Parshas Yisro
1. On the verse "אנכי ה' אלקיך אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים" ("I am the L‑rd your G‑d, Who took you out of the land of Egypt")1, Rashi quotes the words "Who took you out of the land of Egypt" and explains: "כדאי היא ההוצאה שתהיו משועבדים לי" ("The taking-out is worthy2 that you be subjugated to Me").
[Rashi then brings two more interpretations, as discussed below in section 5.]
What is the difficulty in the verse that Rashi comes to resolve with his interpretation?
The Mizrachi (and other commentators3) says that the question is: Why "תלה אלקותו ביציאת מצרים ואמר אשר הוצאתיך ולא אמר אשר בראתי שמים וארץ" ("did He make His G‑dliness dependent on the Exodus from Egypt, saying 'Who took you out,' and not saying 'Who created heaven and earth'")?4 And to this Rashi answers, "שעל ידי ההוצאה ממצרים מהיות להם עבדים זכה בהם להיות משועבדים לו ויהי' אלקיהם" ("that through taking them out of Egypt, from being slaves to them, He acquired them to be subjugated to Him, and He would be their G‑d").
This interpretation, however, is seemingly not smooth. According to the plain meaning of the verse, the question of why it does not say "Who created heaven and earth" has no place to begin with — for this comes as a continuation (a reason) for "I am the L‑rd your G‑d," i.e., that "the L‑rd" is the G‑d of the Jews; so one must state a matter that pertains only to the Jewish people (on account of which Jews are set apart from the whole world).
And the reason that specifically this matter (in connection with the Jewish people) is chosen — "Who took you out of the land of Egypt" — is simply understood: this is the redemption of the Jewish people, which led to the event at Mount Sinai.5
The question is even stronger. The idea that the Exodus is the reason for "I am the L‑rd your G‑d" (in other words, that the Exodus took place so that Jews would accept the A-lmighty as their "G‑d" and serve Him) is already stated earlier, and several times. Right in Parshas Shemos it says, "בהוציאך את העם ממצרים תעבדון את האלקים על ההר הזה" ("When you take the people out of Egypt, you will serve G‑d on this mountain")6. Similarly, at the beginning of Parshas Va'eira: "לכן אמור גו' והוצאתי אתכם מתחת סבלות מצרים גו' ולקחתי אתכם לי לעם והייתי לכם לאלקים וידעתם כי אני ה' אלקיכם המוציא אתכם מתחת סבלות מצרים" ("Therefore say ... I will take you out from under the burdens of Egypt ... I will take you to Me as a people, and I will be your G‑d, and you will know that I am the L‑rd your G‑d, Who takes you out from under the burdens of Egypt")7. Moreover, in our parsha itself, in the preparations for the Giving of the Torah, it says: "אתם ראיתם אשר עשיתי למצרים ואשא אתכם גו' ואביא אתכם אלי . . שמוע תשמעו בקולי ושמרתם את בריתי . . ואתם תהיו לי . . וגוי קדוש" ("You have seen what I did to Egypt, and I carried you ... and brought you to Me ... if you will listen well to My voice and keep My covenant ... you will be to Me ... a holy nation")8.
So it is not understood: what is difficult specifically in this verse, that Rashi must explain here (and not earlier) "The taking-out is worthy etc."?9
2. There are also several precise points in Rashi's wording.
As it is plainly learned, the words (of Rashi) "that you be subjugated to Me" are the rendering of the beginning of the verse, "I am the L‑rd your G‑d" (in the words of the Re'em cited above: "subjugated to Him, and He would be their G‑d"). According to this interpretation, "Who took you out of the land of Egypt" is the reason for "I am the L‑rd your G‑d": since "I took you out of the land of Egypt," therefore Jews became subjugated to the A-lmighty. This is similar to what is stated at the end of Parshas Shelach10 (and in several other verses11): "אני ה' אלקיכם אשר הוצאתי אתכם מארץ מצרים להיות לכם לאלקים" ("I am the L‑rd your G‑d, Who took you out of the land of Egypt to be your G‑d"), and as Rashi explains12: "על מנת כן פדיתי אתכם" ("On this condition I redeemed you") etc.
