![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
parsha bit: Shemot
When God speaks to Moshe from the burning bush, he first says "I am Ehyeh asher ehyeh" and later says to tell the Israelites "Ehyeh sent me". Chazal ask why the change in name. Rabbi Yaakov ben Abina said that when God made the first statement, he said to Moshe "I am with your people in their current troubles and I will be with them in their future troubles", and Moshe objected. It's bad enough that they're slaves now, he said; you can't also tell them that there will be times as bad ahead! God agreed, and thus just "Ehyeh" in the second statement -- I will be with them now. (Midrash Rabbah, Sh'mot 3:1)
Nothing so complicated!
(Anonymous) 2006-01-19 06:04 pm (UTC)(link)God's simply saying He's on a first-name basis with the Israelites!
The interpretation I always accepted was that the name might be translated into English "Was, Is, Will Be." Given the science bent my theology takes, I love that explanation of the great "I am."
Re: Nothing so complicated!
"Was, Is, Will Be."
I've heard that interpretation before too, but I'm having trouble reconciling it with the pshat (plain meaning) of the text. "Ehyeh" is an imperfect verb, which means not past tense as best I understand it. That said, there are verbs in English that look like past tense but would be called imperfect if we did imperfect -- I'm thinking of, say, "I was going" as opposed to "I went". "I was going" sounds like an incomplete action that occurred in the past; I don't know how that would be rendered in biblical Hebrew, or even if biblical Hebrew has such a notion. If it does, though, perhaps there is a sense of "was" that means "was and is all rolled up into one"? Dunno; we are now safely past my comfortable understanding of the grammar. :-)
Grammar fun with the Weekly Parsha
(Anonymous) 2006-01-24 04:45 am (UTC)(link)I can not "will be with" you 'now'.
I can only "be" with you 'now'.
If the name changed from "I will be that what I will be" to "I will be", then what is the difference? It still seems to refer to future suffering. Rashi says something very similar to Rav Yaakov ben Abina "אהיה עמם בצרה זו, אשר אהיה עמם בשעבוד שאר מלכיות". "I will be with them in this time of trouble, and am the one who will be with them when subjugated by other kingdoms."
Am I nitpicking here?
- Inkhorn
Re: Grammar fun with the Weekly Parsha
Does that make sense?
Thanks for the Rashi.
Re: Grammar fun with the Weekly Parsha
What is this definition of "being" with them anyway? If G-d is omnipresent then isn't G-d always there? One possibility is the concept of G-dly attention. I remember seeing a concept in Torah represented by 'turning up my eyes', which I believe means a form of ignorance. Could it be that G-d's not 'being' with them indicated an ignorance on account of punishment?
Curious!
- Inkhorn (but with an account that doesn't bear my preferred nickname :( )
Re: Grammar fun with the Weekly Parsha
Essentially what you're saying is that it means "I will be with you in the near future until the end of your current troubles, and I will be with you when new problems crop up."
Well, "speculating" rather than "saying", but yes. I don't know if it's a correct interpretation; it seems consistent with the midrash.
What is this definition of "being" with them anyway?
A good question. As you point out, God is omipresent, but perhaps the degree of attention varies. Maybe God monitors everything (he can, after all), but whether and how he responds depends on us more than on him? And what he was saying was that the Israelites in Egypt, for whatever reason, have now merited more of his attention? Again, I don't know if it's a reasonable interpretation, but it seems somehow better than the one that has God saying "oh yeah, I knew I was forgetting about somebody... ok guys, I'm here now".