Tell me more ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Why is Moshe name not mentioned in this weeks Parsha, T'tzave?

share|improve this question
1  
Which week is 'this week'? Bereishit? Noach? Lech Lecha? Vayeira? Chayei Sara? Toldot? Vayeitzei? Vayishlach? Vayeshev? Miketz? Vayigash? Vayechi? Tetzaveh? Ekev? Re'eh? Shoftim? Ki Teitzei? Netzavim? None of those parshiyot have Moshe's name it it. – Double AA Feb 12 '12 at 0:49
I think the question is too vague. there are many answers provided by the commentaries how can the "best" answer be judged? – none Feb 29 '12 at 17:54
@Moshe, the same can be said about many questions about Tora. It has seventy facets, after all. I don't think that that's a problem with this question. (It may, however, make it hard for the asker to choose an answer to formally accept.) – msh210 Mar 1 '12 at 1:11
@msh210 it also makes it hard to answer, if the asker could explain more what kind of answer he is looking for better answers could be formulated. – none Mar 1 '12 at 2:34

3 Answers

up vote 8 down vote accepted

Me'or Einayim points out that Tetzaveh is (nearly) always read immediately before or after the seventh of Adar, which is Moshe's (birthday and) yahrtzeit. So his name is missing from this parshah specifically, in mourning for our loss.

On a more positive note, there is a long talk by the Lubavitcher Rebbe zt"l (Likkutei Sichos, vol. 21, pp. 173ff; adapted into English at Chabad.org) in which he points out that in a sense Moshe is present even more in this parshah than usual. Its very first word, ואתה, "and you," expresses his existence even more strongly than the use of his name.

He then goes on to explain what Moshe was trying to accomplish with his "threat." He was demanding that G-d be willing to re-establish His relationship with the Jewish People on an essential level that transcends Torah, and that if He wouldn't be willing to do so, then Moshe was prepared to forfeit his place in the Torah in favor of retaining his connection with his people. Thus,

Tetzaveh stands as an eternal tribute to Moses. It is the Torah’s own testimony to Moses’ greatness in relinquishing everything—including his bond with Torah—in order to preserve his bond with his people and restore them to their G-d.

share|improve this answer
Kudos for pointing out that Moshe is mentioned in the first word of the parasha. – WAF Feb 6 '11 at 3:43

Baal HaTurim says that since Moshe said "Mecheini Na M'Sifrecha Asher Kosavto" in Parshas Ki Sisa. The question remains why in Parshas Tetzave is there no mention of Moshe. HaRav Shaul M'Vilna answers since Moshe said Asher Kosavta which is a Lashon Avar - past tense - therefore it was omitted in Parshas Tetzave. Another reason is that the Gematria of Asher is 501 which is also the Gematria of Tetzave.

The Gra says that since most years Zayin Adar - 7 Adar comes out in Parshas Tetzave - Hashem who knows what is going to happen left his name out of this Parsha.

In the Sefer Panayach Raza he mentions that since Moshe was originally supposed to be the Kohain Gadol, however he lost it due to saying "Shelach Na BeYad Tishlach" therefore in Parshas Tetzave which talks about the Bigdei Kehuna he is not mentioned.

Source for all the above: Torah L'Daas Chelek 1

I do remember hearing that the reason is that Hashem did not want to erase Moshe's name, however since he requested it Hashem kept pushing it off until there was no more pushing it off, and therefore it is not mentioned in Parshas Tetzave.

share|improve this answer
Re "Hashem kept pushing it off until there was no more pushing it off": Then why is Moshe's name missing from Mishpatim, according to the communities that start a new parsha at "im kesef"? – msh210 Feb 6 '11 at 2:32
I think that according to that custom (and by the way, does anyone actually do so nowadays? I know this existed in the Chinuch's time, but that was 700 years ago), "Im Kesef" is not really a new parshah, just that the regular single parshah of Mishpatim is split in two. In that sense it's like Nitzavim-Vayelech, which technically is also a single parshah (hence the masoretic note at the end of Vayelech which gives the combined number of pesukim for both) but is sometimes split over two Shabbosos. – Alex Feb 6 '11 at 2:42
1  
Strangely current events brought up this discussion I was told Tunisian Jews in Tunsia until today have this Minhag – SimchasTorah Feb 6 '11 at 3:07
msh210 - I never heard of that Minhag of starting the new Parsha from Im Kesef. I guess you can ask someone who keeps that Minhag why? – Gershon Gold Feb 6 '11 at 20:02
@R'Gershon Gold, well, yes, if I can find such a person. I only know it from the Chinuch and Rabenu Bachya (IIRC, or if not him then it was another rishon on chumash), both of whom indicate the start of a parsha at "im kesef". R'SimchasTorah points out here that Jews in Tunisia still do this, but, well, I'm not going there to ask them ` :-) `. – msh210 Feb 6 '11 at 21:39

On a peshat level:

A parsha (actually a sidra) is the portion set up to read in a particular Shabbat, as set up in Bavel. In Eretz Yisrael, they had a different division, of a third the size (called a parsha).

I would therefore assume that in Eretz Yisrael, there were a good many "parshiyot" that did not have Moshe's name, and so, Tetzaveh was in no way unique. (Aside from the fact that Moshe was not mentioned at all in sefer Bereishit.)

The reason Moshe does not appear in this parsha has to do

  1. with topic, in that it is descriptive of the construction of the keilim of the Mishkan and the priestly garments, such that we wouldn't expect Moshe to appear taking action.
  2. with the number of introductory statements and thus length of the command, where a fewer number of introductory statement will decrease the likelihood of Vayomer Hashem el Moshe leimor
  3. with the overall number of pesukim is only 101, which is shorter than average.

Of course, this creates an interesting phenomenon which can be used for the sake of derash of derush. And the other answers here cover that. The question, however, assumes that there must be something meaningful about Moshe's absence, and so I think it a good idea to point out that this is an assumption.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.