Name Game

As we begin sefer Shemos, which of course discusses the Shibud and Geulas Mitzrayim, it is easy to fall into a sense of familiarity—after all these are Parshios and Stories that we are all familiar with from our childhood. It is therefore important to try to focus on the way in which the Torah tells us these stories, and even the words used, to ensure that we continue to find deeper meaning in the Parsha. In fact, we can barely get through the first Passuk of the Sefer without encountering words that require explanation. The Parsha begins: “V’Eleh Shemos B’nei Yisroel HaBaim Mitzrayim Es Yaakov.” Literally, the Passuk is telling us that these are the names of Yaakov’s sons. Rashi famously comments that the Torah counts them once again, although they were counted earlier, when Yaakov came to Mitzrayim, “L’Hodiah Chibasan,” to show us how much they were loved by Hakadosh Baruch Hu, who constantly counted them. It seems then, that the purpose of this Passuk is to teach us about the love that Hashem had for the Bnei Yaakov, for otherwise there is no reason for this counting, and the Passuk must therefore be examined in this light. That being the case, we must understand why the Torah uses the terminology of “Shemos”, names. The Passuk could just have easily said “V’Eleh Bnei Yaakov…” Why is it necessary to refer to their names? There are numerous other times that the Torah counts people, and the term “Shemos” is not often used—why is it here? The truth is that this Passuk is almost exactly the same as the one which Rashi refers to, that introduces the counting of Bnei Yaakov when they came to Mitzrayim in Parshas VaYigash, and the word “Shemos” is indeed used there. But in that case, each of the Bnei Yaakov and their offspring are named individually, and it is in fact the first time that we are told the names of all of Yaakov’s grandchildren. Here however, only Yaakovs sons, whose names we are told many times, are mentioned; why does the Torah use the word “Shemos” as if this is the first time we are learning of their names? In addition, there is a one word difference between our Passuk and the matching one in Parshas Vayigash: the word “Es”. The Passuk there says: “V’Ela Shemos Bnei Yisroel Ha’Baim Mitzrayim Yaakov U’Banav,” without the word “Es” that is used in Parshas Shemos. We must understand why the word “Es” is added here, for even in such a small word there can be impact. The concept of Shemos, names, crops up elsewhere in the Parsha as well. Later we are told that Pharoah spoke to the two Jewish midwives: “Asher Shem HaAchas Shifra V’Shem HaShaynis Puah.” The Gemarah in Sota discusses the identity of these women: all agree that Shifrah was in fact Yocheved, the mother of Moshe, but there is a Machlokes whether Puah was her daughter Miriam or her daughter-in-law Elisheva. The Gemarah also cites a variety of opinions as to why they were referred to as Shifra and Puah in this Passuk, but it appears that these words, “Shifra” and “Puah”, relate to how these women acted either towards the children they helped bring into the world, or towards Klal Yisroel at large. This Gemarah, however, raises a question about the wording of our Passuk. The Torah tells us that the names of the Miyaldos, their Shemos, were Shifra and Puah. It appears from the Gemarah, however, that these were in fact not their names but rather described their personalities in some way. Why does the Torah specifically say “Shem Ha’Aachas” and “Shem HaShaynis”, could not the Passuk have identified them by these terms without saying that these were their names? Perhaps we can understand these Pessukim, and gain an insight into the concept of names, if we look at yet another time in our Parsha where the term arises. The second half of the Parsha is devoted to the conversations between Moshe Rabbeinu and Hakadosh Baruch Hu, first at the Sneh and later after Moshe returns to Mitzrayim and begins his dialogue with Pharoah. These Pessukim are fascinating in a way because these encounters really do appear to be two-way discussions, with Moshe Rabbeinu seeming to challenge the Dvar Hashem at some points. As we know, however, Moshe was the Anav Mikol Adam and would certainly not have the audacity to directly challenge the Kudsha Brich Hu, and so in each care we must rely on the words of Chazal to tell us what was really being said. At the outset, for example, Moshe seems almost skeptical of his ability to communicate with Klal Yisroel, and deliver the message with which he is being charged. He is concerned that when he approaches Klal Yisroel with the news that Hashem has sent him, they will respond with a question he cannot answer: “V’Amru Li Mah Shemo, Mah Omar Aleihem”. Moshe appears to be concerned that Klal Yisroel will challenge Moshe's assertion that he was sent by a higher power, asking for His name as if to say: "How do we know that you were sent by Hashem? Give us a sign, using his name." The Ramban asks a very simple question on this Passuk: in order for the name of Hashem to mean anything to Bnei Yisroel, and serve as a proof that Moshe was sent by the Goel Yisroel, they have to have been previously aware of His existence, and if so why would it help for Moshe to use his name—wouldn't he have had the same level of awareness as the rest of the people? Moshe's use of the Shem Hashem could therefore not possibly serve as a proof that he was sent by Hashem and therefore, says the Ramban, we cannot understand the Passuk in the most Pashut way.

