of self-sacrifice for his brothers was ingrained in Moses our teacher from the time of his birth:

As recounted in the portion, Moses' birth occurred at the time when Pharaoh's decree was issued to cast every newborn son into the river. When Moses was born, his mother hid him for three months from the eyes of the Egyptians, and after three months, when she could no longer hide him, she made him a papyrus basket and placed him among the reeds on the bank of the river (Exodus 1:22 - 2:3).

We must understand what Jochebed and Miriam were thinking by doing this, what salvation there is in placing a three-month-old infant in a basket floating in the river's waters. Even if the basket would save him from drowning, he would surely die of hunger and thirst.

I saw in the Ramban (Exodus 2:2) that because his mother saw a 'special goodness' in him, she believed a miracle would occur and he would be saved. See there where he brings the words of the Sages (Sotah 12a) who expounded that when he was born, the entire house filled with light, and what they said (there) that Miriam prophesied, "My mother is destined to bear a son who will save Israel."

However, it still needs to be understood that if she hoped for a miracle, why did she make a basket and place him in the river? She could have left him at home and awaited a miracle there.

Furthermore, it is explained in the Gemara (there 11b) that miracles occurred for all the women of that time during the birth of their children. This is the language of the Gemara: when the time of their birth arrived, they would go and give birth in the field under the apple tree, etc., and the Holy One, blessed be He, would send from the heavens someone to clean and beautify them, like a midwife beautifies the newborn, etc., and would gather for them two round cakes, one of oil and one of honey, etc., and when the Egyptians recognized them, they would come to kill them, and a miracle would occur, and they would be swallowed into the ground, and they would bring oxen and plow over them, etc., after they left, they would sprout and emerge like the grass of the field, etc., when they grew up, they would come in flocks to their homes, etc. – If so, why was it necessary to send Moses in a basket on the river, and he was not included in the miracle that happened to the other children of Israel?

Rather, it seems to be explained based on what is brought in the Gemara (there 12b), that the Egyptian astrologers saw that the savior of Israel was destined to be struck by water, and based on their words, Pharaoh decreed to cast every newborn son into the river. Since Moses was cast into the river, the astrologers said they no longer saw this sign and concluded that he must have drowned, and they annulled the decree. If so, it can be said that this was known to Miriam, and therefore she chose to act specifically in this way of making a basket and placing him in the river's waters, to deceive the astrologers and thereby bring relief and salvation to Israel from the decree of casting the infants into the river. Thus, it turns out that from the time of his birth, this concept of self-sacrifice for his brothers was rooted in Moses our teacher.

In truth, even in his name, called 'Moshe,' this matter is embedded. Behold, in the matter of naming him, we find in the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah, Parsha 1, Siman 20) the following language: "And she saw that he was good" (Exodus 2:2) – it is taught, Rabbi Meir says his name was Tov, Rabbi Yashia says his name was Tovia, thus far. It is clear to us that the name given to him by his mother was not 'Moshe,' but 'Tov' or 'Tovia,' while the name 'Moshe' was given to him by Bithiah, the daughter of Pharaoh, because she drew him from the water, as it is said (Exodus 2:10), "And she called his name Moshe, and she said, 'Because I drew him from the water.'" If so, it is seemingly puzzling how it happened that our master Moshe became accustomed to being called by the name given to him by Bithiah, the daughter of Pharaoh, and not by the name given to him by Yocheved, his birth mother.

However, it seems to say according to our way, that indeed, Sforno wrote in explanation of Bithiah's reasoning in naming him Moshe, and this is his language: "And she said, 'Because I drew him from the water' – the reason I called him Moshe is to indicate that he will save others, for indeed I drew him from the water after he was cast into it, and this was only by the decree of the Watchers so that he would save others." His intention is that the very fact of Moshe being drawn from the waters of the Nile, as a wondrous event in itself, was not significant enough to name him 'Moshe' after it. Rather, Bithiah called him thus because she understood the end of the matter and realized that in his being drawn there was a hint and sign for the future, that this miracle of being drawn from the Nile after he was already cast into it, which is something beyond the natural way, and was undoubtedly done 'by the decree of the Watchers,' constitutes a sign for the future of this tender infant, indicating that a great role awaits him in the future, to save others. And only because of this hidden sign in the matter of the drawing did Bithiah see fit to value it so highly and call him 'Moshe' after it.

From now on, according to Sforno's words and our way, it is well understood why he became accustomed to being called by the name 'Moshe' for generations, because the essence and nature of this name is for the role imposed on him, to bear the burden of brotherhood for his people, to save and deliver them from their distress.

And see in Malbim (Exodus 2:10) what he wrote within his words: "And yet the Lord ensured that he would not forget his people and his birth by naming him Moshe, which reminds that she drew him from the water. Philo the Jew [who was in Alexandria during the Second Temple period] already wrote in the book 'The Life of Moses' that the name 'Moshe' is composed of 'Mo,' which is water in Egyptian, like 'Moi' in Aramaic, and 'She,' which is extraction and salvation in Egyptian, and this name testifies to this event both in Egyptian and in Hebrew, and so wrote Josephus in his Antiquities, Book 2, Chapter 9. And through this, it was always engraved in his heart that he is of mortal seed, and all Israel knew that he was a Jew."

Thus, according to both Sforno and Malbim, the name of Moshe Rabbeinu indicates the matter of brotherhood and responsibility he has with the entirety of Israel.

I had a friend who unfortunately passed away from cancer. During the time he was battling his illness, he once told me that when the disease was discovered in him, someone told him that now he has a special role—to encourage and assist those who are also dealing with this illness, as the fact that he too suffers from it gives him a unique ability to understand their suffering and delve into their thoughts and feelings, enabling him to encourage and assist them in ways others cannot.

Indeed, this is the appropriate conduct for anyone who experiences any difficulty, to use their experience to help and assist others who are going through the same. Whoever does so is elevated by the experience and becomes a person who lives for others, and not, heaven forbid, only for themselves.

And it is similarly told in the Talmud (Shabbat 31a): "An incident with a non-Jew who came before Shammai and said to him, 'Convert me on the condition that you teach me the entire Torah while I stand on one foot.' He pushed him away with the builder's cubit in his hand. He came before Hillel, who converted him. He said to him, 'What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. This is the entire Torah, and the rest is its explanation, go and learn it.'" From here we learn that the essence and foundation of the entire Torah is the negation of selfishness, to live also for others, to pay attention to what they feel, to observe what troubles them, and to avoid those things.

This is also the well-known saying of Rabbi Akiva (Genesis Rabbah, Parsha 24, Siman 7), "Love your neighbor as yourself, this is a great principle in the Torah."

The reason for the obligation to live for others can be explained by the fact that in this behavior, a person emulates their Creator, who is good and benevolent to all. Emulating the Creator is the ultimate purpose underlying the essence of a person, and without it, there is no advantage of a person over an animal.

This can also be explained in another way: this matter is tied to the choice of the Holy One, blessed be He, in us as a chosen people. For the Lord did not choose each individual, but the entire community as one entity, as it is said (Deuteronomy 7:6): "For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be His treasured people..." And how do individuals become one people? Through the brotherhood that prevails among them and mutual responsibility. Thus, our entire connection with the Holy One, blessed be He, depends on this matter.

In Kelm, they explain what we find in the Sages (Shir HaShirim Rabbah, Parsha 1, Siman 12), that on the morning of the giving of the Torah, the Holy One, blessed be He, found the people of Israel sleeping. This seems astonishing—was there not even one among all of Israel who was awake?

Some explain that indeed this was the case, and it was the work of Satan, who cast a slumber upon them all... However, in Kelm, they said that perhaps most of the people of Israel were awake, ready, and prepared, but since there were individuals who slept, it was considered by the Holy One, blessed be He, as if they all slept. The reason, as mentioned, is that the choice of the Holy One, blessed be He, in us as a 'people' is only when we are all together.

The reason He chose us only in this way seems to be because the attainment of each individual's perfection is possible only through their connection with the community. The individual's connection with the community and their conduct within it is naturally accompanied by what is called in modern language 'interaction,' meaning reciprocal relations and mutual influence created between two adjacent factors. Thus, even between the individual and the surrounding community, constant interactions are created due to their shared and close lives, and through them, the individual progresses and elevates.

Therefore, the Sages decreed and commanded: "Do not separate from the community" (Avot 2:4), because aside from the fact that separating from the community is an act of arrogance, furthermore, by separating from the community, a person is stripped of the only tool through which they can achieve perfection.

Regarding the obligation to remember the Exodus from Egypt, it is stated in the Torah (Deuteronomy 16:3), "so that you may remember the day you left the land of Egypt all the days of your life." In the Mishnah (Berakhot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 5), it is interpreted from the word 'all' to include even the nights. We learn from this that the Torah's desire is for the memory of the Exodus from Egypt to be constant with us, to live with it, at all times and throughout the year, not just on Passover. It is also explained in the Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 25) that the commandment to remember the Exodus from Egypt is a fundamental part of the commandment of faith in God. As is known, it is one of the six constant commandments.

Indeed, this matter requires clarification: why is the obligation to remember the Exodus from Egypt so significant for us? What is the foundation and root of this event that it is considered so important that we must remember it and keep it in our hearts at all times?

It is brought in the holy books [originating from the writings of the Ari z"l] that the essence of 'Pesach' is 'Peh – Sach' (the mouth speaks), based on the words of the holy Zohar (Parashat Va'era, page 25b) that in Egypt, 'speech' was in exile, and on Pesach, meaning during the Exodus from Egypt, speech emerged from exile and began to converse.

The accepted explanation in the books of the disciples of the Baal Shem Tov (see Sefat Emet, Pesach 5633) is that the words of Torah and prayer were in exile in Egypt, as it was not possible to properly express the words of Torah and prayer there. Consequently, upon leaving, when the obstacles preventing this were removed, the Torah and prayer also emerged from their exile. The Sefat Emet wrote (there) that this is why many praises were instituted on the night of Pesach, as its commandment is for the mouth to speak, for the liberation of speech is ultimately to praise and give thanks. And see there where he explained that this is the intention of the verse (Psalms 81:11), "I am the Lord your God, who brought you up from the land of Egypt; open your mouth wide, and I will fill it," meaning that by bringing you out of Egypt, you can and must open your mouth wide and fill it with praises and thanks.

Indeed, the matter of the mouth being in exile in Egypt can be explained further, based on the words of Rabbi Yaakov Ettlinger, author of Aruch LaNer, in his book Minchat Ani, who noted that the beginning of the Egyptian exile was due to the sin of speech. This is his wording: We find that the beginning of the Egyptian exile was through evil speech, as they said, "Come, let us deal wisely with them, etc., lest they multiply and join our enemies and fight against us and leave the land." Thus, the Egyptians spoke evil about Israel as if they wanted to rebel against them, which was a complete falsehood. Therefore, the one bringing the first fruits begins his words by recounting the Egyptian exile, "The Egyptians mistreated us" (Deuteronomy 26:6), and the author of the Haggadah interprets the word 'mistreated' as it is said, (Exodus 1:10) "Come, let us deal wisely with them, etc." The commentators explained that the Egyptians spoke evil about us, claiming we were rebellious and evil, etc. According to his words, it can be explained that the matter of the mouth being in exile in Egypt is that the mouth and tongue were enslaved to serve the side of impurity, to speak evil speech, which is an exile for them, instead of being holy praises for Torah and prayer, they were made lowly servants to the defect of impure and despicable speech – evil speech.

