Why Moses Tried to Talk God Out of It | Weekend Torah Teaching

Life Audio.

On today's episode of Timeless Wisdom.

I mean, I think if God appeared to me, certainly, yes, sir, absolutely. That's correct. Creator of the universe sees DP, and the answer is yes. That is what you would think, but it never happens that way. It only happens that way after the immense faith develops, like with Abraham. and his son, to go and sacrifice his son. Here it's developing now. Take the snake by the tail. And what is the next word? And he took it by the tail.

That's coming up on Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager.

What happens when faith and mental health meet for real?

What's up?

I'm Grace Graber. Welcome to Breaking Through with Grace Graber, a podcast for honest conversations about anxiety, trauma, healing, hope, and the God who She never backs away when life gets heavy. We are gonna talk about everything mental health. No pretending, no perfect answers, just real stories, real faith, and a reminder that you're not alone. Get ready, you're going to be absolutely obsessed. Breaking Through with Grace Graber, available now wherever you get your podcasts.

Welcome to Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager. Hear thousands of hours of Dennis's lectures, courses, and classic radio programs. And to purchase Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles, go to dennisprager.com.

We, uh, left off last week with God giving an informative, highly informative response to the question, what is your name? I am who I am, which I made clear to you is not that informative. Uh, when you, 'cause as I said, if someone came to your door and said that, you would not have learned much. The point, uh, being again, I am convinced since God never uses the term again. That what we have here, uh, is God speaking to future generations that will be able to think more in the abstract than the Jews were at that time. And that's part of the eternal relevance of the Torah. If it were not, you would not be here tonight, uh, studying with me, uh, 3,000 years later.

Right.

I mean, think about it. It gives you, gives me the chills to think that we are studying this. If somebody would've said to, uh, a, a, a Jew at the time, you know, uh, 3,000 years from now in a part of the world you didn't even think existed, people will be gathered in a room which will be conditioned, will have conditioned air so that it will not be nearly as hot as here. Uh, they would, uh, have been very impressed to say the least. We are in Exodus 3, my friends. We are up to verse, verse 16. Does that accord with all of your, uh, with the, with your calculations?

Yes.

All right, ladies and gentlemen. Uh, we have, he has given the objections, first objection. To God. God is asking Moses to go to Egypt and he had his objection. The second, the first one was, who am I? The second one is, who are you? Or more specifically, what, who shall I say sent me? And he's trying to get out of it. Moses is, but not, uh, Nobody gets out of God's coal very successful. Not as excitable. Hold on a minute, there's another day, or there are more important issues to get angry about. That is, those are some of the advantages of aging. Without getting into this topic, which is worthy of its own discourse, I believe that in the '60s, many bad things happened, a couple of good things, but mostly bad in America. One was the, the youth mania of our society. Young is good. Young is better. The young know what they're doing. The old don't. The old screwed it up. The young are going to fix it up. And this, but ironically, my friends, I hold responsible the older generation. It didn't stand firm. The example that I give is colleges. Where, uh, I was a college student in the late '60s and early '70s. And, uh, I remember when students would, uh, would have sit-ins and make demands called non-negotiable demands, which is a euphemism for being a baby. That's what babies do. They make non-negotiable demands. Uh, every college administration I re— I know of gave in. And in effect said, you know what, at 19, you do know better than we do at 55, 60, 65. That's what the message was. You pick your curriculum. Even though we have a PhD in education and have lived 2 to 3 times longer than you, we still don't know what you should study. You know what you should study. That's what college administrators, next to trial lawyers, my least favorite group of Americans, with the acknowledgement that there were some wonderful people in trial law and wonderful college administrators. But all kidding aside, ironically, it was the older generation that acceded to the youth mania. But in ancient Israel and in And in parts, rest of the world, being old was a, uh, was something worthy of reverence. You got up. Uh, we were taught as kids, you get up if someone older than you comes into the room. How many parents teach kids that today? Uh, we do, but, uh, I'm not sure that most parents do that. So you have here, uh, go and, uh, and assemble the elders. That's exactly what it is. Uh, by the way, the word for elder in Hebrew is, uh, I never figured it out, which came from which. Zakayn means elder. Zakayn means beard. And I didn't know if beard came from the word elder or elder came from the word beard, but they are, except for a little vowel underneath the kuf, the same word. Uh, which doesn't mean that women cannot be elderly. But it just is related and I just wanted to make that clear. Go and, go and assemble the elders of Israel and say to them, in other words, to put us back in context, remember God is saying what he should say his name is, what Moses should say God's name is to the Israelites, to the Hebrews, right? It is apparent to God that, and to Moses, I am who I am won't work. So Moses clearly doesn't react except probably with a look like, I needed this badly. And God keeps talking. You have no reaction. Isn't that interesting? When he says, I am who I, I am, remember it says in 15, and God continued, this is my name, you know, forever. This is the way I will be called. This is the, the way I'll be remembered. throughout the generations. God doesn't even bother waiting for Moses's objection, which would be, with all respect, oh, oh Lord, this wouldn't work. So God continues to talk because it's so clear this isn't gonna work. So now he says, go and assemble the elders of Israel and say to them, Jehovah, I'm using the word, the anglicized word of God, so you'll understand what's being used here. Jehovah is the personal God. and the God of the Jews. Elohim, God, is the God of the universe and of the world. So you have both. Jehovah, the God of your fathers, appeared to me. Okay? This is what you're to say to the elders to introduce yourself. Remember, Moses has 3 selling jobs to do. To the elders of Israel, to the Jews generally, and to Pharaoh. I mean, that's quite a, that's quite a thing to show up in Egypt and just say, hi, I'm here to save you. So this is what you say to the elders. I, the Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob appeared to me saying, I remember I have taken note of you. At the end of Genesis, Joseph, just before he dies, uses these words, the same Hebrew word, pakod tifkod, or pakod pakarati, which is a, which is a, a, an interesting usage of the word. I take note or remember. And so it's, it hearkens back to the prophecy of Joseph speaking to the children and the brothers. God will take you out. Okay. God will take you. The Jews remember you and take you out. I, I remember you. I take note of you and of what is being done to you in Egypt. And I have declared, I will take you out of the suffering of Egypt to the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Yehusim, Jebusites, to a land flowing with milk and honey. Last week I explained milk and honey to you. They are not the milk and honey. that we think of as milk and honey. They will listen to you. God tells Moses exactly what will happen so that first of all, he has confidence that it will work. And secondly, he will know how to react when he is there. Ah, oh, this is what will happen. Then I do this. And why is that? So that the reader and Moses never mistake for one second That it is God taking the Jews out of Egypt, not Moses. I am directing a play. You are an actor in it, is in effect what God is saying, uh, to Moses. They will listen to you. Then you shall go, uh, you and the, and the elders of Israel shall go to the king of Egypt and tell him and say to him, God, Jehovah, the God of the Hebrews, very rarely used like that, but, and I will explain why it is, called to us or manifested himself to us. Now, which is interesting, he's including the elders, whereas in fact God has only manifested himself to Moses. Uh, has manifested himself to— because you could only imagine he shows up with the elders. There were 2 problems if he'd say the whole truth. And he'd say, uh, God, uh, manifested himself to me. To which Pharaoh would say, so what are these guys doing with you? And the other thing is he's dealing with Jews. You think the elders are gonna show up if Moses takes all the credit? I mean, just think of the board of directors of any of your synagogues and you have an idea of what Moses had to deal with. And God appeared to us and now we would please like to go. I'm trying to translate again, as I tell you, I try to translate literally, even if it's not elegant, so you'll have an idea of the text. For through the distance of 3 days in the wilderness, and we will make sacrifice to God our Lord.