Accordingly, however, it is not understood:
a) Why does Rashi not quote in the heading also the words "I am the L‑rd your G‑d" (which he goes on to explain)?
b) In the vast majority of places13 where Rashi states this idea (that the Exodus took place so that Jews would accept upon themselves the A-lmighty as "G‑d"), Rashi's wording is "On this condition I redeemed etc." (or similar). Why does Rashi here use the wording14 "The taking-out is worthy etc."?15
c) Rashi should have said, in keeping with the wording of the verse ("I am the L‑rd your G‑d"), "It is worthy etc. that you accept My G‑dliness"16 [or (in Rashi's wording elsewhere17) "that you accept My sovereignty," or similar]. Why does Rashi deviate from the wording of the verse and introduce a new expression (and idea) — "that you be subjugated to Me"?18
Seemingly one could answer that Rashi derives it from the end of the verse, "מבית עבדים" ("from the house of bondage")19: since the A-lmighty took the Jews out of the "house of bondage," therefore "the taking-out is worthy" that Jews should become servants of G‑d (as it says, "עבדי הם אשר הוצאתי אותם מארץ מצרים" ("They are My servants, whom I took out of the land of Egypt")20).
But this is not a sufficient answer, because:
(a) Rashi's wording is still not smooth — he should have said (in the wording of the verse) "It is worthy etc. that you be My servants"21; why does he deviate and say "subjugated"?
(b) Mainly: in the heading Rashi quotes only the words "Who took you out of the land of Egypt," and not the end of the verse, "from the house of bondage" (and does not even allude to it with an "etc."). It is thus understood that Rashi derives the idea "The taking-out is worthy that you be subjugated to Me" (not from "from the house of bondage," but) from the words "Who took you out of the land of Egypt" themselves [especially since Rashi, even in his explanation, says simply "The taking-out is worthy etc.," and not "the taking-out from the house of bondage"].
3. The explanation of all this can be said as follows:
The question on "Who took you out of the land of Egypt" is (not why "I am the L‑rd" is connected with "I took you out of the land of Egypt," but the reverse): what does it teach us?!
As mentioned, Jews already knew beforehand that the Giving of the Torah ("you will serve G‑d") is the purpose of the Exodus. Moreover, the A-lmighty commanded that this be conveyed to the Jews during the days of preparation for the Giving of the Torah, as mentioned: "You have seen what I did to Egypt, and I carried you ... and brought you to Me ... if you will listen well to My voice and keep My covenant ... you will be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation."
And since this is so — what does it teach us22 that "I am the L‑rd your G‑d" is the result and purpose of "I took you out of the land of Egypt"?23
Rashi therefore learns that "Who took you out of the land of Egypt" is (not a reason (or explanation) for "I am the L‑rd your G‑d," but) a separate and new matter: "The taking-out is worthy that you be subjugated to Me."
"I am the L‑rd your G‑d" means the acceptance of His sovereignty24 — that one accepts the A-lmighty as ruler and King, and consequently that one will obey all His commands25 etc. The A-lmighty then added a further matter: the acceptance of the sovereignty of Heaven (which leads to the acceptance of the yoke of mitzvos, to obeying His decrees) is not enough; rather, Jews must be "subjugated to Me," entirely subjugated to the A-lmighty.
The acceptance of sovereignty does not negate the freedom of one's own "private" life26. It only means that in certain matters which the king commands, one obeys him [both in "arise and do" — doing what he commands — and in "sit and do not do" — not doing what the king forbids]. And so too with the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He: one accepts upon oneself to fulfill all the mitzvos (and decrees) of the King.
But "subjugated to Me" means27 that a Jew is not independent and has no (own) freedom; he is subjugated (entirely) to the A-lmighty, with everything he has and does.
That is why Rashi is precise to say "The taking-out is worthy etc." (and not "on condition"). Rashi uses the wording "on condition" when the verse contains two matters, one of which is a condition for the other (such as: "I am the L‑rd your G‑d, Who took you out ... to be your G‑d"). In our case, however, "you shall be subjugated to Me" (according to Rashi) is not a condition; it is the meaning (and intent) of "Who took you out of the land of Egypt" itself: the taking-out is "worthy of" (and carries within it) the idea that Jews become "subjugated to Me."
4. Accordingly, we will also understand why Rashi does not quote (in the heading) the end of the verse, "from the house of bondage" (and does not even allude to it with an "etc."):
The difference between the expression "subjugated to Me" and an expression of servitude (in general) is as follows28:
When one says "servant" in general, it is not yet emphasized that he has no freedom. For although a servant is not an entity unto himself — he is the property of the master (unlike a laborer, who merely does work for his employer) — nevertheless, the yoke of servitude is expressed mainly in connection with the work he does for the master29. Consequently, at times when he eats, sleeps, and so on, he does not feel the master's yoke (as much). It may even happen that the master does not need the servant's work, and the servant can "rest" etc.30 (he is not obligated to look for work for the master).
