Subtle Text Changes Teach Far More Than Subtle Behavior Changes

Parshat Shemot

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

One aspect of the Torah that requires attention is when something is repeated, and yet subtly changed in the way either a narrative is presented, or in how a mitzvah is re-presented, or in how a text appears that second time. What is the reason for the changes? What are we to learn from the changes? 

A few simple examples for your own homework (if you are interested) include:

 •  The way Avraham’s servant meets Rivkah v. how he tells over the story to her family

 •  Pharaoh’s dreams as they happen v. how Pharaoh relates his dreams to Yosef

 •  Aseres HaDibros in Shmos 20 v. Aseres HaDibros in Devarim 5

 • The way the event of the spies transpires in Bamidbar 13-14 v. how Moshe revisits that tale in Devarim 1 

Let us take a look at an example in Parshas Shemos, which has the instruction for what will take place and what actually took place, with subtle differences. Similarities are highlighted in bold, while the changes are apparent. In some cases, something is clearly added which was not part of the instruction. We’ll regroup after the chart. [Space doesn’t allow for translation – these verses are Shemos 3:16-18 v 4:29-5:3, though if you look them up, these differences will likely be "lost in translation."] 

שמות פרק ד (כט) וַיֵּ֛לֶךְ מֹשֶׁ֖ה וְאַהֲרֹ֑ן וַיַּ֣אַסְפ֔וּ אֶת־כָּל־זִקְנֵ֖י בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל:		שמות פרק ג (טז) לֵ֣ךְ וְאָֽסַפְתָּ֞ אֶת־זִקְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל וְאָמַרְתָּ֤ אֲלֵהֶם֙
(ל) וַיְדַבֵּ֣ר אַהֲרֹ֔ן אֵ֚ת כָּל־הַדְּבָרִ֔ים אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֥ר יְקֹוָ֖ק אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֑ה וַיַּ֥עַשׂ הָאֹתֹ֖ת לְעֵינֵ֥י הָעָֽם:	יְקֹוָ֞ק אֱלֹהֵ֤י אֲבֹֽתֵיכֶם֙ נִרְאָ֣ה אֵלַ֔י אֱלֹהֵ֧י אַבְרָהָ֛ם יִצְחָ֥ק וְיַעֲקֹ֖ב לֵאמֹ֑ר פָּקֹ֤ד פָּקַ֙דְתִּי֙ אֶתְכֶ֔ם וְאֶת־הֶעָשׂ֥וּי לָכֶ֖ם בְּמִצְרָֽיִם: (יז) וָאֹמַ֗ר אַעֲלֶ֣ה אֶתְכֶם֘ מֵעֳנִ֣י מִצְרַיִם֒ אֶל־אֶ֤רֶץ הַֽכְּנַעֲנִי֙ וְהַ֣חִתִּ֔י וְהָֽאֱמֹרִי֙ וְהַפְּרִזִּ֔י וְהַחִוִּ֖י וְהַיְבוּסִ֑י אֶל־אֶ֛רֶץ זָבַ֥ת חָלָ֖ב וּדְבָֽשׁ:
(לא) וַֽיַּאֲמֵ֖ן הָעָ֑ם וַֽיִּשְׁמְע֡וּ כִּֽי־פָקַ֨ד יְקֹוָ֜ק אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל וְכִ֤י רָאָה֙ אֶת־עָנְיָ֔ם וַֽיִּקְּד֖וּ וַיִּֽשְׁתַּחֲוֽוּ:		(יח) וְשָׁמְע֖וּ לְקֹלֶ֑ךָ
שמות פרק ה - (א) וְאַחַ֗ר בָּ֚אוּ מֹשֶׁ֣ה וְאַהֲרֹ֔ן וַיֹּאמְר֖וּ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה		וּבָאתָ֡ אַתָּה֩ וְזִקְנֵ֨י יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל אֶל־מֶ֣לֶךְ מִצְרַ֗יִם וַאֲמַרְתֶּ֤ם אֵלָיו֙
כֹּֽה־אָמַ֤ר יְקֹוָק֙ אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל שַׁלַּח֙ אֶת־עַמִּ֔י וְיָחֹ֥גּוּ לִ֖י בַּמִּדְבָּֽר: (ב) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר פַּרְעֹ֔ה מִ֤י יְקֹוָק֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶשְׁמַ֣ע בְּקֹל֔וֹ לְשַׁלַּ֖ח אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל לֹ֤א יָדַ֙עְתִּי֙ אֶת־יְקֹוָ֔ק וְגַ֥ם אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֹ֥א אֲשַׁלֵּֽחַ:			יְקֹוָ֞ק
(ג) וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ אֱלֹהֵ֥י הָעִבְרִ֖ים נִקְרָ֣א עָלֵ֑ינוּ		אֱלֹהֵ֤י הָֽעִבְרִיִּים֙ נִקְרָ֣ה עָלֵ֔ינוּ
נֵ֣לֲכָה נָּ֡א דֶּרֶךְ֩ שְׁלֹ֨שֶׁת יָמִ֜ים בַּמִּדְבָּ֗ר וְנִזְבְּחָה֙ לַֽיקֹוָ֣ק אֱלֹהֵ֔ינוּ פֶּ֨ן־יִפְגָּעֵ֔נוּ בַּדֶּ֖בֶר א֥וֹ בֶחָֽרֶב		וְעַתָּ֗ה נֵ֖לֲכָה־נָּ֞א דֶּ֣רֶךְ שְׁלֹ֤שֶׁת יָמִים֙ בַּמִּדְבָּ֔ר וְנִזְבְּחָ֖ה לַֽיקֹוָ֥ק אֱלֹהֵֽינוּ:

