Vol.

20 Issue #13

Parshas Shemos

The Importance of the Seneh

Rabbi Shlomo Zuckier

(MTA 04, YC 11, RIETS 14)

Associate Rabbi- Joseph Slifka Center for Jewish Life at Yale
What does Hashem choose the Sneh, of all places,
to self-reveal to Moshe? Why not select some other tree, or
a different inanimate object, for that important revelation
to Moshe that sets the Geulah in order?
Mechilta deRashbi, in its very first discussion, offers several answers to this question.
1.
Rashbi-The Sneh symbolizes the Galus of Bnei Yisrael
in Egypt. Just like a bird cannot pass through a Sneh without getting severely damaged, Am Yisrael suffered greatly
in its Galus in Egypt.
2. R Eliezer- The lowly Sneh symbolizes the low spiritual
level to which Am Yisrael had descended while they were in
Mitzrayim. Hashem therefore needs to descend to the Sneh,
a first symbolic step for extricating them from this meager
state.
3. R Yehoshua- Hashem chooses the lowly Sneh, as opposed to speaking to Moshe from a more significant tree, or
even from Shamayim, in order to demonstrate an important
principle. Whenever Am Yisrael is in Galus, Hashem joins
them, kavayachol, the Shechina descending into Galuy Mitzrayim along with them. Thus, Hashem chooses the Sneh for
self-revelation to Moshe, in order to indicate that, as Am
Yisrael were suffering, Hashem was kavayachol in a compromised position, as well.
4. R Yose HaGelili- Since the Sneh is Tahor (presumably
because it is Mechubar liKarka) it is impossible to be made
into a worshiped Avodah Zarah item. Given the concern
that people would worship this place of revelation, Hashem
chose the Sneh, which could not become Tamei in that way.
5. R Elazar ben Arach [as understood by the Torah Shleimah]- Hashem specifically chose a short Sneh rather than

21 Teves 5776

the cedars of Lebanon or any other high place in order to

teach the value of humility.
While each of these multiple, divergent explanations are interesting, it can be instructive to consider them
with the contrast of Har Sinai in mind. We know that Har
Sinai and the Sneh are connected to one another in a variety
of places. [For example, see Sotah 5a, Sifra Nedava 1:2-3,
Shemos Rabbah 2:5, Bemidbar Rabbah, Bem. 1:3, etc.] And
this connection is for good reason! These are the two primary revelations of Hashem that Moshe experiences, both
involving fire. And not only that, but the names of the two
locations Sneh and Sinai are very similar! It is no wonder, then, that they are might be connected to one another.
For our purposes, some of the approaches above offer ways
in which the Sneh and Har Sinai might be similar to one another, and some offer possible differences. The approaches
that relate to the suffering and Galus of Am Yisrael would
seem inapplicable to Har Sinai, which takes place once Am
Yisrael has left Galus and has risen from their low level of
Tumah. In that case, we can see Har Sinai as the foil to the
Sneh they are similar in that both are sources for
Hashems revelation, but Har Sinai is a much higher, more
majestic locus of revelation, which is appropriate given Am
Yisraels Teshuva and the end of their suffering! On the
other hand, the theme about Hashem choosing a lowly place
for revelation out of humility certainly can be extended to
Har Sinai. The Gemara in Sotah 5a makes just this point,
saying that we should learn humility from Hashem, given
the choice of the lowly Har Sinai. The concern about Avodah Zarah is also relevant see Bereshis Rabbah, Vayechi
100, which says that Har Sinai was chosen because it was
the only mountain that had not had Avodah Zarah worshiped on it previously (similar but not identical to the concern with the Sneh). Whether Har Sinai is a similar phenomenon to the Sneh or whether it diverges in significant
ways, these Midrashim draw an important connection between the two major revelations of Hashem to Moshe. May
we be Zoche to internalize all of the messages of this wonderful Midrash!