The expression "subjugated," however, emphasizes the subjugation of the servant to his master as a constant yoke [similar to the term "shibud" in connection with money, where the money becomes mortgaged and "bound" to the creditor31]: in everything he does he feels the master's yoke, to the point that even at times when the master gives him no work, the servant feels his very existence as subjugated to the master32.
And this is the precision in Rashi's wording, "that you be subjugated to Me," and not "that you be My servants" (or similar):
What the Giving of the Torah accomplished — that Jews became "servants of G‑d" (in general) — is already included in "I am the L‑rd your G‑d." Since the A-lmighty is our ruler and King, Jews "belong" to the A-lmighty ("ולקחתי אתכם לי לעם והייתי לכם לאלקים" ("I will take you to Me as a people, and I will be your G‑d")33), and consequently one must obey Him and serve Him as a servant serves his master*33.
With "I took you out of the land of Egypt," however, a further matter was added: "The taking-out is worthy that you be subjugated to Me."
Although the "condition" of the Exodus is (only) that Jews become "Mine as a people" (which can mean something like the relationship of a people to a flesh-and-blood king), nevertheless "the taking-out (from the land of Egypt) is worthy that you be subjugated to Me":
Since Jews were in servitude in the land of Egypt, where they were (not merely "slaves" — a "house of bondage" — but) in a state of subjugation34 — crushing labor35, to the point of "תכבד העבודה" ("let the work be made heavier")36 (beyond measure etc.) — therefore "the taking-out (this taking-out from the 'land of Egypt') is worthy that you be (not merely servants, but) subjugated to Me."
5. According to this explanation of Rashi — that "Who took you out of the land of Egypt" is (not a reason for "I am the L‑rd your G‑d," but) a separate, new matter — we will understand why, after this interpretation of "Who took you out of the land of Egypt," Rashi brings two further interpretations. In his words:
"ד"א לפי שנגלה בים כגבור מלחמה ונגלה כאן כזקן מלא רחמים שנאמר ותחת רגליו . . הואיל ואני משתנה במראות אל תאמרו שתי רשויות הן אנכי הוא אשר הוצאתיך ממצרים ועל הים. ד"א לפי שהיו שומעין קולות הרבה . . באין מד' רוחות ומן השמים ומן הארץ אל תאמרו רשויות הרבה הן" ("Another explanation: Because He revealed Himself at the sea as a mighty warrior, and revealed Himself here as an elder full of mercy, as it says37, 'And under His feet ...' — since I change in appearances, do not say there are two powers; I am He Who took you out of Egypt and [Who acted] at the sea. Another explanation: Because they heard many voices ... coming from the four directions, from heaven and from earth — do not say there are many powers.") [Rashi then concludes: "ולמה אמר לשון יחיד אלקיך ליתן פתחון פה למשה ללמד סניגוריא במעשה העגל . . לא להם צוית לא יהי' לכם אלקים אחרים אלא לי לבדי" ("And why did He say the singular, 'your G‑d'? To give Moshe an opening to argue in their defense regarding the deed of the Golden Calf ... You did not command them, 'You shall have no other gods,' but me alone").]
This is seemingly puzzling. Rashi explains the plain meaning of the verse — what is lacking in the first interpretation [whose content is an understandable and simple idea, and similar is found in several other verses, as mentioned], that on its account Rashi needs the other two interpretations38, which are (very) far from the plain meaning
— both in terms of their general content, that Jews needed to be warned against an error that "there are two powers," "there are many powers": how can one say that after seeing all the miracles in Egypt and at the sea etc., and while standing at the event of Mount Sinai39, Jews should only then need to be warned against the error that "there are two (many) powers"?!
[Even the fact that "I change in appearances"40 is seemingly not a sufficient reason for such an error. For it is plainly understood (and one sees similarly with a flesh-and-blood person) that the facial appearance (at least) changes according to the action one is doing. A person's facial appearance while waging war is not the same as that of the same person when he is engaged in an act of kindness and mercy.
And all the more so, that Jews should need to be warned against an error that "there are many powers" because "they heard many voices"41 — when from all those many voices the same words were heard, and (mainly) their content is "I am the L‑rd your G‑d; you shall not have ..."42.]