This episode of Timeless Wisdom will continue right after this.

This sentence needs some explication, my friends. Okay. First of all, why the introduction, God of the Hebrews, to Pharaoh? The reason is, is important. God, gods to the ancients were gods of your, your clan, your people, your, your nation. But nation is a modern term. Your people might be the best. Not, there was no such thing as a god of the universe. This is a totally new invention of the Jews, that there was a God of the universe. Uh, God was my God in the ancient world. Ironically, to us who venerate tolerance, Judaism was less tolerant of other gods than pagans were. In the pagan world, it was a, a much simpler idea. You have your gods and I have my gods. And for example, if your nation conquers mine, then clearly your god is stronger. So we will begin to worship your god. But in the meantime, it's clear you have yours and I have mine. It's somewhat like a team mascot. I mean, that's really what the gods were in some ways. Judaism came along. The Jews come along and say, no, all of your gods are nonsense. This is a drastic reformulation of the understanding of God in history. And the point here is to challenge many of you, I am sure, because of the modern veneration of the term tolerance. Judaism is not tolerant of other gods. It is tolerant of other religions. It is not tolerant of other gods.

This episode of Timeless Wisdom will continue right after this.

Who answers America's call for more energy? Our people do. They've helped boost Chevron's U.S. energy production by nearly 60% in the past 3 years, helping fuel national energy security, and drives down the open roads that make America. Learn more about what our people do at chevron.com/america.

Now back to more of Dennis Prager's timeless wisdom.

In other words, you can worship God the way you want. Judaism has no, uh, call in it for Christians to become Jewish, for Muslims to become Jewish. for deists or for monotheists, to be more precise, to become Jewish. It's, you're certainly welcome and Jews should be more welcoming, but that's a totally separate issue. But it has no tolerance for other gods. That's false. And it ruins the world in, in, in the view of the Torah, in the view of, of classical Judaism. And in this regard, it is not a tolerant religion. But I don't say that as a negative. I say that as a positive. I mean, no matter how tolerant you might be, there are things you don't tolerate, I assume. You don't tolerate murder, obviously. But in, even in the realm of belief, there is an intolerance in Judaism. Other gods are false. We won't kill you because you have other gods. That's a separate issue. But we do not tolerate the idea. It is not worthy of respect if tolerance means to respect other things. Other ideas are fine, not this one. There is one God for Egyptians, one God for Jews, one God for everyone in the world. That is the basic Jewish premise. That is the point of the Torah. It is the point of Judaism. He is introducing God to Pharaoh in the only way Pharaoh understands. If he had come in and said, I want you to know The God of the universe came to us, Pharaoh would think he were drunk. It would have been Sanskrit to Pharaoh. That is the irony here. The truth to tell, it would've been Sanskrit to most of the Jews. That is why he's introducing God to the Jews as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Jews were not particularly more advanced than Pharaoh. Some may have still had a notion of God created the world. But the odds are most of them also saw God in a very provincial way. God is not Jewish. God is Jewish is as heretical as God is Egyptian to Judaism. You with me? That's very important. It's a heresy, the idea. God is God. God is not any ish. God is God and God is everybody's God. And, and it is, we'll be on this session, but it is the task of the Jews to bring the world to recognize the one God for reasons that are, we'll get to sometime. And I've certainly written enough on it for you, for you to peruse. Okay. So that is why he says to Pharaoh, God of the Hebrews. Now, Notice the interesting thing that he has to say to Pharaoh. We would please like to go for 3 days into the wilderness, uh, to, uh, make sacrifices to our God. Doesn't that strike you as a strange request? I thought that he went to, to get the Jews out of Egypt, not to have a 3-day sabbatical. Right? It's interesting, isn't it? It's perplexing. It should have been, you go to Pharaoh and you say, the God of the Hebrews said, let my people go. Goodbye. We've had enough of this slavery. No, we would like to go for 3 days into the wilderness and worship our God. So why does it have it that way? And the truth is, that is exactly what is asked in the beginning. The reason I think is I think there are, well, the biggest reason I believe, because it's a tough issue. I think the biggest reason is to show that Pharaoh would not even allow a 3-day break. It's to show him, Pharaoh, and the Jews the unreasonableness of the, of the ultimate slave master. After all these hundreds of years in slavery, they can't even take a 3-day break. So that's because, you know, remember, he's negotiating with Pharaoh. You don't negotiate with your ultimate. You ask, can I have this at least? And even that will be refused. Okay. There is another reason too, however, which was, has been raised by a number of commentators. Uh, and that is what he is asking of Pharaoh is anathema to Pharaoh. A big part of the Exodus from Egypt is to show the Egyptians and the Jews Who God really is, to show Egyptian religion is false and to show worship of the one God is true. What does that have to do with sacrifices? A big part of the pantheon of deities in Egypt were animals. To say to Pharaoh, let us go for 3 days and sacrifice animals. Uh, would, would I, you know, the only bizarre analogy I could think of is that weird artwork, Piss Christ, where they had, uh, this artist, so to speak, threw a crucifix into a jar of urine, of his urine, and called it art. Would you say that that's an affront to Christians? Of course it is. Imagine asking, let us go for 3 days and throw crucifixes into jars of urine. Would, it would be the analogous to saying to Pharaoh, let's go out 3 days so we can sacrifice animals. We are playing with what you worship. We are sacrificing them. Now, this, this is a tough and important issue, which again, and my whole point of doing this whole, all this work is to show the relevance of the Torah to modern times. Otherwise, I mean, I'm not interested in ancient literature as literature. This raises another difficult issue. I've challenged you with the issue of tolerance. Here's another difficult one. The whole issue of animal eating and animal sacrifice, which again will be worth— worthy of its own very long discourse, especially when we get to Leviticus. But a word needs to be said about it now. It is natural to worship animals.