Page 2

The Burning Message of the Sineh

Dovid Tanner (18)

And an angel of Hashem appeared to [Moshe] in a
flame of fire from within the thorn bush, and behold! The
thorn bush was burning with fire, but [it] was not being
consumed. (Exodus 3:2) Moshes first nivuah is famously
given through the sineh, the imperishable bush. What is the
significance of this image - why a burning bush?
Rashi quotes the Midrash Tanchuma which explains
the import of the bush. Hashem wanted to show Moshe that
He was with kilalyisrael in this hard time
imo anochi bitsara. This is why the passuk says Hashem
called to Moshe mitokh hasineh, from within the prickly
thorn bush that symbolizes our troubles. However there
still is an unanswered question; why is the bush not consumed by flame?
Another answer to our original question is the fire
symbolizes the fire of Torah. Many note the etymological
similarity between the words sineh and sinai. They quote
a midrash which equates the burning bush with the fire accompanying the giving of the Aseres Hadibros on Har Sinai.
According to this interpretation, Hashem is alluding to the
future when kilal yisrael will become fulfilled as a nation
obligated in the Torah. To explain why the bush is not consumed, however, we must look elsewhere.
The Rav Thinking Aloud on the Parshah quotes Rav
Soloveitchik noting two miraculous aspects to the sineh, and
a message we can learn from each. First, the passuk says regarding the sineh einenu ukol, it was not being consumed
though the fire burned, no ash was produced and the bush
remained intact. In the next passuk, Moshe was amazed because lo yivar hasineh. Yivar is in pael form, not nifal; this
indicates that the meaning is not simply that the bush was
not consumed but the bush was not doing the act
of bier, or burning. Through this understanding, the second
verse is not a reiteration of the first, rather a new phenomenon: The sineh is not catching fire at all! There was a fire in
the center, but the bush itself did not catch fire. The fire did
not spread, and this was an additional miracle.
The Rav explained the messages from these
two nissim as follows. The bush symbolizes kilal yisrael. The
fact the bush was not destroyed by the fire is Hashems
promise the Jewish People will forever live on and not be
destroyed. The second aspect, that the fire burned only in
the center of the bush but did not spread to its outer edges,
was representing the personality of a Jew. Just as the thorn
bush looks unaffected on the outside even though the inside
is on fire, is also how a Jew may have a cold and uninspired

Vo l. 20 I s su e # 13

demeanor, but he always has warmth, sensitivity, and

love hidden in his heart. In other words, the unobservant
Jew looks like a plain thorn bush, but if one were to dig a
little deeper, in the very center there is a fire burning that
never goes out.
Rav Soloveitchik continues to note how it is wrong
to exclude any Jew, even if he has a emotionless exterior as
mentioned previously. Precisely because we know what
lies in the center, we cannot isolate ourselves and give up
on the unobservant Jew. Even though we cannot embrace
his lifestyle, we must welcome him in hope of uncovering
the beauty that lies within. Hashem needed to tell Moshe
this message, not just so we could learn from it, but also to
assure Moshe there is always warmth in kilal yisrael even
after he saw the ugly sight of two Jews fighting.

One final explanation of the sineh discusses the

dual nature of fire. Fire is destructive and dangerous, but it
simultaneously radiates light and warmth with which can
comfort people and use for cooking and other needs. We
too sometimes feel the burning heat of exile and Hashems
anger; we should focus on the dual nature of these flames.
Unfortunately we can get burned sometimes, but we must
also see the warmth, the imo anochi bitsara. May we merit
the warmth radiating from Hashems presence and escape
the destructive conflagration of exile with the building of
the beis hamikdash.
Great Power Need Not Come from
Great Responsibility

Ari Englander ( 17)

In this weeks parsha, the Torah says:

and a man went from the House of Levi, and he took a
daughter of Levi.
The Gemara in Sotah (12b) explains that upon
hearing Pharaohs decree to have all newborn males killed,
Amram sent away his wife. In turn, because he was the
leader of the generation, the rest of Bnei Yisrael followed
in his example. However, his daughter Miria) pointed out
to him that he was being more destructive than Pharaohs
decree. Pharaoh was killing all of the boys, yet, by choosing to separate from his wife, he was preventing both boys
and girls from being born. Therefore, the passuk states that
Amram went and took his wife back.
The Ramban, quoting the Ibn Ezra, says that Bnei
Yisrael lived in many cities throughout Mitzreim, and