The foundation of this matter, that there is a connection between Egypt and the defects of speech, is already found in the words of the early commentators, as brought in Tosafot HaShalem (13:17, letter v): "Pharaoh contains the letters 'Peh Ra' (evil mouth), who spoke against the heavens." According to the words of Minchat Ani, we find an expression of his evil mouth also in him and his people being masters of evil speech and clinging to its impurity.

Now it is well understood why the obligation to remember the Exodus from Egypt is so great upon us, and the importance attributed to it is so significant that we must remember it and place it upon our hearts at all times – because since the stumbling of the tongue, which was at the foundation of the Egyptian exile, lurks at our door at all times and every hour, it is incumbent upon us not to divert our attention from remembering the Exodus from Egypt, so that through this we will guard and be cautious of the sin of speech, for which and through which we suffered the bitterness of that exile.

Indeed, among the plagues that struck the Egyptians, one can find details that are measure for measure against the sin of speech they committed against Israel. Thus are the words of the Minchat Ani regarding the plague of boils – see there where he begins with the words of the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah, Parsha 12, Siman 4) regarding the ten plagues: "These plagues, three by Aaron, three by Moses, three by the Holy One, blessed be He, and one by all of them. Blood, frogs, lice, which were on the land, by Aaron. Hail, locusts, darkness, by Moses, because they were in the air, as Moses had dominion over the land and the heavens. Wild beasts, pestilence, the plague of the firstborn, by the Holy One, blessed be He. And boils, by all of them." The Minchat Ani explains why this division was made, as the sin of Egypt was threefold, against the body of Israel, against the life of Israel, and against the Holy One, blessed be He, see there in detail.

He then wrote regarding the plague of boils, and this is his language: "Indeed, why did the boils come by all of them? It is explained by what is stated in the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah, Parsha 11, Siman 5), this plague came upon them by the Holy One, blessed be He, Moses, and Aaron, because Moses and Aaron took soot from the furnace, and Moses threw it heavenward, and the Holy One, blessed be He, turned it into boils and it fell upon Egypt. The reason it was done this way can be explained, as for the sin of evil speech, two are guilty, the speaker and the receiver of evil speech. Our sages said (Arachin 15b), the sin of the speaker of evil speech is great up to the heavens, as it is said, 'They set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue walks through the earth.' This is hinted at by the plague of boils, which was done by the soot of the furnace that Moses and Aaron each took a handful of, and Aaron gave it to Moses, as it is written (9:8), 'And Moses threw it heavenward,' Moses alone, and this is like the matter of evil speech which blackens two, the giver and the receiver. And Moses threw them heavenward to hint that the sin of evil speech reaches up to the heavens, and it is stated in the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah there), that the dust rose up to the Throne of Glory, and this is in the way our sages said (Arachin there), anyone who speaks evil speech is as if he denies the essence, as it is said, etc. And this dust became in Egypt a spreading boil, and it is stated in the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah there, Siman 6), 'spreading' – teaches that leprosy was with it. This also indicates that this plague came upon Egypt for the sin of evil speech, as our sages said (Arachin 16a), the speaker of evil speech is afflicted with leprosy, and because the sin of evil speech was the source of Egypt's sin in their enslavement of Israel in three ways, as we explained, against the bodies of Israel, against their lives, and against the Holy One, blessed be He, therefore this plague came upon them by three, by the Holy One, blessed be He, Moses, and Aaron." And see there further.

One can add to his words another hint, that the soot by which the plague of boils was made is similar to dust, and even in the prohibition of evil speech we find the matter of dust – the dust of evil speech (see Bava Batra 165a).

I also found in the name of the Chida that even in the plague of frogs there was an aspect of punishment for the sin of speech – the croaking of the frogs with a loud noise was a punishment, measure for measure, for the evil tongue of Pharaoh and his people, a punishment of sound against the sin of sound. He also wrote regarding the plague of locusts, that the darkening of the land by it, as it is said (10:15), "And it covered the eye of the whole land and the land was darkened," is a punishment, measure for measure, for the darkness caused by the evil tongue. The destruction and devastation brought by it are against the destruction and devastation caused by the evil tongue.

The following is told (Exodus 2:13-14) about Moses: "And he went out the second day, and behold, two Hebrew men were fighting, and he said to the wicked one, 'Why do you strike your fellow?' And he said, 'Who made you a ruler and judge over us? Do you intend to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?' And Moses was afraid and said, 'Surely the matter is known.'" Rashi wrote: "Surely the matter is known – as it sounds. And its Midrashic interpretation, it is known to me the matter that I was puzzled about, what sin did Israel commit among all seventy nations to be oppressed with hard labor, but I see that they are deserving of it." Its source is from the words of the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah, Parsha 1, Siman 4): "And our Rabbis in the name of Rabbi Alexandri said, Moses was pondering in his heart and saying, what sin did Israel commit to be enslaved among all the nations, when he heard his words, he said, there is slander among them, how can they be worthy of redemption, therefore he said, surely the matter is known, now I know by what matter they are enslaved." The question seemingly arises, for Israel was immersed at that time in the forty-nine gates of impurity of Egypt, and it is known the saying (Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, Beshalach, Masechta de-Vayehi, Parsha 6), that at the time of the splitting of the Red Sea, the ministering angels said before the Holy One, blessed be He, that Israel too are idol worshipers, so how do they walk on dry land in the sea, and if so, what was Moses' initial wonder 'what sin did Israel commit.'

Indeed, according to the above foundation, the matter is explained, as the Minchat Ani wrote, and this is his language, but it will be explained that whoever wants to remove a bad thing must block its source and uproot its root as the sages said, one who uproots idolatry must search after it, and we find that the beginning of the exile in Egypt was through slander that they said, 'Come, let us deal wisely with him,' etc., end quote. And this is as we have already brought above from his words.

And indeed, it is known to all the famous saying of the sages, that the children of Israel were redeemed from Egypt as a reward for not changing three things: their name, their clothing, and their language. However, in truth, in the Midrash (Shir HaShirim Rabbah, Parsha 4, Siman 12) it is stated that it was for the reward of four things, as it is stated there: Rabbi Huna in the name of Bar Kappara said, in the merit of four things Israel was redeemed from Egypt, they did not change their name, they did not change their language, they did not speak slander, and there was not found among them one who was promiscuous, etc., and they did not speak slander, as it is said (Exodus 11:2), "Speak now in the ears of the people, and let every man ask of his neighbor," you find that this matter was entrusted to them for twelve months, and there was not found among them one who informed on his fellow, etc., end quote. Thus, it is not as the world thinks that it was enough that they did not change their language, that they spoke Yiddish... but they were also careful in the sin of the tongue, that there were no informers and slanderers among them. And this is as above, that the preparation for redemption was dependent on the correction of the defect of evil speech.

It is appropriate to note that the aforementioned question about Moses' words "Indeed, the matter is known" can be resolved in another way—according to what is stated in Midrash Shocher Tov (Psalms 12): "Slander is more severe than the three sins considered great: idolatry, sexual immorality, and bloodshed, etc." Therefore, it can be said that although Moses knew that the Israelites were idolaters, he thought that this was not enough for them to be so oppressed. However, when he saw that there were slanderers among them, whose severity is greater than idolatry, his question was resolved.

However, regarding the essence of the Midrash's words, it is difficult for me, for Dathan and Abiram were only two, and how did Moses learn from their being slanderers that all of Israel were slanderers? Would two people sin and the entire congregation be condemned for their sin? According to the simple understanding, it must be said that Moses understood from the matter that if there are two such people, then presumably there are more, and this also seems to be the straightforward meaning of the Midrash's language, "there is slander among them."

Furthermore, it can be said in this way that Dathan and Abiram were at that time among the important people of Israel, as seen in the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah, Parsha 5, Siman 20) that they were officers of the Israelites, and this is also indicated by the language of the verse (Numbers 26:9), "These are Dathan and Abiram, the called of the congregation," and "the called of the congregation" is a term of importance, as Rashi wrote elsewhere (Numbers 1:16): "those called for every matter of importance in the congregation." And Moses thought that if the conduct of the important people of the nation was corrupt, it presumably indicated the state of the entire people.

According to our aforementioned approach, it can also be said that due to the severity of the sin of slander, and because it is the root and foundation upon which redemption is supposed to be based, it is sufficient for there to be only two slanderers to delay the redemption of the entire people.

Let us return to the words of the Minchat Ani, who stated that the root of the enslavement in Egypt was rooted in the sin of speech. Similarly, the Chafetz Chaim wrote in his introduction, "And the main reason for the descent of Israel to Egypt was initially due to this, as it is said (Genesis 37:2), 'And Joseph brought their evil report to their father,' and because of this, it was decreed upon him from heaven measure for measure that he would be delivered as a slave, as he said about them that they called their brother a slave, as it is found in the Midrash and the Jerusalem Talmud, Peah Chapter 1 (Halacha 1)." According to this, the books explain what is said in the Passover Haggadah that Jacob's descent to Egypt was "compelled by the word"—that is, compelled by the evil speech of Joseph, which he was forced to rectify.

It is told later in the parasha (Exodus 4:1) how Moses expresses to God his fear that the Israelites will not believe him when he comes with God's mission: "And Moses answered and said, 'But they will not believe me, nor listen to my voice, for they will say, 'The Lord has not appeared to you.'" In response, God gives him signs through which he will prove to the Israelites the truth of his mission: "And the Lord said to him, 'What is that in your hand?' And he said, 'A staff.' And He said, 'Cast it on the ground,' and he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent, and Moses fled from before it. And the Lord said to Moses, 'Put forth your hand and take it by the tail,' and he put forth his hand and caught it, and it became a staff in his hand." Another sign God gives him: "And the Lord said furthermore to him, 'Put now your hand into your bosom,' and he put his hand into his bosom, and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow. And He said, 'Put your hand back into your bosom,' and he put his hand back into his bosom, and when he took it out of his bosom, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh." Rashi explains that these signs were not given to him without reason, but to hint at a rebuke for speaking slander about Israel by suspecting they would not believe him. Rashi's words on the sign of the staff: "It became a serpent – a hint that he spoke slander about Israel and adopted the craft of the serpent." And further on the sign of leprosy: "Leprous as snow – leprosy tends to be white, etc. This sign also hinted that he spoke slander by saying 'they will not believe me,' therefore he was struck with leprosy, as Miriam was struck for slander." However, it must be understood that since the purpose of the signs is not for Moses, but for Israel, to prove to them the truth of Moses' mission, what is the reason for including the rebuke to Moses in them? It seems necessary to say that there was also a message in these signs for Israel, and according to our words, it is fitting to say that it hinted to the people of Israel to thoroughly correct the sins of speech and the defect of language, and thereby they would merit the salvation of the Lord.