In addition, there is a particular difficulty in each of the two interpretations:
In the first interpretation it is not understood: the "revealed Himself here as an elder full of mercy" (according to Rashi43) already took place on the fifth of Sivan (or at any rate, some time before the A-lmighty began saying the Ten Commandments44). The A-lmighty should therefore have warned Jews against the error (in the fundamentals of faith) of "two powers" immediately at the time of His revelation (and not have interrupted the Ten Commandments in the middle for this purpose).
And according to the second interpretation — that room for error arose through the voice of the Ten Commandments45 — there is a difficulty (as Rashi himself continues46): "And why did He say the singular, 'your G‑d'?" On its own this is no question, since we find in many places that the A-lmighty speaks to the Jewish people in the singular (especially at the Giving of the Torah, when "ויחן שם ישראל — כאיש אחד בלב אחד" ("Israel encamped there — as one man with one heart")47). Here, however, since the voice came in a manner that gives room for the error that "there are many powers," it should have used specifically the plural, and not the singular, which adds still more room for error — that "one deity speaks with one person and another deity with another person, G‑d forbid"48.
[And Rashi's explanation — "to give Moshe an opening to argue in their defense regarding the deed of the Golden Calf" — is seemingly far from the plain meaning, as the commentators49 ask, "What does this defense help?"]
In light of all this, it is most puzzling: what compels Rashi, in the plain meaning of the verse, to add and bring the two interpretations?
According to the above, however, it is simply understood. According to the first interpretation in Rashi — that "Who took you out of the land of Egypt" is a matter separate from "I am the L‑rd your G‑d" — the flow of the wording "I am the L‑rd your G‑d, Who took you out of the land of Egypt" is not smooth, because generally the word "Who" (asher) indicates a continuation of what is stated before it (and not the addition of an (entirely) new matter).
Rashi therefore brings the other interpretations, according to which the flow of the verse's wording is smooth — as Rashi emphasizes that according to the second (and likewise the third) interpretation, the meaning of the verse is: "I am He Who took you out etc."
6. From the conclusion of Rashi's commentary — "And why did He say the singular ... to argue in their defense regarding the deed of the Golden Calf" — there is a wondrous lesson about how dear every Jew is to the A-lmighty:
We are speaking here about Jews who lacked not only "and they shall be subjugated to Me," but who were at the complete opposite extreme of "I am the L‑rd your G‑d." And for the sake of such Jews, the A-lmighty speaks, at the Giving of the Torah and for all generations, "in the singular," so that Moshe would have a "defense" for these Jews!
Moreover: this opening is bound up with the fact that it adds room for the error that "there are many powers" (as mentioned), and, on the other hand, the "defense" is seemingly a weak one (as mentioned from the commentators). Nevertheless, the A-lmighty says the matter is worthwhile — perhaps a merit will come of it for a Jew, such a Jew. And if it gives room for error — "כתוב והרוצה לטעות יטעה" ("Write, and whoever wishes to err will err")50!
The lesson is understood by each and every one of us: one must engage in bringing close each and every Jew. There is no room for making calculations that with this Jew it is worthwhile to devote oneself, but not with another, etc. The Torah cautions that right in the first statement of the Ten Commandments, the A-lmighty placed an opening for finding a merit for a Jew who would stumble, G‑d forbid, in the deed of the Golden Calf (the opposite of that very statement, "I am the L‑rd your G‑d")!
All the more so in our generation, when most, almost all, of those who need to be brought close to Yiddishkeit are in the category of "תינוק שנשבה לבין העכו"ם" ("a child taken captive among the nations") — one must find ways to reach each and every Jew.
And by bringing all Jews close to our Father in Heaven, one assembles the "קהל גדול" ("great congregation")51 that will go to greet Moshiach Tzidkeinu, speedily in our days, literally.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Yisro 5730)
Notes
1) Our parsha, 20:2.
2) "Kedai" — so it appears in the common printings of Rashi and in the Rashi manuscripts ([OCR unclear]) (and not "kedais") [in the first printing of Rashi's commentary: "kedei"; and similarly in a Rashi manuscript ([OCR unclear]): "kedaai"].
3) Gur Aryeh; Devek Tov; and others.
4) See also Ibn Ezra and Chizkuni here. Note also Rashi on Bechukosai 26:13: "I am worthy that you should believe in Me ... for I took you out of the land of Egypt and performed great miracles for you." Note also what is said to Avraham (Lech Lecha 15:7): "I am the L‑rd, Who took you out of Ur Kasdim."
5) Note the Mechilta here: "A parable etc. ... Have you done any [OCR unclear] for us, that you should reign over us? etc. He took out etc., split etc., brought down etc." See below, note 15.