Many questions can be raised. Moshe and Aharon gathered the elders… but where did the elders go? They disappear! The promise was that the people would “listen” (which they did!), but they also “believed!” Moshe was told to say that ה' א-לקי העבריים - “the Lord (Hashem) the God of the Hebrews נקרה (we’ll be aiming to understand this word) on us” (on the people? On Moshe? On Moshe and Aharon?). Yet, Moshe and Aharon first mention ה' א-לקי ישראל – “the Lord (Hashem) the God of Israel – said to send My nation to celebrate Me in the wilderness.” Why the change from “Hebrews” to “Israel?” And they totally added the part of sending the people to celebrate God! After Pharaoh’s initial rejection (interesting that the instruction says to go to “the King of Egypt” while they go to “Pharaoh”), they revert (in verse 3) to the instruction given them, but there is subtle change – they were told to say “the God of the Hebrews (spelled with to “yud”s) נקרה on us” (3:18), but they actually say to Pharaoh that “the God of the Hebrews (now with one “yud”) נקרא on us” (5:3). TWO spelling changes? העבריים v. העברים, and word Nikrah, נקרה (with a Heh (ה) - NikraH) v. נקרא (with an Alef (א) - NikrA). This is followed by the formal request – which is the same in instruction and in action – “Let us please go three days in the wilderness and bring offerings to the Lord (Hashem) our God.” 

Again, limited space prevents us from answering all these questions, so I would like to focus on that difference of NikraH v. NikrA. We’ll get the Ibn Ezra’s view out there first, as he contends there is no difference between the words [- a position I find very difficult to accept]. 

Anyone strongly familiar with Biblical Hebrew will know that the word נקרה (NikraH) likely comes from a word which means “Happen,” while the word נקרא (NikrA) likely comes from a word which means “Called.” While some Midrashim (and Baal Haturim) note that the word נקרה has the same gematria (numerological value) as the word שנה (‘year’) suggesting the plagues will take a year to run their course, most commentaries fall into one of three categories in explaining the word נקרה. 

 Most compare the word to the word used to describe how God “appears” to Bilaam, in a manner which is typically translated into English as “happened upon him.” This is how Rashi, Chizkuni, Eliyahu Mizrachi, Seforno explain it. 