Let us return to the crossroads we stood at the beginning of our discussion, when we brought the words of the Ari of blessed memory regarding the 'Pesach', which is 'Peh – Sach' (the mouth speaks), and because in Egypt the 'speech' was in exile, and in the redemption from it, which was on Pesach, it emerged and began to speak.

Now, two paths opened before us at that crossroads – the first, that the intention of this matter is as explained in the books of the disciples of the Baal Shem Tov, that the words of Torah and prayer were in exile in Egypt, because it was not possible to express them there in the manner they deserved. The second, that the mouth and tongue were enslaved in Egypt to serve the side of impurity, for speaking evil speech.

Indeed, it seems that these two paths are one – for the Chafetz Chaim in his books brought several times the words of the holy Zohar in the portion of Metzora, which states, "Whoever has evil speech, his prayer does not ascend before the Holy One, blessed be He, for an impure spirit has awakened upon him, etc." Therefore, it can be said that the reason and root of the words of prayer being in exile, as the disciples of the Baal Shem Tov said, is because the mouth and tongue were enslaved to the defect of impure and despicable speech – evil speech.

Indeed, it is necessary to understand the reason for this, why indeed the prayer of the one with evil speech is not heard.

Simply put, it can be explained as being related to 'a prosecutor cannot become a defender', that the mouth which accuses in slander against his fellow cannot become a defender in supplication and request from the Creator to bestow His kindness and goodness.

Indeed, it seems that there is a deeper layer to this, according to the words of the Maharal (Netzach Yisrael, Chapter 9), that the sin of the tongue causes the severance of the soul from the Blessed One more than the thirty-six severances mentioned in the Torah. This is the language of the Maharal: In the chapter Chelek (Sanhedrin 104a), Rabbi Yochanan said, why were they punished with 'Eicha' (Lamentations 1:1)? Because they transgressed the thirty-six severances in the Torah, etc. Therefore, Rabbi Yochanan expounded that it was because they transgressed the thirty-six severances, meaning that when Israel was attached to the Blessed One, it was impossible for them to be exiled from the land until the city sat alone. But because Israel was severed from the root, which is the Blessed Name, they went into exile. For before this, they were planted like a tree planted by streams of water (Psalms 1:3), and when they transgressed the thirty-six severances, they were severed from the Blessed Name. The thing that causes severance from the Blessed Name are the severances in the Torah, as it is written (Numbers 15:31), "cut off" in this world, "shall be cut off" in the world to come (Shevuot 13a). Because of this, they were severed from the root, until they went into exile.

Therefore, it was also expounded there (Sanhedrin 104a), "Rava said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, why was the letter Peh placed before Ayin? Because of the spies who placed Peh before Ayin." Meaning, the spies who spoke slander about the land falsely (Numbers 13:32), as it is written (Psalms 12:4), "May the Lord cut off all flattering lips, the tongue that speaks great things." Therefore, this sin, which caused slander about the land, caused them to be severed from the land to go into exile. And in Arachin (15b), "Rabbi Abba bar Chanina said, one who speaks slander has no remedy, for David has already cut him off with the Holy Spirit, as it is said, 'May the Lord cut off all flattering lips, the tongue that speaks great things.'" Thus, this sin is particularly associated with severance. The reason we explained elsewhere (Netiv HaLashon, Chapter 8), is that this is the nature of the tongue, which creates separation and distinction between a person and his fellow. Therefore, the Torah said (Leviticus 13:46) "He shall dwell alone outside the camp," for he caused separation and distinction between a man and his wife and between a person and his fellow, and therefore he shall also dwell alone, being severed and separated from his root when he causes separation, end of the Maharal's words. From now, it seems that this is also the deep reason why the prayer of the one who speaks slander is not heard—because he severed with his words the connection between him and the Holy One, Blessed be He, and distanced himself from Him.

Further, according to the words of the Maharal, it is explained what is brought in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 103a) that the group of slanderers does not receive the Divine Presence, and according to his way, it is evident that since the sin of the tongue severs and disconnects the connection between the Jewish person and the Holy One, Blessed be He, it is obvious that he is not welcome in receiving His presence.

In a similar vein to the words of the Maharal, that the sin of the tongue causes the Divine Presence to depart, and consequently prolongs the exile, the Chafetz Chaim also wrote in his introduction, see his words at length.

As explained in the words of the Maharal mentioned above, the reason for the severance of the soul from its Creator due to the sin of speech is because of measure for measure. The essence of the sin of speech is creating separation and distinction between a man and his wife and between a person and his friend. Therefore, it is decreed upon this sinner that he will be severed and separated from his root as he creates separation. Indeed, it seems that there is a deep matter hidden here – as it is known from the saying of the Zohar (Acharei 73a) that the Holy One, blessed be He, the Torah, and Israel are one. If so, speaking against Israel is as if one spoke, Heaven forbid, against the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself, Heaven forbid. It is obvious that speaking against the Holy One, blessed be He, severs one's connection to Him.

Additionally, it can be added that this might be the deeper intention of the words of the Rambam (Chapter 16 of the Laws of Tzaraat, Halacha 10), who wrote as follows: "This is the way of the assembly of the wicked scorners. Initially, they increase in idle talk, as it is said (Ecclesiastes 5:2), 'and the voice of a fool in many words.' From this, they come to speak against the righteous, as it is said (Psalms 31:19), 'Let the lying lips be silenced, which speak arrogantly against the righteous.' From this, they become accustomed to speak against the prophets and disparage their words, as it is said (2 Chronicles 36:16), 'But they mocked the messengers of God, despised His words, and scoffed at His prophets.' From this, they come to speak against God and deny the fundamental principle, as it is said (2 Kings 17:9), 'And the children of Israel spoke secretly against the Lord their God things that were not right.' And it says (Psalms 73:9), 'They set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue walks through the earth.' What caused them to set their mouth against the heavens? Their tongue, which initially walked through the earth." According to our words, it can be said that they ultimately come to speak against God because even in their speech against others, there already exists a certain aspect of speaking against God, since the Holy One, blessed be He, and Israel are one.

On the verse (Exodus 2:14) "And Moses was afraid and said, 'Surely the matter is known,'" Rashi brings from the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 1:30): "He worried because he saw wicked informers among Israel, and he said, 'Perhaps they are not worthy of redemption.'" The Maharal in Gur Aryeh wrote about this, saying, "This Midrash has a wonderful reason, for one who has this trait is not worthy of redemption, because redemption comes from a higher, inner level that is not revealed, and one who reveals things is the opposite, as he is attached to a lower level, which is called a revealed and external level. Therefore, when he saw informers among Israel, he said they are worthy of enslavement, as enslavement is a lower level, and they are worthy of enslavement, as they are gossipers who reveal secrets, and enslavement is a revealed, lower level." And see there that he elaborates on these levels, the higher and the lower.

I understood from his words that through evil speech, the Divine Presence departs from the inner being of a person, and as I am accustomed to phrase it: "A person without inner depth does not have the Holy One, blessed be He."

It seems to explain the depth of the matter, as it is known in the books that 'speech' is the 'spirit' of a person (see Tikkunei Zohar, Tikkun 22), and the spirit of a person is from the holy Shechinah. As brought by the Ramban (Genesis 2:7) on the verse "And He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul," this is his wording, "The scripture hints to us the greatness and secret of the soul, to inform us that it did not come from the elements, nor from the chain of separate intellects, but it is the spirit of the great name, from His mouth knowledge and understanding, for one who breathes into another's nostrils gives from his own soul." And this breath of life is indeed speech, as Onkelos translates the words 'a living soul' as "a speaking spirit," thus it is found that a person's speech is very divine and holy. Indeed, this is only when a person is connected internally with the Holy One, blessed be He, but when he is disconnected from Him internally, God forbid, and he is an empty person, then his speech is not 'divine speech' but empty speech.

We have gained a deeper understanding of why such a person's prayer is not heard—since his speech is only empty speech, and certainly, empty speech has no power to be heard and accepted.

It is further explained according to our words the language of the verse (Exodus 10:1) regarding the purpose and goal of the plagues that the Lord brought upon Egypt: "So that I may set these signs of Mine among them"—that is, their purpose was to return the Shechinah to the inner being of a person and to rectify what the sin of speech caused, which caused it to depart from there.

From now on, the words of the Ramban in the introduction to the Book of Exodus will shine with a new light, where he wrote, "And when they came to Mount Sinai and made the Tabernacle, and the Holy One, blessed be He, returned and rested His Shechinah among them, then they returned to the status of their forefathers, where the secret of God was upon their tents, and they are the chariot, and then they were considered redeemed." This means that by rectifying the sin of speech and the Israelites leaving Egypt, the Shechinah returned to dwell within the inner being of the people of Israel, and then they were considered redeemed, which is the essence of redemption, the attachment to the Holy One, blessed be He.

And thus, Rabbi Shlomo Alkabetz sings in his famous poem 'Lecha Dodi': "Shake off the dust, arise / Wear your glorious garments, my people / By the hand of Jesse's son, the Bethlehemite / Draw near to my soul, redeem it"—here we see that the essence of redemption is in the inner being of a person, in his soul...

And this is also the intention of the wording in the prayer 'Master of all worlds,' recited on Friday night between 'Shalom Aleichem' and 'Eshet Chayil'—"And I have set the Lord before me, that You may have mercy on me still in my exile to redeem me and to awaken my heart to Your love, and then I will keep Your commandments and statutes without sorrow"—here we see that redemption from exile is expressed in that through it we will come to keep the commandments and statutes without sorrow, that is, in the completeness of the soul and heart.

And it is possible that this is also the intention of the verse (Proverbs 21:23) "He who guards his mouth and tongue guards his soul from troubles," that by guarding the mouth and tongue, one is saved from the troubles of the soul.

