The more one peruses the commentaries to the Torah, the deeper his understanding and realization of its Divine authorship. In fact, I am amazed at the obtuseness of those who seek to undermine and distort the Torah’s authority and significance in the life of a Jew. It is almost as if they distort the simple meaning in order to present their perverted elucidation of the Torah’s meaning. Let us take the first few words of Sefer Vayikra as an example. We will follow Horav S. R. Hirsch, zl, a Torah leader whose mission in life was to expose these falsifiers, step-by-step, he demonstrates the Torah’s own exegesis of its Divine origin.
Vayikra el Moshe – va’yedaber Hashem eilav, “And He called to Moshe, and Hashem spoke to him.” Had the Hebrew text been Vayikra Hashem el Moshe va’yedaber eilav, in the usual syntax whereby the subject – in this case, Hashem – is placed between the two predicates, vayikra and va’yedaber, the call to Moshe Rabbeinu would have appeared as an act independent of Hashem speaking to him. It would then have been a simple, straightforward statement meaning that Hashem called to Moshe with the desire to speak with him. The “calling” and the “speaking” would have the same purpose: to speak with Moshe. The structure of the sentence, however, indicates something entirely different. Our pasuk does not have the word “Hashem” separating the two predicates Vayikra/va’yedaber, but following them instead. This implies a more profound meaning. There is something unique and special about this “calling.”
Hashem’s “call” is described as an act that was an integral part of His speaking with Moshe. It was not simply a prelude to speech, but an intrinsic component of that speech. In fact, the calling to Moshe defined the manner in which the speech was executed. The words to be conveyed to Moshe were prefaced by a call to Moshe.
Thus, the syntax of the pasuk was formulated for the express purpose of emphasizing that when Hashem spoke to Moshe, it was indeed the word of G-d addressed to Moshe by G-d Himself. Rav Hirsch contends that the Torah’s intention was probably to confound those deliberate misinterpretations that can transform the Divine Revelation to Moshe into something emanating from within Moshe himself, thereby equating the Revelation with a delusion of such euphoria as arising from within man himself – By doing this, the falsifiers succeed in reducing Judaism to the nadir of other religious phenomena in the history of mankind, whereby Judaism is presented as merely another phase in the development of the human spirit. They refuse to recognize the Divine aspect of Judaism, the Divine nature of the revelation, and the Divine authorship of the Torah.
Rav Hirsch quotes the famous pasuk in Shemos 33:11, in which the Torah attests to Moshe’s relationship with Hashem. Ve’dibeir Hashem el Moshe panim el panim ka’asher ye’daber ish el rei’eihu, “Hashem would speak to Moshe face to face, as a man would speak to/with his companion.” This is inaccurately interpreted as the word of one man to another, the speech passing from one to another. The speaker/Hashem is speaking to the subject/Moshe. Thus, the word of the speaker from whose spirit and will is expressed His articulated word can in no way be the product of the one to whom the speech was addressed. Yet, the falsifiers would have us believe that it was Moshe speaking to himself, with the word emanating from within him.
Hashem’s word came to Moshe from without – calling him away as it were – from his very own thought process to attune himself and listen attentively to Hashem’s word. The mere fact that the “call” came directly, preceding G-d’s words, refutes the notion that these words were preceded by some mysterious process within Moshe himself. The word of G-d to Moshe was in no way a phenomenon precipitated, initiated, or evoked by Moshe. It was not even a development which he could have surmised beforehand. It came to him as a historic event from without.
One would think that the above is accepted without question, wondering why Rav Hirsch must reiterate the idea time and again. Yet, the falsifiers have proven that if one prevaricates long enough, it will become dogma – which it has, to those who choose to deny Divine authority. It is so much easier to say that “it” never took place than to accept the reality, and all the responsibility and obligation that results from this conviction.
That is what a Torah way of life is all about: Accepting with obedience, not rejecting with impunity. When one closes his eyes, he does not see, but this does not mean that nothing is there. One who stuffs his ears does not hear, but this does not mean that the sound was not audible. It all depends on how far we want to go in deceiving ourselves.