The Ramaban and Ibn Ezra both offer explanations of this Passuk that vary slightly from one another but really stem from the same approach—the word "Shem" does not just refer to the name of Hashem, but to the way He interacts with this world. Moshe knew that Bnei Yisroel were aware of the existence of Hashem, as they surely had a Mesorah from their ancestors. He was concerned that when he spoke to them, they would want to know which Middos would be used by Hakadosh Baruch Hu in freeing them. The Ibn Ezra says that they would be asking whether the ultimate Geulah would be done through natural forces or Nissim, while the Ramban explains that the question hinged on the Middah of Rachamim, but the upshot is the same: Bnei Yisroel would want to know not who would be freeing them, but rather how.

The fact that Moshe phrased this question using the term "Shemo", indicates his awareness that the Middos of Hashem are reflected in his many names. In a way we are familiar with this concept, understanding for example that the Shem Adnus refers to Rachamim while Elokim aludes to Din. It seems from Moshe's question, thought, rather than these names telling us which Middah is being employed in a specific instance, the names themselves embody these Middos. In asking "Mah Shemo", Moshe was asking which embodiment of Hakadosh Baruch Hu would be evident during the process of Geulah.

Accordingly, it seems that the word "Shem", which is translated as name, has a deeper meaning. A name is not merely an identifier, but represents the very essence of the item or person it refers to.

This is a concept that appears across the spectrum of Machshava. R' Tzadok Hakohen, for example, writes that a name is an expression of that which is "Nigleh" or apparent about a person or object in Olam Hazeh. In other words, what something is called tells us all we need to know about that item or person.

A similar approach is mentioned in Michtav M'Eliyahu as well. There is an concept, attributed to the Shl"a Hakadosh, that a person can forget his name when he reaches the Olam HaEmes, which is of course difficult for us to understand. R' Dessler explains that a person's name tells him what he is supposed to reveal in this world—it represents his Tafkid, that which he is meant to accomplish in lifetime. When someone is said to "forget" his name in the Olam HaEmes it is because he has failed to fulfil that which his name represented—his mission in life.

With this in mind we can understand the Pessukim at the beginning of the Parsha as well. Shifra and Puah were not the actual names of the Miyaldos, but they were so called because of their behavior and actions. The Torah, however, tells them us that these were their "Sheimos" to indicate that the fact they so behaved was an fulfilment of their Tafkid—they were meant to serve a motherly role to all of Klal Yisroel. Because the way in which they did their jobs earned them these nicknames, which represented their Tafkid, these became their "Sheimos".

This can also help us understand the first Passuk in this Sefer.

The Medrash Hagadol says that the word "Es" indicates that the Bnei Yaakov considered themselves secondary to their father even when he was older and perhaps less active. This is contrary to the way of the world, where younger people commonly overshadow their elders. The Bnei Yaakov never fell into this trap—they came to Mitzrayim with Yaakov and not visa versa—they were always Machniah themselves to the guidance and will of their father.

Perhaps the Torah is sending us the message that this was part of the Tafkid of each of the Shevatim. Their "Sheimos" were in fact to travel "Es Yaakov" to hew closely to the Derech of their Avos, and maintain the standards set by their parents and grandparents. Their name, the embodiment of their Tafkidim in this world, could be seen in this Middah, and because of this they were Chaviv to Hashem—and counted numerous times.

We know that Bnei Yisroel were Zoche to Geulah for three reasons, among them "Shelo Shinu Es Shemam". According to our understanding of a person's name, perhaps we can explain that despite hardship, Bnei Yisroel kept to the Tafkid of the Shevatim—keeping close to the Derech of Yaakov Avinu. Even as the Shibud became harder, they remained "Es Yaakov", attempting to confine their Derech to that of the Avos.

We too can be counted among those who travel "Es Yaakov", doing our best to stay on the Derech Yisroel Saba even in the Galus. In doing so we too can be in the category of "Lo Shinu Es Shemam" and help bring the Geulah closer. ”