Vo l. 20 I s su e # 13

Yocheved was in a different city than Amram, so he

wenthe physically walkedto her city to marry her.
The Ramban then goes on to reject this pshat because this
interpretation assumes that this side point was necessary for
the passuk to mention, a diffuclt argument to make. this side
point.
The Ramban offers a different explanation, the language he went, is telling us that Amram did not concern
himself with Pharaohs decree and he defiantly took a wife
for himself and fathered children. The Ramban adds that
whenever someone does something unique or exceptional,
for example, the episode of Reuven moving his fathers
bed, the language of he went is used.
Another difficulty the Ramban poses is why
the passuk does not identify the man or daughter of
Levi. He answers that if the passuk were to mention Amram and Yocheved, it would have had to list their lineage up
to Levi, and the Torah wanted to be brief.
Perhaps, another reason why the passuk referred to
Amram as man was to teach us an important lesson. The
Torah is teaching us that greatness can come from anywhere, that is, you dont have to be the Amram, the Gadol
Hador of your generation to produce a Moshe Rabbeinu.
Nor do you have to originate from such heights to become a
Moshe Rabbeinu. Rather, if you put in the effort and the
dedication, you can achieve greatness from a simple man.
Shemot: Acquiring Ones Name

Ben Tzion Zuckier (17)

In parshat Shemot, the Torah recounts the story of
Moshe killing and burying an Egyptian he witnessed strike a
Jew. The next day, when attempting to interrupt the quarrel between two Israelites, identified by Chazal as Datan
and Aviram, Moshe is rebuffed with a toxic comment. He is
told that since he killed an Egyptian, they do not need to
heed his word. After Moshe heard they knew his actions
and were going to inform the Pharaoh, he said
"achein noda hadavar, behold the matter is known.
(Exodus 2:14)" Rashi comments on the word "matter," and
explains this to be the reason Bnei Yisrael were in galut in
Egypt to begin with. Moshe realized the
two aveirot responsible for the exile were quarreling and
speaking slander the two sins Datan and Aviram were engaged in.
The Chofetz Chaim in his work Shemirat Halashon states that the opposite of the mitzvah of limud Torah
is the sin of lashon hara. He explains that lashon hara is so
severe because the tongue, an instrument for speaking

Page 3

words of Torah, is used to speak negatively about another

Jew.
However, there is still a very troubling quandary at
hand why was Moshe permitted to slay the Egyptian taskmaster? Moshe ostensibly acted in a very rash and anger
filled way, striking down another human in cold blood; how
could it be that the leader-to-be of the Jewish nation was
such a seemingly horrid individual?
In order to properly understand this dilemma, we
must first insert ourselves into the life and situation of
Moshe. He was brought up as an Egyptian prince in the
house of the Pharaoh, yet was a Jew by birth. By the burning bush Moshe asks himself the very profound existential
question of mi anokhi, who am I? (Exodus 3:11) He was
troubled by the duality and dichotomy within his personality. Was he a favored Son of Egypt, or a hated Hebrew
slave? Directly before he smote the Egyptian the Torah relates that vayifen ko vokho, vayar ki ein ish, and he looked this
way and that way and he saw there was no man.
(Exodus 2:12) The simple interpretation relates how
Moshe checked for witnesses and when he found none, he
killed the man, a common venture for any delinquent.
However, Rabbi Mark Gottlieb relates a much deeper
meaning. Moshe realized he was not a man. He was a conflicted individual who stood for nothing in particular and
thus decided to take a stand he struck down the Egyptian
who harassed the Israelite.
The deep empathy Moshe felt for his nation while
witnessing this violent act created a deep connection which
allowed him to achieve a clarity of self that eluded him until
now. When he acted for what he felt was correct, two
things happened simultaneously. Physically, he placed himself against the Throne of Egypt, and spiritually, he slayed
the Egyptian prince vayakh et haMitzri, and he smote the
Egyptian. (Ibid) He destroyed the Mitzri within himself, submerging that part of his dual identity and forging himself as a Hebrew
preparing himself for his prophetic calling to emancipate
his true brethren.
May we all be zoche to internalize the message of
this story and find within ourselves the strength to deflect
from social mores and take a stand for what we feel is correct. Additionally, we should all distance ourselves from the
sins of Datan and Aviran and cease harmful speech and quarrels, the aveirot which place us in exile. Through this, may
we be able to escape our current exile and rebuild the Beit
Hamikdash in a timely fashion.