There are two customs from the Passover Seder that relate well to all that has been mentioned:

The first is the matter of wearing the 'kittel' – as the Admor Baal Shem Mishmuel of Sochatchov writes (Shem Mishmuel Haggadah of Passover Chesed David on the matter of Kiddush): The Maharal of blessed memory wrote in his commentary on the Haggadah that wearing the kittel and white garments on Passover night is similar to the white garments of the High Priest on Yom Kippur. The matter is that the High Priest is the rectification of Adam, as implied by the words of the Midrash at the beginning of Parashat Shemini. Furthermore, the Midrash states that everything that was in the creation of the heavens and the earth was in the Tabernacle, etc. – in creation, "Let us make man" (Genesis 1:26), and in the Tabernacle, "On the eighth day, Moses called Aaron and his sons" (Leviticus 9:1). Similarly, the book Tzror HaMor writes that the speech 'Let us make man' was completed in Aaron the priest. Now, the form of man is "a living soul" (Genesis 2:7), and Onkelos translates, "a speaking spirit," and therefore the perfection of the High Priest was in the service of Yom Kippur, when he wore white garments and entered the innermost sanctum to offer the incense within, which is then the perfection of speech, because the incense of Yom Kippur is the finest of the fine and atones even for the dust of slander, as the Maharal wrote (in the discourse for Shabbat HaGadol), and then it is the rectification of speech, because the exile was a cleansing for the blemish of speech, as it is written (Passover Haggadah) "compelled by the word," and the speech was in exile and in redemption the speech is rectified, and this is Passover, mouth – speaks. Therefore, each one of Israel then has an illumination from the aspect of the High Priest on Yom Kippur, who was in the ultimate perfection of speech. Now, the service of Yom Kippur was on the tenth of the month, and he entered the Holy of Holies, which is the tenth holiness, and similarly, there are ten items on the Seder plate, and this is the matter of wearing white garments, similar to the High Priest on Yom Kippur. Now, the Kiddush is with the mouth that sanctifies with the mouth, and in the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah Parasha 15, Siman 24), the sanctification of the month is like a holy thing given in a service vessel that sanctifies the vessel, and similarly, the sanctification of the month sanctifies Israel, and this is why we say 'sanctifies Israel and the times,' that Israel sanctifies and is sanctified through the sanctification of the month and the festivals, and the Kiddush that Israel says sanctifies them and their mouths and brings them to the sanctity of the mouth and the perfection of the mouth. This is the matter of the Kiddush at the beginning of the Seder, and also the recitation of the Haggadah, through which they become rectified in the aspect of speech and the mouth and merit illumination from the aspect of the High Priest on Yom Kippur, because this is the matter of Passover night as mentioned above, thus far. And it is exactly as we have said.

Another matter is what is brought in the name of the Chida, that 'karpas' is an acronym for 'first rule, a closed mouth,' meaning that although the matter of Passover is 'a speaking mouth,' as we mentioned above, it is specifically regarding words of holiness, but concerning forbidden speech, on the contrary, one should behave on Passover with double and redoubled caution, in the conduct of 'first rule, a closed mouth,' since this is the rectification for the exile of Egypt.

It is fitting to bring in this context the story that happened with the holy Rabbi Moshe of Shinova, that one of the guests at his table on the Seder night soaked his matzah in water, contrary to the custom of that place where they were strict about soaked matzah. When one of the Hasidim noticed this, he raised his voice and shouted 'Chametz'!! Rabbi Moshe turned to him sternly and rebuked him: "Matzah is chametz? Gossip is chametz!" – as if to say, you are the one who brought chametz here, not the one who soaked his matzah by mistake.

The source of Rashi's words from the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah, Parsha 1, Siman 27) is as follows: "And he saw their burdens" – what is "and he saw"? He would see their burdens and cry, saying, "Woe to me for you, would that I could die for you, for there is no harder work than the work of clay." And he would put his shoulder and help each one of them. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yossi the Galilean, says: He saw a large load on a small person and a small load on a large person, a man's load on a woman and a woman's load on a man, an old person's load on a young person, and a young person's load on an old person. He would set aside his rank [his level, status, and greatness, even though it was against etiquette. Etz Yosef there] and go and adjust their burdens, acting as if he were helping Pharaoh, etc., end quote.

The moral lesson learned from here is simple and well-known: there is an important and fundamental trait of "bearing the burden with one's fellow," and it is not enough to merely see and feel it in general. Rather, it is required of a person to put "his eyes and heart" into it, meaning to reach a state of deep thought about his fellow's distress, where his thoughts are occupied with the other's pain, and it troubles him.

Indeed, there are additional layers in the depth of this obligation of 'setting one's eyes and heart,' and thus are the words of the Saba of Kelm (Chochma U'Musar Part 1, Essay 1) on this matter: Behold, we find with Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, in the portion of Shemot, "And Moses grew up and saw their burdens," and Rashi explains, "He set his eyes and heart to be distressed over them," meaning, he accustomed himself to imagine as if this happened to him, and therefore he went to see, as it is known, because the power of imagination comes from the proximity of the sense, like the feeling of the heat of fire and the like. And he so accustomed himself to these imaginations, that he felt their pain as if he himself was in that pain, and consequently bore the burden with them more than his own pain, because they are the many and especially the entirety of Israel, "In all their distress, He too was distressed" (Isaiah 63:9). And from this it branched out that he said, "Why have You mistreated this people?" (Exodus 5:22). And behold, this matter was more difficult than the sin of the waters of Meribah, and therefore it is stated in Midrash Rabbah (Shemot, Parsha 5, Siman 22): "At that moment, the attribute of justice sought to strike Moses, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, 'Leave him be, for he spoke for the honor of Israel.'" And this is the matter we spoke of, for Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, set his eyes and heart to be distressed over the suffering of Israel, as Rashi of blessed memory wrote there in the portion of Shemot, meaning, 'his eyes,' that is the contemplation of the intellect, 'and his heart,' that is to bring it to the heart, so that his heart feels their pain as if he himself is in that pain, as it is said (Deuteronomy 4:39) "And you shall know today and bring it to your heart." And after he feels the pain, he is greatly distressed, as it were, over the pain of the Shechinah, as they said (Sanhedrin 46a), "When a person is in distress, what does the Shechinah say? 'My head hurts, my arm hurts,'" end of quote. And we learn from them that it is required of a person who sees the distress of his fellow to use the 'power of imagination' in order to enhance the feeling of participation with him and to intensify it, until he feels as if he himself is in distress.

Another perspective on this matter is presented by the Mashgiach, the righteous Rabbi Yerucham of blessed memory (Daas Torah Devarim Part 1, page 227), and these are his words: Regarding Pinchas, it is said (Numbers 25:7), "And Pinchas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw" – did not everyone see? For it is written (ibid., 6) "in the sight of Moses and in the sight of all the congregation of Israel." However, 'seeing' in its name and essence, seeing in its true sense, indeed, this was seen only by Pinchas, and this is what Moses said to him: "The reader of the letter should be its messenger" (as Rashi explains there) – the entire 'burden', in all its scope, passed through his very eyes, he who saw it in all its details, therefore he was obligated to execute the judgment. Regarding Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, it is said (Exodus 2:11) "and he saw their burdens" – he certainly saw (see Shemot Rabbah, Parsha 1, Siman 27), and when he saw all the burden as it was, he did not pass until he did all that was due to the wicked, thus his words. And we learn from them that there are two types of seeing, and one is not like the other – one is a general, superficial seeing, the seeing of the masses. The other is a discerning, deep, penetrating seeing, a seeing that delves into the depth and root of all the meanings of the sight, a comprehensive view that examines all the details of the matter meticulously to the last of them. Such was Moses' seeing of the suffering of Israel, a seeing of 'placing his eyes and heart', a discerning and penetrating seeing, that he delved into understanding their suffering in all its scope and depth. And this is also the measure of bearing the burden required of us, bearing the burden with others through contemplation and deepening in their suffering.

An example of this is the hearing mentioned with Jethro: "And Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses' father-in-law, heard all that God had done for Moses and for Israel His people, that the Lord had brought Israel out of Egypt" (Exodus 18:1). And as a result: "And Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, came with his sons and his wife to Moses into the wilderness where he was encamped at the mountain of God." The question arises naturally: Did only Jethro hear of the wonders that God had done for Moses and Israel His people? Indeed, the whole world heard of it, as Rahab said to Joshua: "For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt, etc." (Joshua 2:10). And why did only Jethro come? But what, everyone 'heard'... 'updated themselves'... but only one truly heard!!, only one knew how to listen! True listening, listening of internalization, of deepening, of contemplation – that was Jethro, and therefore: "And Jethro came." Everyone 'heard', presumably they were also impressed, and perhaps even feared, but what? A day or two, an hour or two, and... they returned to their affairs, to their work, to their occupations, and also to their vain idols... The world continues as usual. Only one person in the whole world!! understood that it is impossible to continue as before, that what was is not what will be! That was Jethro! And why? Because he heard! Because he contemplated! In depth and breadth, with contemplation into the details. Say now: there is hearing – and there is hearing, there is seeing – and there is seeing...

I heard from my master, my grandfather, my teacher and rabbi, the genius Rabbi Shmuel David Walkin of blessed memory, that the greatest 'wisdom' he heard about the Chafetz Chaim of blessed memory, was from his uncle, the genius Rabbi Simcha Wasserman, who said: When they ask me 'Did you know the Chafetz Chaim'? I answer thus: If the question is whether I saw the Chafetz Chaim? – then the answer is yes, indeed I saw him. But if the question is whether I knew him? To that, the answer is no! With a capital 'N'! Many people saw the Chafetz Chaim, very many – but only a few 'knew' him. Everyone sees, most people in the world have, thank God, seeing eyes, but a seeing of 'knowing', of understanding and depth, such seeing is for only a few.

And this is what is said about Moses 'he placed his eyes and heart to be distressed over them' – that he placed his eyes and heart to contemplate and deepen in their distress.

It truly seems that the words of the Saba of Kelm and those of Rabbi Yerucham are one and the same, complementing each other. To enhance the power of visualization to such an extent that a person feels as if they themselves are in distress, as the Saba of Kelm suggests, requires contemplation and deep understanding of the details and depth of matters, as Rabbi Yerucham states.

I wish to express in relation to these matters a feeling that has been nesting in my heart for years, that it was not for nothing that King David experienced all kinds of troubles in the world. There was a great necessity for this, for without it, he would not have been qualified to compose the Book of Psalms. The Psalms, which were said and handed down by King David for generations to use in times of trouble, could only have been written by someone who delved into the essence of all kinds of troubles and understood them in depth in all their details. Only such a person was qualified to compose and arrange the prayers suitable and worthy to be passed down for generations, to be used in every time of distress and anguish. Therefore, it was necessary for this person to have personally experienced all these kinds of troubles, for only he, who experienced everything firsthand, could 'step into the shoes' of suffering people to understand them, as in the saying, "Do not judge your fellow until you reach his place" (Ethics of the Fathers, Chapter 2, Mishnah 4). Hence, all the various and strange troubles came upon David to prepare him for this exalted role, the composition of the Book of Psalms.

Rabbi Yerucham continues (there) and explains that this thinking is also the basis for the matters of the 'judge' and the 'witness', and these are his words: When we say and call the halachic decisor by the name 'judge', let us not understand this as if the name 'judge' is called only because he knows the law and decides it. The name judge is called because he 'knows' the 'matter', because he 'knows' the conflict well, and all its details, all the 'matter' in all its details, and in all its essence, is clear before his eyes, and consequently, he is the one who later states the judgment, because he 'sees' the matter, and he is already compelled to bring the judgment to its form, and because of this, we find many details and laws in a 'judge'. Also, what is said (Deuteronomy 19:15) "By the mouth of two or three witnesses shall the matter be established", the matter of testimony, is also not as always learned, that it is merely a matter of knowledge, a mere story, by which the judge becomes aware, and they decide the law. Testimony is also an essential part of the judgment, as the witnesses saw and observed the 'matter', and the 'matter' passed before their eyes, they must place the 'matter' before the judge, and together the entire 'matter' in all its reality is ignited, and the matter is already supervised with utmost supervision, and then the judge brings the judgment to light. Indeed, we truly find in several places that "the hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him" (Deuteronomy 17:7) – we see from this that the witnesses are also part of the 'judgment'. If something is missing in the testimony, then the 'matter' is not supervised to the utmost, and therefore something is also missing in the essence of the judgment! Thus are his words. And they correspond well with our words.