6) 3:12. — Except that there, "you will serve" is the merit Israel has to leave Egypt (Rashi there).
7) 6:6–7.
8) 19:4–6. See Rashi there.
9) See also Divrei David here.
10) Cited in the Re'em here.
11) See Tetzaveh 29:[OCR unclear]; Shemini 11:45; Kedoshim 19:36; Emor 22:33; Behar 25:38; Bechukosai 26:13; ibid., 45. See the next note.
12) In the first (and main) interpretation. — Note the variations in Rashi's commentary in the places cited in the previous note. Rashi on Va'eschanan 5:15. This is not the place to elaborate.
13) See the places cited in note 11. — And so is the wording of Shemos Rabbah here (29:3).
14) Note the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai here: "Even if I had no claim upon you other than that I took you out of the land of Egypt — it is worthy." — See the wording of Rashi on Bechukosai (cited in note 4). See Re'eh 13:6.
15) In Divrei David here: "For even without this there are many matters [on account of which] 'I am your G‑d,' but this matter alone is worthy." — But it is still not understood how this verse differs from all the places in which Rashi wrote the wording "On this condition etc."
16) And as the wording in Shemos Rabbah (cited above) here.
17) Acharei 18:2: "For I said at Sinai, 'I am the L‑rd your G‑d,' and you accepted My sovereignty upon yourselves." And so is the wording of the Mechilta on our parsha, 20:3. See Ramban here (verse 2), and elsewhere.
18) So it is implied from the work of the Maharshal (cited in Tzeidah LaDerech and Sifsei Chachamim here): according to the first interpretation in Rashi there is a difficulty, for it should have said only "Who took you out of the house of bondage" — why mention "Egypt"? See below, note 38.
19) See also Ibn Ezra, Ramban and Chizkuni here.
20) Behar 25:42; and ibid., 55.
21) Similar to the wording of the commentators cited in note 19. And so is the wording of Rashi on Va'eschanan there: "that you be a servant to Him."
22) In Maskil LeDavid here, that this is the difficulty in the first interpretation in Rashi here. — But according to what is explained in the text, Rashi answers this question also in his first interpretation, through the precise wording "that you be subjugated to Me." See below in the text, section 5.
23) As for what is said similarly in other verses (as mentioned above in the text and in note 11) — in those places it does not refer to the Giving of the Torah, but to particular mitzvos. Note that in several of those places Rashi brings another interpretation ("I distinguished etc." and the like). This is not the place to elaborate.
24) Rashi and the Mechilta etc. cited in note 17.
25) Although, in detail, these are two acceptances — the acceptance of sovereignty and the acceptance of mitzvos (decrees) — see the sources cited in the previous note, and elsewhere — nevertheless, one leads to the other, as is obvious. Note Rashi on Shemini (11:45): "For I am the L‑rd — on condition that you accept My mitzvos." And similarly in Rashi on Behar (25:38) and at the end of Shelach ("My decrees").
26) See similarly Likkutei Sichos vol. 34, p. 206ff., explaining the three expressions in Rashi on Haazinu (32:10): "that they accepted upon themselves His Torah, His sovereignty and His yoke."
27) The practical difference: even "portions of the Torah which, if one does them [he receives reward], and if not, he does not receive punishment for them" (Rashi on our parsha, 20:1) — he strives to fulfill them etc. Note Rashi on our parsha (19:14), that Moshe did not turn to his own affairs, but went from the mountain to the people; and elsewhere. Or, in a somewhat different way: in general, the 613 mitzvos of the Torah are not like the decrees of a flesh-and-blood king, but a category of subjugation, for they encompass the whole (life) of a person — there is no moment and no point free of the obligation of a mitzvah, and in every matter of a person's life there is a directive in the Torah as to how it should be done.
28) Although in general their meaning is the same (see the Aruch, entry "shibud": "mortgaged lands ... which are like servants and under the authority of a master"), nevertheless, more specifically, when one distinguishes between the expressions (as in our case, where Rashi departs from the verse's wording "from the house of bondage" and writes "subjugated"), the expression "shibud" emphasizes more the yoke of servitude as something constant (as in the text). For this reason, the usual expression — also in Rashi — regarding the servitude in Egypt is "Shibud Mitzrayim" (as below in the text and note 34).
29) Note Likkutei Sichos vol. 25, p. 215.
30) Even though then too, "what a servant acquires, his master acquires" (Pesachim 88b, and the sources cited there). See Likkutei Sichos ibid.