 Others say it means they are to say “God appeared to us,” which is the approach of the Midrash Sechel Tov and Netziv, as well as a longer interpretation presented by Eliyahu Mizrachi, as he unpacks the difference between how God “appears” to Gentiles (such as Bilaam) through a vision associated with Tumah (spiritual impurity), while for holy prophets, He appears through a lens of Kedusha (holiness). He compares the words associated with the sending of the mother bird – כי יקרא (with an Alef), a mitzvah of Kedusha/holiness – versus a nocturnal seminal emission – מקרה לילה (with a Heh), an act associated with Tumah. Both of these are events which are unpredictable. The Maharal is on board with נקרה being a language associated with Tumah, noting this is the only way God could approach them in Egypt, a land of Tumah. He even suggests that they weren’t yet full prophets as this was essentially their first prophesies, so they are not yet at the level where His appearance to them would be using the language of נקרא – the way a full prophet receives a message. This explanation is supported by Or HaChaim and Seforno, the former pointing out “that there is nothing consistent or even regular about God’s reaching out to us” (yet), and the latter noting that “He happened upon us when we are not focused on receiving prophesy.” 

The third approach might be that of Ibn Ezra (and seems to me to be the approach of Onkelos and Targum Yonatan) that God “Called us.” Rav Hirsch says this as well, though his analysis includes the "appeared" opinion. 

When they actually talk to Pharaoh (in Chapter 5) and the word נקרא – NikrA – is utilized, the explanations of the commentaries fall into several categories. The Pesikta says “God called upon us,” while Ramban references our “meeting Him.” Midrash Sechel Tov and Targum Yonatan says “His name upon us is how we are called,” essentially arguing that “we are the people of God.” Onkelos says it means “God was revealed to us.” Netziv wonders about that interpretation, while himself adding that NikrA is the kind of calling that is given to people who are on a much higher level – Anshei Maalah. HaKsav V’haKabbalah does not address the discrepancy in the spelling, but notes that NikrA is a manner of speech that Pharaoh would relate to, perhaps implying that Pharaoh can understand “a calling” versus a “Gilui Shekhinah” (God appeared in a form of revelation), which is how Moshe and Aharon were to explain God’s encounter with them to the Israelites when they say “יְקֹוָ֞ק אֱלֹהֵ֤י אֲבֹֽתֵיכֶם֙ נִרְאָ֣ה אֵלַ֔י” – God appeared to me (3:16). 

Alshikh and Rabbenu Bachaye suggest that the change came about because of Pharaoh’s response to God’s name. When Moshe and Aharon first said “Hashem Elokei Yisrael said to send My people to celebrate Me in the wilderness,” Pharaoh’s response was “Who is Hashem?” They realized they had to change tactics, and instead of saying נקרה – which would reference a lower level of God encountering them, they had to switch how God’s name is mentioned, dropping the Tetragrammaton and just referring to Him as א-לקי העברים, God of the Hebrews, while also revealing the higher level through which He appeared to them. 

The idea that Pharaoh’s reaction changed their intended messaging is one that I find compelling, simply because while God first told Moshe “I know that Pharaoh will not let you go, without a mighty hand (or perhaps without a difficult hand)” whatever the initial plan was seems to have been scrapped the minute Pharaoh asked מי ה' – who is God? It becomes quite clear throughout the plagues that God’s focus is on Pharaoh’s coming to learn and understand Who God Is. [7:17; 8:6,18; 9:14,29; 11:7] The subtle change from נקרה to נקרא, in that context, makes a lot of sense, if it ultimately is presenting the way Moshe and Aharon received God’s word as being on an even higher level than some gentile (such as Bilaam) might receive God’s word. 

 As the heirs of Moshe and Aharon living in a foreign (and at times hostile) environment, our task is to present ourselves as if we are on that higher level, so those who encounter us may come to at least perceive the Godliness we represent, and how the word of God guides our lives. May we be worthy of our mission to do just that.