This episode of Timeless Wisdom will continue right after this.

Who answers America's call for more energy? Our people do. They've helped boost Chevron's US energy production by nearly 60% in the past 3 years, helping fuel national energy Security, and drives down the open roads that make America. Learn more about what our people do at chevron.com/america.

Now, back to more of Dennis Prager's timeless wisdom.

One of the greatest teachings of Judaism, and, and for the one that is most perhaps most difficult, is that that which is natural is not necessarily good. Natural and desirable are very different. Give a simple example. It is natural to be polygamous for me— most people. Okay, well, I'll be, I'll be very delicate about it. And most of them are known as male. It is not natural to be monogamous. But it is desirable to be so. It is good to be so. Nature, natural, and good are not the same. There, it, it's, it's constant. When people tell me, you use it all the time, we all do. When somebody does something obnoxious, what is a common statement? It's human nature. It's human nature to open up somebody else's mail. It's human nature to gossip. It's human nature to take unjust revenge. It's human nature. It's human nature to, to drive up the diamond lane if you have only one person in the car. I mean, it's human nature to do all miserable things. Of course it is. It's not human nature to wait in line. Waiting in line is not natural. It is natural to worship animals. The overthrowing in which we are living through, the overthrowing of the Jewish and Christian traditions known as Judeo-Christian morality in America today is being done by natural man. The people who want to act in accordance with nature versus the anti-nature, not in the sense that it wishes to destroy the natural world. But anti-human nature and anti-nature as deity ideas that came through Judaism and Christianity, through the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, and built through their religions. This is very difficult to understand, or not understand, to appreciate, because a lot of people side with the natural. The natural seems the way. And as an example, the attitude towards animals. The biblical attitude toward animals is very clear. They must, they are to be used. They are not to be abused. You must safeguard them from unnecessary suffering, but they are not your equal and they are to be used. They were created for you, and that would include the ability to sacrifice them. I'm not saying it's a good thing for us today, but I'm saying that in its context, it is fine. And as I've always pointed out, if you ever ate a hamburger, you are in no position to look down upon animal sacrifice. Because I would argue that it is, that an animal sacrifice to God can raise you to a higher level than a Big Mac.

Right.

All things being equal. Big Mac has no potential to elevate you spiritually. A, a, a well-done animal sacrifice might. I'm not calling for its restoration, but I'm asking you to understand what is involved here. It is very tempting to worship animals. And part of what the Israelites are doing in Egypt is announcing to themselves first and foremost, and secondly to the Egyptians, These are not gods. They can be sacrificed. So now understand in part what they're saying to Pharaoh. Let us go away from slavery. Let us worship our God who isn't your God, and let us do it by sacrificing your gods. Now, do you understand why he may have said no? Okay. Big deal. This request that was not apparent. Gotta write it down, please. Otherwise, I'm, I'm okay. Please. I love taking questions and I leave time, but I know what'll happen if we do it in the middle. So that is what you are to ask Pharaoh. And then in verse 19, God tells him exactly what Pharaoh's response will be. And I know that the king of Egypt— one second— will not allow you To go, he will not allow you to go unless there is a big and mighty arm. In other words, he won't let you go. If he does, it will only be through power that he will allow you, not through requests. Okay, you with me? Now we have a problem here. What's the problem? God telling. Person X, what person Y will do. What happened to freedom of choice? Doesn't Pharaoh have the freedom? What has happened to Pharaoh's freedom to say yes? If God tells him that Pharaoh will say no, isn't God saying Pharaoh has no freedom of choice? That question Okay. A word about this: the the Jewish notion of personal freedom is was was stated well by Maimonides, the greatest Jewish philosopher. Actually, no, I believe that this is pre. I think it predates Maimonides, but but it certainly appears in him. Ha kol tsafoi vaharshut nitna. Everything is foreseen. But freedom is given. How does God know the future and yet you retain your freedom of choice on how to act? All right. Very briefly, 'cause we're gonna return to this too when God hardens Pharaoh's heart later on. Although that is, is, has a separate answer. But very briefly, there are 2 answers that I could I could give you. One is to anthropomorphize it for a moment. And by telling you how even in your life you can know the future and yet people have freedom. And I use a freeway analogy. You are driving north on the San Diego freeway and you pass an accident going, that is going south. Okay? It has stopped cars. If you drive a mile, the cars are still coming south at 55, 65 miles per hour. You know they're going to have to stop in about a minute, right? Do they not have freedom not to stop? They have freedom not to stop. They could crash into cars. They have that freedom, but you know that they will stop.