It is possible to explain based on this the precise language of the holy Torah "and he saw their burdens" – behold, it does not say "and he saw their work," which is what Moses seemingly saw, but "their burdens." And indeed, Onkelos translated this as "and he saw their service," and "service" means "work," but in any case, in the holy language, the precise meaning of the word "burdens" is not work, but suffering and pain. According to our words, it can be explained that the Torah specifically used this term to indicate that Moses' vision was not superficial, seeing only people working and toiling, but a deep vision, seeing also what is inherent in their work, namely, their "burdens," the suffering and pain involved and resulting from this work.

Indeed, it is necessary to emphasize and highlight, on the other hand, that despite the importance attributed to the depth and quality of vision, as we have elaborated, this does not detract from the importance of vision in its simple and superficial sense, the physical vision, in the eyes of the flesh of a person. Just as physical vision is insufficient without the intellectual vision of deep contemplation, as mentioned, so too, on the other hand, intellectual vision alone is not enough to reach the level of 'setting one's eyes and heart' on the suffering of others; physical vision of their suffering is also required. This is the nature of the world, that a person can ponder day and night on the suffering of others, but as long as he does not see their distress with his own eyes, it will not touch his heart.

This is explicitly stated in the words of the righteous genius Rabbi Yerucham of blessed memory (Da'at Torah Devarim Part 2, Parashat Vezot Haberachah, essay 'The Worlds and Their Depictions', page 222): And with this foundation, it is understood that in the entire Torah, everything revolves around action. When Moses our teacher wanted to bear the burden with his brothers and be concerned and distressed "in their distress, he was distressed," it would seem that it would have sufficed for him to think thoughts and contemplate wisely on the state of his brothers, and that would be enough. However, the Torah writes (Exodus 2:11), "And Moses went out to his brothers and saw their burdens." Rashi explains: "He set his eyes and heart to be distressed over them." There is no other advice for this, only 'and saw their burdens'—to see with his own eyes specifically, because in the world of action, things can only be depicted in the soul through practical means, specifically through the vision of the eyes. Only Moses' soul was so pure and refined that everything was already prepared and almost depicted for him, so that with a light glance, the matter was immediately depicted and completed, thus his words.

To illustrate the matter, I will recount an incident in which I was personally involved: A few years ago, a young man approached me with a request to recommend him to the great genius Rabbi Eliyahu Fisher (may he live long) [of blessed memory], head of the Gur Kollel in Brooklyn, for financial assistance, as his father was ill and he had a large family. Since I was somewhat aware of the situation, and given the circumstances, I saw fit to accede to his request, and thus, I contacted the aforementioned genius by phone and relayed the matter to him. The genius listened to my words and asked me to come with my car to take him to visit the sick father, a drive of more than half an hour, from which I understood that his intention was that seeing the situation with his own eyes, directly, would serve as a catalyst for him to make an effort in the matter. And indeed, he assisted them with large sums.

Let us return to what we brought from the name of Rabbi Yerucham, that there is an additional layer in the depth of the obligation of 'setting one's eyes and heart,' which is that a superficial glance is not enough, but a deep, examining, and penetrating view of the essence of another's distress is required, along with a comprehensive and detailed look at all its details. It seems that we should add and delve further into the matter, to the depths of the matter, according to the words of Rabbi Yerucham of blessed memory (Ma'amarim of the Supervisor, Da'at Chochma U'Musar, Ma'amar 12, page 31), who established a foundation regarding the connection between the physical and the spiritual, and these are his words: "The foundation is that the physical and the spiritual are connected to each other—just as the spiritual must be with the physical, because everything must pass through it—so the body must not separate from the spiritual. And when the body adds some thought to every glance, it becomes one with spirituality."

According to this, Rabbi Yerucham explained the bearing of the burden: Now it is already understood what connection there is between "bearing the burden with one's fellow" and "acquiring Torah" (Avot, Chapter 6, Mishnah 6). Because only through bearing the burden, which in this connects his body to his soul, and learns to add some thought to the sensory actions of the body, can his body acquire our holy Torah.

Regarding Moses our teacher, it is written (Exodus 2:11) "And he went out to his brothers and saw their burdens," and Rashi explained: "He set his eyes and heart to be distressed over them"—one must use the eyes, because to reach the soul, one must pass through the physicality of the body, but it must be connected to the heart, with spirituality—because without this, when it is not connected to spirituality, then the sight of the eyes is nothing, and there is no feeling, when the body remains alone, everything is arranged for him, thus his words.

And let us contemplate them: What is his intention that "when the body adds some thought to every glance, it becomes one with spirituality"—how can thought be used to insert spirituality into physicality, and turn the body into one with spirituality?

In truth, the explanation is very simple, but only for one who understands it by himself... But for one who is unable to understand it by himself, who is not capable, for such a person no explanations in the world will help... And this is because it depends on the spiritual state of the person's world. One whose spiritual world is rich, full, and abundant, understands well how thought can be used to insert spirituality into physicality, and turn the body into one with spirituality, such a person does not need any explanation, he lives and feels these things. But one whose spiritual world is poor, not only does he not understand this, but he also lacks the tools to understand.

And regarding our matter—here is revealed to our eyes an additional layer in the deep depth of Rabbi Yerucham's initial words, that from the spirit of our words until now it might have been understood that the conduct of setting the eye and heart on another's distress with deep contemplation, which we learned from his initial words, is conduct within the reach of every person, that any person who girds his loins and resolves in his heart to contemplate another's distress with deep contemplation can do so. Indeed, now it becomes clear to us that this is not so, that it is not a matter dependent on will, and moreover, no intellectual abilities, however high and impressive they may be, will help, but it depends on the spiritual level of the person's world—the spiritual level he holds, and the quality of his moral personality, these determine this. The more a person is full and abundant in his inner self, elevated in his spirituality, and corrected in his morality, the deeper, more examining, more comprehensive, and more spiritual his vision and view of everything is, and only from such a view can one reach the level of 'setting his eyes and heart' in the manner explained by Rabbi Yerucham in his initial words, that is, in an examining and penetrating view, descending to understand another's distress in all its scope and depth.

When the head of the Mir Yeshiva, the genius Rabbi Nathan Tzvi Finkel of blessed memory, arrived in America to open a branch of his yeshiva, he first sought to establish an evening kollel. As an opening, a gathering of young scholars took place at the 'Mir Minyan' in Boro Park, and the head of the yeshiva delivered words of Torah and ethics to them. The head of the yeshiva did not speak at length, and at the center of his words was the well-known story of the great Rabbi Chaim Shmuelevitz and the shoes, as told by Rabbi Chaim's students of blessed memory:

The crucible of his feelings and genius gave birth to a wonderful world of refined humanity, thoroughly imbued with the depths of the soul – in his pure Torah-ethical existence.

Once, while passing by on the street, he stopped at the entrance of a shoemaker's shop. Outside, under the blazing sun, pairs of shoes were arranged for drying. They were small and cute children's shoes... He was greatly moved. In the upcoming ethical discourse, this simple sight became one of the foundations of his elevated ethics:

"... I looked at the small and cute shoes... I thought in my heart about the young child passing by on the street, looking at the shoes and coveting them in his heart... The shoes are certainly expensive, and the loving mother promises her little son that it won't be long before she can afford to buy the pair of shoes...

The long-awaited day arrives... With a heart pounding with joy, the child tries on the pair of shoes on his small feet... On the side stands the compassionate mother, watching the joy of her offspring... Her own joy is indescribable and unimaginable...

What a father feels at such a moment, I know... I still remember... What transpires in a mother's heart, I have no picture...

But one thing I can also do – share in her joy...

There is a loving mother's heart here. Gentlemen! 'There' – there they do not feel the other!

About Adam in the Garden of Eden, it is said: "It is not good for man to be alone." What was bad for him there? – Angels were roasting meat for him and pouring wine – he was in the company of angels...! Why 'alone'!? –

Angels have no heart! Living with angels is called 'alone'! When you cannot share with the other – with the other's heart – even about the Garden of Eden, it can be said: 'not good'...!

This story was at the center of the ethical discourse delivered by Rabbi Nathan Tzvi to the young scholars gathered there. And I – I understood and greatly appreciated the story itself – but I could not understand Rabbi Nathan Tzvi's choice to place this story at the center of a lesson delivered to young Torah scholars.

Years passed, and from time to time I had the opportunity to tell this story to different people – I can state that the vast majority of people reacted to it with a look of wonder... They were unable to understand the value of this story...

Then the understanding dawned on me that the ability to observe depends on the level of a person's spiritual world. The penetrating, deep, and incisive vision is a derivative of a person's spiritual and ethical level. Thus, someone who has reached this level, upon hearing such a story, will be immensely moved by it, but someone who has not reached it will not benefit from any explanation, and it is better to tell it to the wall than to him...

Then I understood Rabbi Nathan Tzvi's intention in choosing this story to place at the center of a lesson delivered to young scholars – Rabbi Nathan Tzvi wanted to illustrate the profound difference between the masses, immersed up to their necks in materialism, and the Torah scholars, the sons of ascension, who hover in spiritual worlds. Only for this reason can such a reality exist, where one story can cause a son of ascension to have an immense emotional awakening, while to another, the common man, it sounds like a yawn-inducing description of buying shoes...

Let's illustrate this with a parable: Two people stand and look at a fruit-bearing tree. One, the more insightful of the two, sees in this tree a beautiful creation that God made in His world, and he also sees it as a beneficial creation, for it is a fruit-bearing tree and people enjoy it, and it is not only beneficial for the moment but also for generations, for "its seed is in it." Furthermore, this person sees a wondrous, sophisticated, and complex creation, as known from natural scientists, that even the simplest tree is full of wonders. All this and more is seen by the insightful person. However, his companion, the superficial one, sees a tree. Just a tree and nothing more! What causes this difference between them? The first is a 'person,' and a person perceives what is before him in its entirety, in all its scope and depth of goodness, and thus sees a creation made by the Holy One, blessed be He, a wonder of wonders. But his companion is himself a 'piece of wood'... and as a tree, he sees only a tree like himself...

It seems that this matter is also embedded in the depth of the famous parable brought in the Talmud (Taanit 5b): "I will tell you a parable to what this is similar, to a person who was walking in the desert, and was hungry, tired, and thirsty, and found a tree whose fruits were sweet, its shade pleasant, and a stream of water flowing beneath it. He ate of its fruits, drank of its water, and sat in its shade. When he wished to leave, he said, 'Tree, tree, with what shall I bless you? If I say that your fruits should be sweet, your fruits are already sweet; that your shade should be pleasant, your shade is already pleasant; that a stream of water should flow beneath you, a stream of water already flows beneath you. Rather, may it be God's will that all the saplings planted from you be like you.'" This person had deep thought and encompassed in his view all the goodness of the tree.