31) See Rambam, Laws of Lender and Borrower, beginning of ch. 8 (from the study portions of this week — Yisro 5746).
32) See at length the maamar beginning "Umikneh Rav" (and the maamarim that follow it), 5666, regarding the yoke of a simple servant. See there.
33) Va'eira 6:7 (cited above, section 1).
*33) Perhaps it can be said: with a flesh-and-blood king, the acceptance of sovereignty does not necessitate servitude (as above, section 3). But with regard to the Holy One, blessed be He, where the acceptance of sovereignty is bound up with accepting the 613 [mitzvos] etc., it was like the service of a servant [as in the verse's wording, "you will serve G‑d"; and in Rashi above, 19:4, "as in its Targum," and in Targum Onkelos: "lefulchani" ("to My service")]. See above, note 27. Note the version in the Mechilta (cited in note 17): "His servants said to him: Decree decrees upon us."
34) As the expression in many places — "Shibud Mitzrayim" (see, for example, Rashi on Shemos 5:4; Bo 11:5; our parsha here (in the second interpretation); Mishpatim 24:10; and elsewhere).
35) Shemos 1:13–14. See Rashi on our parsha, 18:10, and elsewhere.
36) Shemos 5:9ff.
37) Mishpatim 24:10.
38) See the answer of the Maharshal (cited in note 18). — But in addition to what is said above in the text (section 2), that the words "from the house of bondage" are not quoted in Rashi, his answer itself is seemingly not understood: why not interpret the verse to mean that the "house of bondage" is the "land of Egypt" (especially since it is specifically the land of Egypt that is a "house of bondage," for "no slave could escape from Egypt" — Rashi on our parsha, 18:9)? In the Ra'av here: "The first interpretation does not fit the matter, for He did not command them in any of these mitzvos, that is, 'I am' and 'You shall not have,' any subjugation before Him, may He be blessed." Seemingly this requires study, for it is explicit in Rashi (and the Mechilta etc.) that "I am" means the acceptance of His sovereignty — so why is this not a matter of "subjugation before Him, may He be blessed"? See above, note 22 — in the answer of Maskil LeDavid.
39) See Rashi on Va'eschanan (4:35): "When the Holy One, blessed be He, gave the Torah, He opened for them etc., and they saw that He is One alone."
40) For this is not merely a matter of an action of the Holy One, blessed be He (in which case it is simply understood that different and opposite actions can be done by one being), but a matter of a revelation of G‑d (as is precise in Rashi's wording, "I change in appearances").
41) In the Ra'av here: through hearing many voices "there is more room to err ... than from the change of appearances, since the change of appearances was at different times." See there. But note Rashi here (and similarly Rashi on Mishpatim there): "'And under His feet like the work of sapphire brick' — this was before Him at the time of the subjugation; 'and like the essence of the heavens' — once they were redeemed" — two opposite appearances at Mount Sinai itself (see Nachalas Yaakov here — and this lengthiness in Rashi is thereby explained). See the previous note. This is not the place to elaborate.
42) See the commentators on Rashi here — several answers, each needed in its own way.
43) Mishpatim 24:4. — Except that at that time only Moshe, Aharon, Nadav, Avihu and the seventy elders saw it (ibid., 10). See the next note.
44) See our parsha, 19:20ff. — from "And the L‑rd descended upon Mount Sinai" until "And G‑d spoke ..."
45) This is why it was necessary to negate the error here (and this is the advantage of the third interpretation over the second).
46) Nachalas Yaakov here holds that it "refers to all three answers above" (and so is implied in the Ra'av here). But this requires study, for according to this Rashi should have made it a separate heading. — In Maskil LeDavid it is stated explicitly as in the text.
47) Rashi on our parsha, 19:2.
48) Maskil LeDavid here.
49) Gur Aryeh here (and his answer is not along the lines of the plain meaning; see there).
50) The wording of our Sages (Bereishis Rabbah [OCR unclear], 8) on the verse (Bereishis 1:26) "Let us make man ..." See Rashi on the verse: "And there is room for heretics etc. ... the verse did not refrain from teaching proper conduct and the trait of humility etc."
51) Yirmiyahu 31:7.
Key Lesson
Leaving Egypt makes a Jew not merely G‑d's servant in specific duties but wholly "subjugated" to Him in every moment and aspect of life. And just as G‑d phrased the very first Commandment in the singular to give Moshe a defense for those who would sin with the Golden Calf, we must make no calculations about who is "worth" the effort, but reach out to every single Jew.