Okay.

Now, if people can know what others will do in a circumstance, circumstance, and we are not knowers of the future, and yet people have freedom, so much more so can God know it. You know that under circumstance X, an accident, a jam breaks work, people will stop, and yet they have the freedom theoretically not to. So too, God knows under these circumstances, Pharaoh thinking he's God, the Jews being slaves all these years and giving him a great deal of bounty as a result, the request being absolutely absurd in his eyes, he's gonna say no. It doesn't take God to know this, but God is telling you anyway. Are you with me? So that's how you reconcile God telling the future and still Pharaoh or anybody else retaining freedom of choice. One other point. We moderns live in a time wherein we are very aware of very deep, deeply circumscribed freedoms that we have. We call them, for example, genes and upbringing. I can tell you as a virtual fact, like 2 and 2 is 4, if you grew up with an alcoholic parent, you will have to deal with that problem. It can be dealt with through work on oneself, through therapy, through love, through many things. But there is no question, it is a given in life That you have to deal with a problem. If you had an alcoholic parent, your freedom was thereby in some way circumscribed, right?

Nah, nah.

But, but that holds for 100 things. If your parents told you if you don't get good grades, you don't get their love, it had, it had its impact on you. Obviously, any way in which your parents raise you will have an impact. All right. And what about genes? I'm just reading an article about the 2 identical twins. It's very, very rare that this has happened. So it's not easy to know how accurate the study is, or at least how generalizable it is. The study may be accurate of 2 girls at birth adopted by different families, yet identical twins. Okay. Identical. And who turned out incredibly similar in personality traits. Both had an onset of depression at the same age, at about 8. And although they were raised in quite different types of homes. Do we have freedom? Well, it's a very difficult subject. We have some freedom. We don't have total freedom. Obviously you don't, you were, if you were raised in America, you didn't have the freedom to experience Japanese culture. I mean, it's, it's a, it's a self-evident, almost silly, sillily self-evident, but nevertheless, there are freedoms that you have, uh, or abilities that are circumscribed because of where you grew up, in what culture. So before you, before you again say, well, wait a minute. This all-knowing God, you know, he circumscribes our freedom. What do you think genes and nurture do? There is one freedom, therefore, that I believe we do have under either a secular, although not if you take secularism fully, I don't think. But in other words, whether you adopt the genes and nature-nurture circumscribed or the Divine. And that is the moral freedom. We have moral freedom. Even the child of an alcoholic has the freedom to choose whether to be a cruel or a decent human being. You have the freedom to choose between options with regards to good and bad. What about children who were raised though conscience-free? These, the answer, the traditional Jewish answer is that before 13, you may not have that freedom. That's why bar mitzvah has significance in Judaism, not because of the gifts you receive, but because of the freedom that you are, the moral freedom that you are now endowed with. In other words, there's a cutoff age. At 13, you are held responsible. In fact, I have used, I have applied that to the question asked to me. At what age would you try murderers as adults? And I say from 13 on. Any of you with a 13-year-old knows that at 13, they know murder is wrong. Now, to argue this is just a child is to me to stretch the word child beyond a meaningful, I mean, beyond meaning. There are obviously things that a 13-year-old does not know. But that murder is wrong is not one of them. But anyway, putting those aside, there is moral freedom. That, that is the one freedom we still have according to, according to the Torah, according to Judaism. Why is God telling Moses exactly what will happen? For 2 reasons. One, so that he doesn't get frustrated. He's gonna go to Pharaoh and Pharaoh's gonna say, what are you, crazy? And what happened to the water? I was— yeah, thanks. Thanks a lot. He's gonna go to Pharaoh. Pharaoh's gonna say, no way. And Moses is going to sulk. God's, don't sulk, don't get frustrated. He's gonna let you go eventually with great might, as you will see. But I want you to know what's gonna happen, which is a very good thing when you go to negotiate. We should all have God on our side. You imagine you go in for a raise, Listen, the boss is going to say no, but a couple of miracles later, you're going to get your raise. We don't all have those that ability.

This episode of Timeless Wisdom will continue right after this.

Who answers America's call for more energy? Our people do. They've helped boost Chevron's U.S. energy production. by nearly 60% in the past 3 years, helping fuel national energy security, and drives down the open roads that make America. Learn more about what our people do at chevron.com/america.

Now, back to more of Dennis Prager's timeless wisdom.

Uh, we are at verse 20. So I will stretch out my hand and I will hit, uh, beat, smite Egypt with all of my wonders, uh, which I will, uh, create, make in its midst. And after that, he will send you out. Okay? So please understand the negotiating in the final analysis is not, is a charade. The real reason he's going to let you out is because of my wonders that I'm going to work in his midst. But, but still, it's important for everyone to know that, that, that first, before any plagues, uh, Pharaoh was asked. Okay? It's important for history. It's important for us to learn. You don't rely on God's miracles. It's a very basic Jewish idea as well. Altis mochal hanes. Do not rely on a miracle. Uh, you have to do what you can do. And if I decide to make miracles, that's, that's what I'll do. 21. And I will, uh, I will give the, uh, yeah, well, the translation here is, I will dispose the Egyptians favorably toward this people. Uh, which is one possible. Anybody have a different translation for that? This is, I will dispose the Egyptians favorably toward, uh, uh, toward this people. Anybody have a different one? Yeah. Okay. I will give them favor in this. Okay. So fair enough. So that's pretty universal. Uh, in other words, I, in the Egyptians' eyes, I will, I, you will, you will find favor and it will come to pass. That when you go, you will not go empty-handed. Okay. Now here, this, this is a very, very sad, uh, thing the way it's translated. I am annoyed because there is no excuse for the first error. Do most of you have borrow as the word? For the life of me, ladies and gentlemen, I don't understand it because it is not what it means. It's wrong. What do you have? Does anybody not have borrow? What do you have? Ask what translation? King James. I mean, I have the translation done, you know, in our lifetime, and you'd figure with the modern scholars they would do better. in King James. Sometimes they do, but King James is right. They will ask. I mean, it's very simple Hebrew. Hertz has asked. Ironically, that's the 1917 Jewish Publication Society, which was also correct. And the newer JPS one is not. They will ask, not borrow.