In Westgate, Lakewood, the yeshiva held a "Shabbat Fundraiser," attended by our teacher, the esteemed Rabbi Yisrael Neuman, and I delivered a speech between Kabbalat Shabbat and Maariv. In my sermon, I recounted a story about my father's grandfather, the esteemed Rabbi Moshe Landinsky, who once, in the height of winter, when it was terribly cold outside, entered the study hall of the holy Radin yeshiva, approached the brick stove that stood at the edge of the hall and spread its warmth, embraced and kissed it, and exclaimed with emotion: "Stove, stove! How envious I am of you! How much Torah is credited to you! You warm the study hall, allowing the yeshiva students to learn."

Rabbi Yisrael, who also listened to my sermon, was truly moved by this story, and throughout the Shabbat, he repeatedly praised it and thanked me again and again for sharing it. Here too, the point is the same—the simple person looks at the brick stove and sees just a stove, a simple fireplace... Is there anything special about a heated fireplace? Something worthy of contemplation? Admiration? Appreciation? Just a fireplace... Not so for an elevated person like Rabbi Moshe, who sees in this seemingly simple stove a powerful tool that creates the right conditions for the Torah study of all the yeshiva students.

My grandfather, the esteemed Rabbi Shmuel David, of blessed memory, and my grandmother, Rebbetzin Tzivia, of blessed memory, recounted that in Radin, with the Chofetz Chaim and Rabbi Moshe, when they wanted to add an extra portion of food, they would say: "Perhaps we should add a bit more strength for the sake of Torah study," this was the expression... The simple person, with his coarse eyes, sees a "kartofl"... a potato... The Chofetz Chaim and Rabbi Moshe saw "strength for learning," strength to study Torah.

The esteemed righteous Rabbi Shalom Shvadron recounted: Once, I needed to take my young son to the doctor. On my way, I met the esteemed Rabbi Isaac Sher, head of the Slabodka yeshiva and son-in-law of the elder, of blessed memory. Rabbi Isaac inquired where I was headed, and I replied that I was taking my son to the doctor, emphasizing that it was my responsibility as a father. Upon hearing this, Rabbi Isaac uttered a surprising sentence: "The big animal takes the little animal to the doctor." It is easy to imagine the shock that gripped me upon hearing these words, what had I done to deserve such a 'slap'? Indeed, after some time, I understood the depth of Rabbi Isaac's intention; to his sensitive moral ear, my explanation that I was taking my son to the doctor due to my natural obligation as a father to a son was jarring—after all, this feeling is a natural one present in all animals, and if this is the feeling guiding me, how am I better than an animal, which also cares for its offspring and provides for its needs. Rabbi Isaac expected me to take my son to the doctor to fulfill the will of the Blessed God, to perform the mitzvah of kindness.

Rabbi Isaac demanded from Rabbi Shalom to 'insert' a spiritual feeling into his walk with his son to the doctor, the feeling that Rabbi Chaim Shmuelevitz felt when he saw the shoes...

Thus, the quality of a person's perspective, the depth of his vision and its scope, can serve as a kind of measure of the quality of his personality and the level of his morality.

In the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah (Chapter 4, Halacha 12), Maimonides instructs how one can achieve love and fear of God—through contemplation of the wonders of creation and the greatness of the creatures. His words are: When a person contemplates these things and recognizes all the creatures, from an angel to a sphere and a human being like himself, and sees the wisdom of the Holy One, blessed be He, in all the creations and all the creatures, he increases his love for the Omnipresent, and his soul thirsts and his flesh yearns to love the Omnipresent, blessed be He. He will fear and tremble from his own lowliness, insignificance, and lightness when he compares himself to one of the great holy bodies, and all the more so to one of the pure forms that are separate from the physical and have never been connected to a physical form. He will find himself as a vessel full of shame and disgrace, empty and lacking. End of quote. I have long wondered why we do not practice this, dedicating our time to contemplating creation and its creatures [and many great ones have already noted this], and I have not found an answer.

Time passed until one day I had the opportunity to understand the reason. It was when I went on a trip to the Alps with my father-in-law, mother-in-law, and my wife's family. All the family members greatly enjoyed the challenges involved in this trip, walking on narrow paths, climbing, and the like, while I, who am unable to move... did not enjoy it at all. However, in direct contrast to the fact that I did not enjoy it physically, regarding the 'soul,' I was the only one who enjoyed it—I was the only one in the family who returned from the trip completely filled with admiration for the greatness of the Creator and the beauty of creation. Then, when I contemplated the matter, this understanding flashed in my mind, which stands at the center of our discussion—that one thing depends on the other, meaning that the more a person detaches himself from physicality and clings to spirituality, the deeper his gaze becomes. With a deep gaze at creation and its creatures, he can undoubtedly come to love God, as Maimonides says. But one who clings to physicality, God forbid, his gaze becomes shallow and superficial, and a superficial gaze at creation and its creatures is devoid of any benefit.

The moralists saw in this trait of Moses, who inclined his shoulder to bear the burden with his brothers, the root of his greatness, the cornerstone of all his exalted virtues, the main quality for which he was chosen to be the greatest among his brothers - the savior of Israel, the leader and the man over the congregation, and the legislator through whom the Torah was given.

And thus writes the Saba of Kelm (Chochma and Mussar Part I, Essay 3 - The Order of the Redemption of Egypt): "At the beginning of the story of the burning bush, the Torah precedes the genealogy of Moses our teacher, of blessed memory, with a whole section. 'And Moses grew,' and Rashi explained, 'to greatness, for Pharaoh appointed him over his house.' And it was natural for him to be connected to Pharaoh, and yet: 'He went out to his brothers and saw their burdens,' and Rashi explained, 'He set his eyes and heart to be distressed over them,' meaning, he always observed through sensory perception, for the sense makes a greater impression than hearing, and through this, he always contemplated being a bearer of the burden with them as if he himself was actually bearing the burden with them, for this is the intention of the Mishnah in Avot (Chapter 6, Mishnah 6) 'bearing the burden with his fellow,' for through this he would hasten to seek their welfare in every possibility. And afterward, the Torah tells us that not only for the many did he bear the burden, but also for the individual - 'And he saw an Egyptian man striking a Hebrew man, one of his brothers,' the Torah specified that he had brotherly love for them. And afterward, the Torah tells us that not only when an Egyptian man struck a Hebrew did he save the oppressed from his oppressor, but also 'And behold, two Hebrew men were fighting, and he said to the wicked one, why do you strike your fellow?' (verse 13), even the oppressed by a Hebrew he bore the burden with him and wanted to save him from his oppressor."

And the Saba of blessed memory concludes: "The scripture extended on the genealogy of Moses before the Lord sent him to save Israel from Pharaoh's hand, to inform us that it was not for nothing that he was chosen to bring them out of Egypt and to give the Torah through him, for he had the trait of 'bearing the burden' to a great extent, and the trait of 'bearing the burden with his fellow' is one of the things through which the Torah is acquired."

Indeed, the matter still requires explanation, for although concerning his selection to be the leader, the man over the congregation, who would go out before them and come in before them - the necessity of this trait is well understood, and its placement at the forefront of the qualities determining his suitability for this role, for there is no more reliable and accurate measure of a candidate's being a faithful shepherd to his flock than his excellence in the trait of bearing the burden - but this must be understood, why is this trait necessary for the role of the teacher of Israel and their prophet, why was this trait placed at the forefront of the qualities by which and because of which Moses was chosen to be the recipient of the Torah and the master of the prophets.

And it seems that in order to stand on the explanation of the matter, we must turn to clarify what is the root of the trait of bearing the burden, what is its foundation, and what is the way to acquire it, and from this clarification, it will become clear to us why these great virtues depend on it:

We will try to understand this through the narrative of Moses' upbringing in Pharaoh's house, as Ibn Ezra wrote (2:3), and this is his wording: "The thoughts of God are deep, and who can stand in His secret, and to Him alone are deeds prepared. Perhaps God arranged for Moses to grow up in the royal house so that his soul would be on a higher level through learning and habit, and not be lowly and accustomed to being in a house of slaves. Do you not see that he killed the Egyptian because he committed violence? And he saved the daughters of Midian from the shepherds because they were committing violence by watering their flock from the water they drew. And another thing, if he had grown up among his brothers and they knew him from his youth, they would not fear him, for they would consider him as one of them."

However, it can also be said, according to our way, that this was to test Moses and see if he would be fit to be the leader of Israel, their prophet and lawgiver. Therefore, God placed him in such a position where he would grow up in goodness and pleasantness, in wealth and honor, distant and detached from the life of poverty, suffering, and enslavement that was the lot of his brothers. In this way, he would be refined and tested to see if he could descend from the height of his status to the lowliness in which his suffering brothers were, to leave the 'comfort zone' in which he resided and take upon himself the burden placed on his brothers and bear it with them. He stood this test, was refined and strengthened in it, by killing the Egyptian who oppressed his brothers, risking his life, as indeed happened when the matter became known to Pharaoh, who sought to kill him, forcing him to flee Egypt and go into exile in Midian.

These matters align well with the words of the Alshich on the site: "It comes to teach us that a man of Israel who rises to greatness while all of Israel is in distress should not say 'peace be upon my soul,' but rather be with them in their distress. This is what it says, behold, 'and it was,' which is woe and distress in those days, and then 'Moses grew,' who rose to greatness, the son of the king's daughter and great in the royal house, and it was not fitting for him to separate from their distress, therefore 'he went out to his brothers and saw their burdens,' seeing and being distressed by their distress, 'and he saw a Hebrew man being beaten,' etc."

And we learn how and what is the way to acquire the trait of bearing the burden - the departure - in order to be a 'burden bearer', a person is required to 'depart', he must leave the goodness in which he resides, his wealth, his tranquility, his health stability, 'depart' from all these, 'depart' from his comfort zone - and only after he has 'departed', can he 'enter' under the burden placed on another, and bear with him the weight of it. And in this test, in its most stringent version, Moses was placed, as the Lord tested him to see if he could 'depart' from his situation in Pharaoh's house, from the most excellent comfort zone imaginable - the royal palace, and 'enter' the place where his brothers were, at the farthest and most distant end... in the depths of degrading slavery. And Moses passed this test with honor, 'departed' from his situation in Pharaoh's house, and entered under the burden of his brothers, and he departed so much that he could no longer return... as he was forced to flee to Midian.

How pleasant, according to this, are the words of the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah, Parsha 1, Siman 27), which state: "And he went out to his brothers" – this righteous one went out twice, and the Holy One, blessed be He, wrote them one after the other, "And he went out on the second day" – behold, two, and he saw their burdens, etc. The Midrash emphasizes that the importance of the 'goings out' – 'And he went out to his brothers' and 'And he went out on the second day' – is not less than the importance of 'And he saw their burdens', and perhaps even greater, and therefore the Torah repeated them. This aligns with our words, that the way to reach 'And he saw their burdens', to be 'bearing the burden', is through 'going out', leaving one's own situation and personal engagements.

One who is occupied with himself and his own self cannot have the ability to be interested and involve himself in the situation of another in a way that he bears the burden with him. This was the greatness of Moses our teacher, who could completely 'go out' from his own engagement and connection to himself and his situation, and thus was prepared to enter the suffering of his fellow to bear the burden with him.

This also illuminates the continuation of the Midrash's words, which state: "And he saw their burdens", what is 'And he saw'? He would see their burdens and cry and say, 'Woe to me for you, who will give my death for you, for there is no harder work than the work of clay', and he would put his shoulders and help each one of them. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yossi the Galilean, says: He saw a large load on a small person and a small load on a large person, and a man's load on a woman and a woman's load on a man, and an old person's load on a young person, and a young person's load on an old person, and he would set aside his rank [his level and greatness, even though it was against etiquette. Etz Yosef] and go and arrange their burdens and act as if he was helping Pharaoh. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: You left your affairs and went to see the suffering of Israel and behaved with them as brothers, I will leave the upper and lower realms and speak with you, as it is written (3, 4), "And the Lord saw that he turned aside to see", the Holy One, blessed be He, saw in Moses that he turned from his affairs to see their burdens, therefore "God called to him from the midst of the bush". It is explained from this that the essence of bearing the burden depends on 'you left your affairs' – it is incumbent upon a person to leave his affairs, to go out and detach from the engagement around his own self, and once he does so, the bearing of the burden will almost come by itself.

It is possible that this is why Rashi uses the term "gave" in his words here - "gave his eyes and heart to be distressed over them," to hint at this matter. His intention is that initially, Moses had to remove his eyes and heart from himself, which is the natural place where a person's eyes and heart usually turn, and direct them towards the Israelites. Since he did so, the path to bearing the burden with them was naturally shortened.

In the teachings of the Musar masters, it is explained based on Rashi's wording that in order to acquire the trait of "bearing the burden with one's fellow," a person needs to work on their character traits, to train themselves to "give their eyes and heart" to the suffering of others. According to our words, it becomes clear that the main work should focus on exiting and detaching from preoccupation with one's own self.

Indeed, the Israelites are compassionate, the descendants of compassionate people, and when they set their hearts to see the suffering and distress of others, they participate in their pain and suffering with all their heart. However, sometimes we are so preoccupied and troubled with ourselves and our private situation that we do not notice that others are in distress...

We can further say, according to our approach, that the two matters Rashi wrote in explaining this verse - that "Moses grew" means Pharaoh appointed him over his house, and "he saw their burdens" means he gave his eyes and heart to be distressed over them - are interconnected. The verse comes to say that even though Moses grew so much, reaching the height of being appointed over Pharaoh's house, nevertheless, he chose to "go out" from this exalted state to his brothers, to the lowly state of degrading slavery, and to give his eyes and heart to be distressed over them.

Another matter that can be explained according to our approach is the description brought in the aforementioned Midrash, that "he would put his shoulders and assist each and every one of them." And further there: "and he would go and ease their burdens" – not only in thought did Moses bear the world of his brothers, nor only in words, but in actual deed, he would assist them in their work. The moralists explained that this is a matter of sharing in their distress, that in order to bear the burden, actual participation in the other's sorrow is required.

Now, according to the simple understanding, the need for this is "symbolic," both outwardly and inwardly. Outwardly – to demonstrate and illustrate to the other that one shares in their sorrow. Inwardly – to strengthen the feeling of bearing the burden, as through actions and deeds of bearing the burden, the internal feeling of this trait is also strengthened. As in the well-known story of Rabbi Eliyahu Chaim Meisel, the rabbi of Lodz, who once, on a cold winter night, knocked on the door of a distinguished wealthy man to solicit a donation for a poor widow who had no means to buy firewood to heat her home. When the wealthy man opened the door and found the rabbi standing in his grandeur, he welcomed him warmly and invited him to enter the heated house to hear what he had to say. But Rabbi Eliyahu Chaim politely refused and began to recount the story of the needy widow while standing on the open doorstep. The wealthy man, dressed in light home attire, was forced to remain at the door, listening to the rabbi's words to the end, while exposed to the terrible cold outside. After the wealthy man made his donation, he wondered to Rabbi Eliyahu Chaim: "Teach us, our rabbi, why did you refuse to enter my house and chose to freeze me in the terrible cold?" Rabbi Eliyahu Chaim replied: "If we had sat in your well-heated office, you would not have been able to feel the widow's suffering, freezing with her orphans in the terrible cold, and you would not have made a generous donation for her. But now, having felt the terror of the cold in your bones, you understood the depth of the widow's suffering, and your donation was accordingly..."

Indeed, according to our approach, there is an additional reason for the necessity of participating in the other's sorrow in practice, beyond the aforementioned symbolic need. It is that actual participation in the other's sorrow helps a person completely leave their own state and fully enter the other's state, which is the condition for bearing the burden, as mentioned above.

And now let us take another step – behold, when we carefully examine the matter, we see that the depth of the concept of this 'departure,' necessary for acquiring the trait of bearing the burden, is the trait of humility. A person's departure from the goodness in which they reside, from their wealth, tranquility, and health, from their comfort zone, in short, their departure from self-occupation – depends on and stems from their departure from their very self, from nullifying its importance in their eyes. Only by being lowly in their own eyes, by nullifying their self, can a person depart from self-occupation and bear the burden of another, and this level is the trait of humility.

And it is explicitly stated in the Midrash (Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 10), and this is its language: Great is humility, through which Moses our teacher was exalted, as it is said (Numbers 12:3), "Now Moses was very humble, more than any man." What does it mean 'more than any man'? People are made into three groups: some in the greatness of heaven, some in the greatness of kingship, and some commoners. Moses our teacher saw himself in all three, and in all three, he was humble. Initially, he was in the greatness of kingship, as he was like the son of Pharaoh's daughter, and he did not abandon his humility, as it is said, "Moses grew up and went out to his brothers and saw." What does 'and saw their burdens' mean? It teaches that he bore their burdens with them, saying, so that I do not separate myself from the public's suffering. Another interpretation, 'and saw their burdens,' he saw that they were loading the old like the young, the woman like the man, the small like the great, and he stood and equalized them. Therefore, he merited that the section of valuations was given through him (Leviticus 27:1-8), to distinguish between woman and man, between old and young, between small and great. Even when he was in Midian fleeing as a commoner, he did not abandon his humility, he saw Jethro's daughters in distress, and he did not become arrogant to stand and draw water for them (Exodus 2:17), and he was in his soul like the son of a king's daughter. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, come and see how different neighbors are from neighbors, there was only one shepherd there, and no one quarreled with him, but here there were seven shepherdesses, and the shepherds quarreled with them, until they needed Moses to save them. Even when he was in the greatness of heaven, he did not abandon his humility, as it is said (Exodus 17:12), "Moses' hands were heavy." Did Moses our teacher not have a pillow or a garment or a sheet to sit on? Rather, he said, when the public is in distress, I too will be with them in distress, he did not become arrogant to say I am like a king, but even at the time of the dispute it is written about him (Numbers 16:25), "Moses rose and went to Dathan and Abiram," he did not become arrogant to say, these are opposing the Holy One, blessed be He, and I am going after them, but all his words were humility. And so you find when Eldad and Medad prophesied, what did Joshua say, "Joshua son of Nun, Moses' servant, one of his chosen men, answered and said, 'My lord Moses, stop them!'" (Numbers 11:28). He said, "Are you jealous for my sake?" (Numbers 11:29). He said to him, who gives tomorrow that all the people of the Lord were prophets, even the servants and maidservants who keep the commandments, and you seek that there should be no prophet but me, I am the one who requested that these seventy elders be prophets, as it is said (Numbers 11:14), "I cannot carry all these people alone." And not only that, but initially I fled from authority, as it is said (Exodus 4:13), "Please, my Lord, send someone else." Thus concludes the Midrash.

And now it is resolved what was difficult for us above, as to why the trait of bearing the burden is necessary for the role of the leader of Israel and their prophet, and why this trait was placed at the forefront of the qualities by which and through which Moses was chosen to be the recipient of the Torah and the master of the prophets – since this trait at its root is the trait of humility, it is certainly very necessary for this, for the humble person, who nullifies their self entirely, is the one qualified to acquire the wisdom of the Torah and to ascend the rungs of the spiritual ladder, up to its highest level, which is prophecy. Conversely, the main obstacle to acquiring the Torah and the levels of service is the 'self' in a person – their selfhood, its cultivation, and preoccupation with it.

There is still a need to add and deepen the matter of self-nullification and bearing the burden, and to clarify that it is not as one might superficially think, that a person is required not to think about the 'self', but on the contrary, a person is allowed and even needs to think about themselves. However, they are required to learn, understand, and reach the recognition that others are included in the 'self', others are the 'self'—the world thinks that bearing the burden means 'he does not think about himself', but in truth, bearing the burden means 'he thinks about himself, but he understands that the other is essentially himself.'

And from the words of the righteous genius Rabbi Yerucham of blessed memory, I learned this. His words in "Da'at Chochma U'Musar" (Part 3, Article 195, Page 271) state: It is only that a person is commanded in "Love your neighbor as yourself," meaning love of others, that it should be exactly like yourself, meaning the unification of souls, until a person naturally [meaning spiritually] feels the pain of others. As is known, the matter of Job's three friends who were about three hundred parasangs apart, yet they immediately felt Job's pain even from their distant place, as known from the saying of our sages in Bava Batra at the end of the first chapter (16b), that there was a sign of trees between them, and they immediately felt each other without any barrier, due to their love, unity, and connection with each other. And this is what Rava said there, "This is what people say: either companionship or death." My friend, consider these words, I think you will understand my intention. Therefore, the matter of bearing the burden with one's friend is so great because this is the entire Torah, meaning the unification of souls to feel each other, and all the study of Torah, the learning and the action, are the ultimate goal for the souls to unite to feel each other, to be truly one. And this is "And who is like Your people Israel, one nation" (1 Chronicles 17:21) — truly. And this is the foundation of the entire Torah, etc., end of quote.

Thus, we see that what is required of a person by the obligation to bear the burden with their friend is to unite their friend's soul with their own soul—'Love your neighbor as yourself'—truly like yourself, so much so that from this, a person will spiritually feel the pain of others, like Job's friends who immediately and without any barrier felt each other, due to their love, unity, and connection with each other. And from this, when one thinks about themselves and engages in their own self, they will naturally include others as well.

One should be amazed at the words of Rabbi Yerucham that the unification of souls is the foundation of the entire Torah—is it really so? To such an extent do things reach? Why and in what way is the matter of unifying souls so great that it constitutes the foundation of the entire Torah?