Borrow.

It's like, you know what this borrow reminds me of? It's like you go to the next table at a restaurant. Can I borrow your salt? Are you gonna return the salt you take? No. I mean, it's, it's, it's, it's a funny use of the word. If it is borrow, it's in that sense, borrow forever. All right. But at least there you can return the salt shaker and what's left. But here you don't even have that implication. It is ask. Each woman shall ask or request. That's the Hebrew.

Mm-hmm.

Ask or request from her neighbor and the one who lodges in her house objects of silver and gold and clothing, and you will put them, namely the clothing, on your sons and daughters. Now, does everybody now have for the rest of it, and you will strip the Egyptians? What do you have? Despoil. Anybody have a different one? Plunder. Okay. Sorry? FDL? Oh, empty out. Okay. Sure it wasn't FDL. FDR. That's right. Yeah.

Uh, okay.

The, the, the, uh, let, let me first deal, deal before I do the despoil. Let me deal with the request part. It's not borrow, it's request or ask. Okay. The, uh, and there were 2 reasons for asking for, uh, all of this, uh, money. One is that they deserve it because of all the years of slavery. Okay? I don't think you would've had a problem with, and I will take the Jews out of Germany and they will ask Germans for their money. Okay? And this is hundreds of years of slavery. It is, I think, very powerful. There's a very powerful lesson here, and that's why I'm Annoyed with the borrow and the other stuff. It is request or ask, and I think there's a reason why. After all, given the bitterness of slavery, didn't it say, and you will demand? Even the ones that say borrow, nobody says demand, right? Or take. Wouldn't it have been logical? And you will go to their houses and take their silver, their gold, and their clothing. Correct. Why does it say, and you will ask? And even if the borrow, which is wrong, but let's, but even then, why? Why isn't it, and you will take, or you will demand? I believe because of a staggering, staggeringly beautiful idea of the Torah. And that is being a victim does not allow you to behave improperly. Would that this notion dominate American thought in the late 20th century, we would be living in— if one idea could take hold in this country to change it for the better, this is the idea I would like it. And I don't only mean racially, ethnically. I mean it individually. People walk around, too many Americans walk around feeling they are victims, and the moment they do, they think victim allows me to victimize. Being a victim myself, I am now freed from the rules of behavior that only should be applicable to those who are not victims. And that is not the case. Even victims have to behave properly. I am convinced that there is, that this is not at all reading into it, that, that is in fact the, the pedagogic idea of this verse. It's a very beautiful notion. You will go, yes, you deserve their money, but you will request it. You will go to an Egyptian's home and say, you know, I, it sounds a little, may I have your money please? And you will go to them and do this and behave with dignity. It also, however, preserves not only your dignity, it preserves the Egyptians' dignity. You are taking away, after all, their belongings, but you must not do it in a way that is offensive. Obviously, the act is not, is not loved by, by the Egyptians, but you cannot do it in an offensive way. All right. I have a question here which I have not had a full answer to from anybody, and even from me, although I have a theory. It is very interesting that it says, and the woman, each woman shall ask from her neighbor. And it's also woman neighbor. The Hebrew has, in English does not have Feminine and masculine. I know. For the record, I thank Alan Estrin for this water. So that when this tape is viewed, when neither of us is known by anyone, that name will have been immortalized. To Alan Estrin. Mm-hmm. May I borrow your water?

Yes.

Whoever said that, that was a— who said that?

Good line.

I have good ears and you had a good line. Uh, why does it say each woman will request or ask from an Egyptian woman, the Egyptian woman neighbor? Because they had more, they had the silver and gold. Woman Israelite who will do the asking. I do not know. This is pure theory in keeping with what I said earlier of the preservation of dignity. I believe that if the men went to the Egyptian homes and asked the men, you would've had a fight. That's why, that's my theory as to why. I, I, I do not know this for a fact, but it makes sense to me. That the women will handle it better with less ego on the line than the defeated Egyptian men and the angry Israelite male slaves. Uh, and it will allow a peaceful exodus from Egypt if the women handle the negotiations over reparations rather than the men. Why don't we learn something from that? Well, next time we're enslaved, I think we should have women do the negotiating. I'm not sure what there is to learn except that the truth is, if you have a fight with your neighbor, it may very well be a good idea to send the wives to talk to each other. I think that that's very possible. On the other hand, if you've ever seen women get angry, it's not such a great idea. So I would say that in general, take the one with the less temper, the smaller temper. But as a rule, I think that the, the ego part and the anger part, who are you to step into my house? And, and, and you owe me. And then there would've been fights in every Egyptian home. And so I think it was said to the, to the women. Maybe the men were busy. Uh, I don't know. I mean, that, that's also possible. I, I just don't know. Now let me do the last part of the sentence, which is extremely difficult. Again, finally, that's the beauty of forcing myself to teach this course. 'Cause as me— as often as I have learned these things, I have, you know, lived with the general understanding of a sentence and not bothered. You know, this is like teaching this course is for me like going to print. It's my final word, as it were, on it, and I want to get it really right. And then you think differently. I have never really bothered with despoiling the Egyptians, stripping the Egyptians. What else was, what other verb?

Spoil.