It seems to explain that the souls are those through which the Torah is upheld, those through which it moves from potential to actual, for the Torah was created before the creation of man and the soul that was breathed into him, and the creation of man and his soul was according to the Torah, as the famous saying goes (Zohar, Volume 2, Parashat Terumah, page 161b), "He looked into the Torah and created the world," meaning that according to what is stated in the Torah, the world was created, in such a way that through its creation, what is stated in the Torah could move from potential to actual. It follows, therefore, that due to the Torah and as a result of it, the soul of the Jew was born and created, for the purpose that through it the Torah would be upheld in practice. This is the matter brought in the Zohar (Zohar Chadash, Song of Songs) that the number of letters in the Torah is six hundred thousand corresponding to the six hundred thousand souls of Israel. Therefore, we see how the Jew, when disconnected from the Torah, happiness is far from him, and his soul is not satisfied—since the foundation of the Jewish soul is from the Torah, and its entire essence is the fulfillment of the Torah, when it is disconnected from it, Heaven forbid, its source of life is cut off.

This is the reason for Rabbi Yerucham's words that the unification of souls is the foundation of the entire Torah—that the main fulfillment of the Torah is in its completeness, and since the entire purpose of the creation of souls is for the fulfillment of the Torah, it follows that their unification and perfection is the fulfillment of the Torah in its completeness. And since the souls correspond to the letters of the Torah, as the Zohar states, it follows that in their unification, the letters of the Torah will also be unified, and this is its fulfillment, in the combination and connection of its letters into words, verses, and sections, whereas their separation from one another is like its erasure, Heaven forbid.

We find in the Gemara (Moed Katan 25a): "It is taught, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says, one who stands by the deceased at the time of the soul's departure is obligated to tear [their garment], to what is this similar? To a Torah scroll that is burned, which one is obligated to tear." This law applies to every Jew, even the simplest of the simple, and it must be understood why the departure of the soul of a simple Jew is compared to the burning of a Torah scroll—if there is no Torah, where is the Torah scroll? Indeed, according to the above, it is explained that the loss of a single Jewish soul is a blemish in the unity of souls, and any blemish in the unity of souls is a contradiction and burning of the Torah.

Maimonides wrote (Chapter 6 of Hilchot De'ot, Halacha 3) the following: It is a commandment for every person to love each and every Jew as himself, as it is said (Leviticus 19:18), "Love your neighbor as yourself." Therefore, one must speak in praise of him and be concerned for his property as he is concerned for his own property and desires his own honor, and one who gains honor through the disgrace of his fellow has no share in the world to come. And it is necessary to scrutinize why Maimonides defined the required love as 'like his body,' and not 'like himself.' It is even more difficult according to what I have explained in the past, that the language of the commandment in the scripture "Love your neighbor as yourself" requires more than 'like yourself,' so why did Maimonides not write 'like him,' in the exact language of the scripture—indeed, according to our way, it can be explained that 'like his body' means literally like his body, as if the person and his fellow are truly one body, one is the right hand and the other is the left hand.

I found again the foundation of our words in the book Tomer Devorah (Chapter 1) which states: All of Israel are kin to one another, because the souls are included together, there is a part of this one in that one, etc. And for this reason, Israel are guarantors for one another, because truly in each one there is a part of a limb from his fellow, and when one sins, he blemishes himself and blemishes the part of his fellow in him, thus from that part his fellow is a guarantor for him, therefore they are kin to one another. And therefore, a person should desire the good of his fellow, and his eye should be good upon the good of his fellow, and his honor should be dear to him as his own, for he is truly himself, and for this reason we are commanded "Love your neighbor as yourself," and it is fitting that he desires the righteousness of his fellow and does not speak ill of him at all and does not desire it, just as the Holy One, blessed be He, does not desire our disgrace or our suffering due to closeness, so too he should not desire the disgrace of his fellow or his suffering or his downfall, and it should be as bad for him as if he himself were in that suffering or that good.

According to all our words, we understand more and more why the attribute of bearing the burden, which is the foundation of the unity of souls, constitutes the cornerstone of the Torah and all its virtues. And we will further add now to understand and comprehend that the necessity of the attribute of bearing the burden for the leader of the congregation, the redeemer who will redeem them from Egypt, is not because without it he is unworthy of being chosen for this role, but moreover, without his perfection in it, he cannot serve as a redeemer at all! For how can a person serve as a redeemer who is not united in his soul with the entire unity of the souls of the redeemed?

And with this, the matter brought up in our parasha can be understood – as it is stated later (Exodus 4:24): "And it came to pass on the way at the lodging place, that the Lord met him and sought to kill him," and Rashi explained that he was punished because he first engaged in the lodging. Rashbam explained that it was because "he was delaying in his journey and bringing his wife and children." It is necessary to understand why Moses indeed brought his wife and children with him and did not leave them at his father-in-law's house in Midian, which would have allowed him to carry out his mission with alacrity. We find several explanations for this matter:

Ramban (Exodus 4:19) wrote: "Therefore he took his wife and children, because it was a wise counsel to bring them with him, for this would make the Israelites trust him more. For if he were a free man in Midian, sitting in peace in his home with his children and wife, the son-in-law of the priest of the land, he would not bring them to be with slaves and embitter their lives with hard labor unless his heart was sure that they would soon leave and go up with them to the land of Canaan, and he would not need to return to Midian to take his wife and children from there." This means that Moses brought his wife and children with him to Egypt to demonstrate to the Israelites his confidence in his mission, the mission of redemption, for if he were not confident in it, he would not risk bringing his family into the distress of bondage. However, now it is difficult, for if so, why was he punished for it, since it was a wise counsel?

In Meshech Chochmah, it is written: "He feared they would not believe him, so he brought his sons and wife, who would know that he was confident in the word of the Lord to bring them out of Egypt, for if not, who would bring his sons and wife into such a place of slavery and danger?! Therefore, just as he was punished for saying, 'But they will not believe me' (Exodus 4:1), so he was punished for taking his sons with him and not circumcising his son, since he did not need to take his sons on the way." This means that this counsel was only correct according to his suspicion that the Israelites would not believe him, but since in truth it was an unfounded suspicion, it was not a wise counsel, and therefore he was punished for the delay caused by it in circumcising his son.

According to our approach, there is another explanation for why Moses brought his wife and children – it was because he understood that in order to be the redeemer of Israel, he had to fully immerse himself in their distress, to be like one of them, in the same situation and in the same manner they were in, and any deviation from this would constitute a flaw and deficiency in the complete bearing of the burden with them, which would prevent him from being the redeemer. Therefore, he took his wife and children with him, to be like all the other Israelites who were in Egypt in the distress of exile and bondage with their wives, children, and infants. This was especially significant in that upcoming year, the last year of bondage, during which Egypt was struck with the ten plagues. Certainly, it was a measure of bearing the burden that Moses would enter with his family among all the people of Israel who witnessed all the frightening and terrifying plagues, and not leave them in Midian in safety and tranquility, in a manner where they were not in distress and worry, and he would not be distressed and worried about them, like the other Israelites who worried about their households and were distressed by their distress.

In light of the great importance of this matter of bearing the burden, as it is according to our approach, it is understood why Moses insisted on bringing his wife and children to Egypt against the opinion of his father-in-law Jethro, who argued against him: 'We are already distressed over the first ones, and you come to add to them,' and some say that Aaron argued against him in this manner. This is even more evident in light of the words of the Saba of Slabodka (Or HaTzafon, Part 1, Appreciation of Kindness and Recognition of Goodness, Section 2), who explained that by going against the will of his father-in-law, there was a denial of the good that he had done for him. For this reason, Moses initially argued to the Holy One, blessed be He, that he could not accept his mission, feeling that he owed his life to him and was indebted to him, and he did not agree to accept the role of redeeming Israel until Jethro gave him permission for it. See there where he elaborates on this – and if so, why in this matter of taking his wife and children with him did he not heed his advice? It is only because of the great importance of the matter of bearing the burden, in complete perfection and meticulousness, whose absence or deficiency would prevent him from being the redeemer.

A nice addition to this idea, that Moses was required to feel the horrors of exile and enslavement like his brothers before redeeming them, I found in the words of my relative, the genius Rabbi Baruch Sorotzkin, in his book "The Understanding and the Blessing" on the verse (Exodus 2:3) "and she placed it among the reeds by the river's bank." His words are as follows: "The reason they needed this method of casting Moses into the river—even though we find in Rashi that they did not coat the ark with tar from the inside so that the righteous one would not smell a bad odor—and why God did not save him in another way that would not require casting him into the river, seems to me, according to what I saw in the name of Rabbi Jonathan Eybeschutz (Tiferet Yehonatan 6:14), who questioned why the Egyptians did not enslave the tribe of Levi. Some answer that they wanted to show that it was not mere hatred for the people of Israel, but that there were good and bad Israelites. However, he answered that because his astrologers told him that the savior would be born from the tribe of Levi, he thought that a redeemer could not be someone who had not suffered with the people. Thus far his words. Therefore, the savior of Israel needed to be cast into the river so that he too would taste the bitter experience of the children of Israel, and before becoming a redeemer, he began on his own to help Israel in their labor, so that he too would know the taste of the Egyptian exile."

It can be added and emphasized that Moses did not only help his brothers in their work with words, but in actual deed, as we have already brought above from the words of the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah, Parsha 1, Siman 27): "He would put his shoulder to the burden and assist each one of them. Rabbi Elazar, the son of Rabbi Yossi the Galilean, says, he saw a large burden on a small person and a small burden on a large person, a man's burden on a woman and a woman's burden on a man, an old person's burden on a young person, and a young person's burden on an old person, and he would set aside his rank and go and arrange their burdens for them."

Indeed, we find that this conduct of bearing the burden with his enslaved brothers was not unique to Moses alone, but also with his entire tribe, the tribe of Levi. These are the words of the Shlah (Parashat Va'era, Derech Chaim, Tochachat Mussar, letter 19): "These are the heads of their fathers' houses, the sons of Reuben, etc.," "and the sons of Simeon, etc.," "and these are the names of the sons of Levi" (Exodus 6:14-16) – it is difficult, why is the word 'names' mentioned with Levi more than with Reuben and Simeon? The matter is that the tribe of Levi was not in exile, and Levi knew this, and wanted to participate in the suffering of the community. What did he do? He named his sons after the exile, that is, he named 'Gershon' because they were strangers in a land not theirs, and 'Kehat' because their teeth were blunted, and 'Merari' because "they made their lives bitter" (Exodus 1:14). This is why it says 'and these are the names of the sons of Levi.' From here, a person should learn to participate in the suffering of the community even though the trouble does not reach him, end quote.

Now, on the night of the Seder, during 'Yachatz', we split the middle matzah, and the accepted reason for this is that we want to teach the children that although the tribe of Levi was not included in the enslavement, nevertheless, they too participated in the suffering of the community in the aspect of 'I am with him in distress', and the breaking of their matzah symbolizes this. Indeed, according to our way, this idea is also connected to the core of the Seder night, for the participation of the tribe of Levi in the enslavement in general, and Moses' bearing of the burden in particular, in actual practice as one of the people, as mentioned above – according to our way, this is the opening of the redemption and its preparation, for if Moses had not inclined his shoulder to bear the burden with his brothers as one of them, he would not have been fit to be the redeemer to redeem them. Therefore, when we split the matzah of the tribe of Levi to express their bearing of the burden, the tribe in general and Moses in particular, we touch upon the core of the Seder night and its cornerstone – the redemption from Egypt by the hand of Moses, which is the main story of this night.