I said, I said, uh, yes. Huh? Oh, spoil, despoil. What? Spoil Egypt. Plunder. You have plunder, right? Which, which is plunder? Uh, which is plunder? King James? New American Standard? I believe divest. I believe I also thought that, and I'll tell you why I thought it. Luckily for both of us, I know Hebrew well, and I the word in Hebrew here is "venitzaltim," and you shall nitzal them. I'm trying to to show you the dilemma. לנצל To natsal in Hebrew, certainly modern Hebrew, is to take advantage of. If you said the word in Israel today, that's what it would mean. And that's basically to strip them, right? To take advantage of, you'll take advantage of them. It comes from that. Okay. And I had always thought that what all these translations say, Rashi, I think it was Rashi, but certainly a number of the commentators, however, always resented that. They said, that is not what it means. It means you will rescue Egypt, which is a very big difference from plunder. Correct? I always believed until preparing for tonight. That this was a nice traditional Jewish way of dealing with a morally troublesome verb. Now, to make it clear though, the people who translated it as rescue were not totally off grammatically. The verb to plunder is לנצל. The verb to rescue is lehatzil. Only the first letter, le is to. Only the first letter of the verb is different. In modern Hebrew, even rescue is hatsalah. Some of you may have heard the word hatsalah. It means rescue. And you will rescue Egypt in biblical Hebrew and modern Hebrew would be והצלתם את איג'פט. I mean, obviously מצרים, but I want you to focus on the word.

Okay?

It says in the Torah, וניצלתם. There's not much difference between וניצלתם and והצלתם. So is ניצלתם from not sale or hot sale? That's a very big difference, though. I mean, this grammatical difference is big. So, ladies and gentlemen, I did a lot of homework. I looked up in the concordance every time in the Hebrew Bible the verb was used. I mean, I didn't turn to every page. I looked in the concordance and it had a description of the sentence. Turns out, well, I'm gonna read to you from Hertz, who is very angry. And I, and I, I say this with great embarrassment, what I'm about to say, but I, I'd rather be totally honest and embarrassed than not totally honest and unembarrassed. I figured Hertz had an ax to grind cuz he's Orthodox, and so he doesn't like, and you will despoil, plunder, et cetera. And he likes, you will rescue, cuz it makes the Torah look better. But just because somebody wants to believe something Doesn't make it wrong. It's a common misconception of atheists. Atheists say to believers in God, oh, you believe in God because you want to believe in God. They are mistaking a fact with a cause. The fact that you want to believe in God doesn't mean that that's the reason there is a God. I, I, I could equally say to the atheist, because you think that it comes from wanting to believe it, You don't believe it, which is preposterous. Whether you want to believe something or not, the question is irrelevant to whether it's true. He turns out, in my opinion, because I could have lived with, you will plunder Egypt. I mean, after hundreds of years of slavery, I don't exactly regard that as a terrible, as a terrible thing to do. It's not, you'll go to their houses and shoot the people. Now here's a moral dilemma. Do I give this to Alan Estrin? This is a very, this is a problem which I will resolve by the end of the session when he is incredibly thirsty. Uh, here is, here is what he, um, here is what Hertz says. The rendering, he has a translation. Hertz is Rabbi Hertz. Chief rabbi, chief rabbi of the British Empire, early part of the 20th century. You will find this in, in every Orthodox, virtually every Orthodox mainstream synagogue as the, as the, the book of the Torah, the Chumash that they use with the translation and commentary. In fact, many conservatives will use it. It's a very, it's the most famous of these commentaries. Now, the translation he worked with, of course he used the Hebrew for himself, but the translation he's commenting on Said, you shall spoil the Egyptians. Okay? This is what he says. Spoil the Egyptians is an incorrect, nay, impossible rendering of the Hebrew text. The rendering should be replaced by, you shall save the Egyptians. The root, natsal, nun, tsadi, lamed, which is here translated spoil or strip, occurs 212 times in scripture, and in 210 instances, its meaning is admitted by all to be to snatch from danger, to rescue from a wild beast, to recover property, also to plunder. Its direct object is never the person or thing from whom the saving or the rescuing or the snatching has taken place, but always the person or thing rescued. The usual translation, you shall spoil the Egyptians, is therefore unwarranted for 2 reasons. It takes the persons from whom things are snatched as a direct object. If you don't follow this, don't worry. And furthermore, necessitates an entire reversal of the meaning of natsal. From save into despoil. There is no justification for departing in this verse or in 1236 from the rendering which is absolutely unchallenged in the 210 other places where it occurs. The words venitsaltim et mitrayim can only be translated, you shall save the Egyptians, i.e., clear the name and vindicate the humanity of the Egyptians. Bitter memories and associations would have clung to the word Egyptians. In the mind of the Israelites as the hereditary enslavers and oppressors of Israel. A friendly parting and generous gifts, however, would banish that feeling. The Israelites would come to see that the oppressors were Pharaoh and his courtiers, not the Egyptian people. They would be enabled thereby to carry out the command to be given to them 40 years later. Deuteronomy 23:8, you shall not abhor bore an Egyptian. That is a commandment of the Torah to the Jews 40 years later. It is for such reasons that the Israelites are bidden to ask their neighbors for these gifts in order to ensure such a parting in friendship and goodwill with its consequent clearing of the name and vindication of the honor of the Egyptian people. And he takes this from the brilliant commentary of Ben-O-Jacob. And I agree. I looked up in the concordance all the times, and except for, uh, for the 2 times said here about Egypt and one other time where the verb is used in the reflexive, so that doesn't count cuz that changes meanings. He's right. It is always to save. And I will give you the best example where the word is virtually identical. Ezekiel 14:14, easily remembered. The word used here is yinatslu, which is exactly the same form of verb except for the third person instead of second person plural. In other words, they instead of you plural. Yinatslu. Okay? And here is the translation of the sentence. Ezekiel 14:14. Though these 3 men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should only save their own lives by their righteousness, says the Lord God. Okay. It's a very, very famous statement. In fact, through their own righteousness, they will save their souls, not spoil or plunder their souls. And the verb is used Identically except for a different person as the one here. And so that is why I, I side with the traditional translation, and it makes much more sense than spoil or plunder, given that the first verb is ask.

Okay?

The beginning of the sentence, if it were plunder at the end, would've been, go to their homes and take what you want. Not please have the women ask the women for silver and gold and clothing. It doesn't then make sense and you will plunder. That's not how you plunder. You plunder in a much more gross and direct way than, can I see what you have? And ask the permission of the person. And the truth is Jewish History does not include within it a hatred of Egyptians. It does not. None whatsoever. Indeed, the tradition, as any Jew in this room knows, no matter how non-observant, I assume, is that at the Seder, we dip our finger into the wine as we recite each of the 10 plagues to symbolically take out from our cup of joy in empathy with the suffering of the Egyptians under the plagues. There is no sense of the Egyptians are bad in Jewish history, despite the centrality of the Exodus. It's the central event of the Jewish people's history, of the Jewish people's religion. The central event is going to Sinai, but of the Jewish people qua people, it's the Exodus. It is the The crucifixion and resurrection to Christians are the Exodus and Sinai to Jews. That is our seminal event. And this could, this is the, this is part of the reason you went to their homes. You saw them as people. Your wives asked their wives for money that you feel is owed to you. They gave you. And they paid a debt, and that is how it is regarded. That's why it's very important. Translations. Talking about translations, I don't know how many of you heard my show today, and I won't ask you if you did. But I, I got a, I got a letter from a, an evangelical Christian listener who sent me a speech given by her evangelical pastor. About divorce and, and, and the New Testament. It is common belief among, among many Christians that Jesus disallows any divorce because you, you cannot send your, your woman away, et cetera. And then he shows in the Greek that a mistranslation of divorce or sending her away has made Christians think this way. Jesus was against sending a woman away. He was not against divorce. A bill of divorce was allowed cuz he was a practicing Jew who allowed for it. Whether right or wrong, I don't know enough Greek. I don't know any Greek, and I don't know enough New Testament to really know. I can only tell you how often translations into English have caused profound Not little, profound problems with biblical texts. And I, I bet that pastor is right. My hunch is he's right, knowing what I know of Jesus and his views. And my hunch, uh, and not my hunch, my knowledge of Hebrew tells me about, look at the way this mistranslation has given a totally different view of a very important, uh, event. In, in the Exodus from Egypt. Okay, let's go to chapter 4. I would've loved to have been able to finish tapes, each tape per chapter, but there's no chance. It just doesn't work that way. So they'll all end up in the middle. Chapter 4, Moses's 3rd objection. He is not finished. Actually, the, in fact, it is usually said that he has 4 objections. I'll show you there are 5. We're up to his 3rd objection now. And Moses spoke up and said, you know, by the way, the, the very often the divisions in the Torah by chapter make no sense. And this is totally arbitrary. It's exactly part of the pattern anyway, which is why it doesn't matter if I stop at a chapter. Uh, 'cause So often they don't, they, they, they are just a continuation of the exact same theme. But Moses spoke up and said, but what if they don't believe me and don't listen to me and say, uh, God didn't appear to you, right? Uh, which is a very logical thing for them to say. You imagine this guy showing up and say, listen, God appeared to me exactly as you would react today. Gimme a break. How do we know God appeared to you? So this is his 3rd objection. The 2nd one was a very long answer by God. What, how shall I say you sent me? Okay, now I'm convinced. I know what to say. I now have a bigger problem. How am I gonna have them believe that you appeared to me? So I said, okay, the God Jehovah, the God of your fathers showed up and I'm, and I want to take the Jews out for a 3-day sacrificial observance. And they'll say, oh really? How do we know God spoke to you? And so here, God does not respond. Remember, and God is not, does not, in other words, refute, I should say. Remember, God refuted the first 2 things. Those were not valid objections. There were answers here. This is a good objection. Now I'm gonna give you directly an answer to it. Okay. Uh, what is, what is that, uh, rod? Uh, excuse me. No, not what is that? Excuse me. What is that in your hand? What is it in your hand? And he said, that is Moses, a rod. All right. Uh, And God said, though it doesn't say God, he said, he said, of course it's God, throw it down to the earth. And he, or to the ground, and he threw it down to the ground and it became a snake. And Moses fled from it, from the snake.

Okay.

Um, God will give Moses 3 signs and 4 miracles. This is not the normal way commentators have divided this. They just say 3 signs, 3 miracles. It, I'll show you, it's 3 signs, 4 miracles. Remember what God is answering. How do I show them? How do I convince them that you, God, did appear to me. So God's gonna give now signs and miracles. Okay? The first one is, what is that in your hand? Now, why, why to say, what is that in your hand? It is to establish that it is just a rod, that Moses himself knows all it is is a simple shepherd's crook or rod, whatever it is that he's holding. Okay? Why does it have, why does it add, and Moses fled from the snake? Remember the way to study Torah? I think it's the way to read newspapers for that matter. Why did they say what they said? That is my, that is, if I may be personal for a moment, that is what I always am thinking when I'm listening to a person on, on my radio show talking to me. Why is this person using this word and not another? And, and that is so ingrained in me from Torah study that I, it, it, that is how I can clarify for them what they mean when they don't always know what they mean. Often the caller is not, which is understandable. They don't do this all the time. And so, so, you know, did you notice you use this word or I'll note it for me and it's because you think as follows. Why does it say, why wasn't it enough for the Torah to say, and it became a snake? Why does it add, and Moses fled from it? Because this proves that Moses himself knows it is a miracle of God, that he, Moses, didn't do it. If Moses was the cause of it becoming a snake, he wouldn't be scared. He is, after all, the cause. It, this is a further reinforcement that it is all God, not Moses doing it. Moses is as shocked by it coming out a snake as you would be, and you would run away. It's, it was obviously a snake that could hurt you. Okay. I assume, you know, it wasn't a little garter snake. Uh, that's the reason that it has that. His reaction proves it is God, not, not he who is performing the miracle. Okay. Verse 4. And God said to Moses, send out your hand, put out your hand and hold it by its tail. Okay. Now, This, uh, this is what I hold, though others don't divide it this way. I hold that this is miracle number 2. It's a miracle that it becomes a snake. The rod becomes a snake. It is a miracle that he takes a dangerous snake by the tail and doesn't get hurt. That is the absolute wrong way. If you ever meet a rattlesnake, Don't take its tail. Okay? I do not want, I do not want you to learn anything from this verse about your own behavior vis-à-vis snakes. If you've ever seen a poisonous snake held, it is held right at its neck, right before its mouth, as it were, right? Then it can't do you harm. You hold it tightly and keep it away from you. You hold it by its tail, you're dead. Literally dead. That's miracle number 2. And that's why God said, take it by its tail. Even that, that's what I'm telling you. Every idea matters. And this matters for a second reason. It's not only a miracle, but it does something else. It tests Moses's faith. You could imagine him saying, uh, with all respect, That's not the best way to, to, uh, hold the snake.

Right.

Moses is getting faith, and this is proof. Of course, the whole question is a very interesting one though. If God appeared to you, wouldn't you do anything he said? Isn't that how— that's how I think. It's how you— I mean, it's just the normal way to think. And yet somehow or other, God's appearing in the Hebrew Bible to those to whom he appeared did not have that effect. They kept their ability to say no. I mean, I think if God appeared to me, certainly, yes, sir. Absolutely. That's correct. Creator of the universe sees DP, and the answer is yes. That is what you would think, but it never happens that way. It only happens that way after the immense faith develops, like with Abraham and, and his son to go and, and sacrifice his son. Here it's developing. Now take, take the snake by the tail. And what is the next word? And he took it by the tail. Right. And he held it. Actually, it doesn't say, uh, hold on. No, it doesn't actually say took it by the tail. It says he, he sent out his hand and he held it and it became, the assumption is by the tail. Although it'd be interesting, somebody could say, well, it doesn't say tail, you know, but the assumption is he did. And it became a rod or a staff in his hand.

Okay.

This is God continuing to speak now, that they may believe, that is the skeptics who challenge you, that God Jehovah, the God of Abraham, of their fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or the God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, Appeared to you. Okay. Uh, but clearly this alone won't do it. It would do it for you and me. I'll, you know, no question. Although the truth is, given the, uh, things that I have seen at a Las Vegas magic show, if somebody said, God appeared to me and I'll prove it, look at what I'm gonna do with this stick, I'd say, you kidding? I've seen elephants disappear in Vegas. You know, serpent rod. Gimme a break, man. So, uh, apparently this was not terribly impressive there either. It certainly impressed Moses, but it was clearly, it would not clearly be enough. So verse 6, miracle number 3. And God continued, uh, God said to him further, Put your hand into your bosom. And he put his hand in his bosom and he pulled it out. And behold, his, his, his hand was in— was white encrusted like the snow. Those of you who have Leprous. It's now known that that's incorrect. It's scaling, but not leprosy. Just wanted you to know. Uh, a very important little point. So it's little important. It's either a little important big point or very important little point. It's getting late. Pardon me for getting a little punch drunk. Is this hints of punishment? It is a punishment to get this scaly disease in the Torah. God inflicts it. You'll see later. I don't, I never jump ahead, but you'll see it does. I think, though I'm not certain, Sarna says it's a hint of punishment, but nobody explains what's being punished. I think it is God's way of saying to Moses, I'm starting to get a little tired with your objections and I can punish people. That's what I think the message is, because God could have chosen an infinite number of miracles. Why pick this one? I think it was a hint, uh, that God punishes too. So he come, he pulls out his hand and it's white. Scaly white like the snow. Number, uh, 7. And, uh, uh, he, uh, returned his hand. Oh, excuse me. And God said, return your hand to your bosom. He returned his hand to his bosom and he took it out from his bosom. We're getting a lot of bosom here. Uh, you, and you really, it is interesting why it is repeated constantly. But it has done a lot in the Torah. And here it did, it returned like his flesh came out just like it was earlier. That's impressive.

Yeah.

But if they don't believe you, if they don't believe you and won't listen to the voice of the first Sign, then they'll listen to the voice of the second sign. I'm translating, you don't have voice, most of you, but that's the way it is, of the, of the last sign. But if they don't even believe both signs and won't listen to your voice, then, and here comes the fourth miracle, although the third sign. You will take from the waters of the, of the river, which is the Nile, and you will pour it on the dry land. And the waters will, that you take from the Nile will become blood on the dry ground. Now it's so, it, the precision of the text, Always moves me. Why will it become red? Why will it become blood on the dry ground? Lest anybody say Moses had something in his hand that turns water into blood. Okay? That's the reason. So it will turn to blood in front of their eyes on dry land. That's a much tougher trick than having it come from your hand or your vessel that you had, you, where you could do a lot of tricks, so to speak. Of course, this becomes the first, the first plague, and this one is not done in front of Moses now. Why not? He's not at the Nile. This is one you'll just take on faith, Moses. If they don't, if they're not impressed with the snake, they're not impressed with your scaly hand coming back to normal. This should do it. And finally, Moses, verse 10. Moses, but Moses said to the, to God, and this is his what number?

5th objection.

Yes. 5th. Whoops. Excuse me. Yes. 4th. Excuse me. 4th objection. We'll get to a 5th. 4th objection. Moses says, look, please God, I've never been a man of words, either in times past or now, or now that you have spoken to your servant. I am slow of speech and slow of tongue. So this is his, essentially his last objection. He has one other, which is not, which is a request. Uh, I, I, I, I can't do the job. I don't speak well. This is a very important point here that he sent anyway. But first, God's answer. God's answer here is much, uh, is a very poetic one. Who gives man speech? God said to him, who makes him dumb or deaf, seeing or blind? Is it not I, God? Now go, and I will be with you as you speak. Uh, I, let me translate, uh, from the Hebrew literally. And now go. Uh, this is, I'm tired of this at this point. It, the Hebrew's very direct, like, get outta here. And I will be, the Hebrew is very beautiful. I will be with your mouth. The English is what? I will be with you as you speak. That's why it's nice to know the original. I will be with your mouth. You say your mouth is the problem. I will be with your mouth. Essentially, I'll be your mouth and I will teach you what to say. And finally, the, what I call the 5th objection. And he says, but he says. Oh, please God, send somebody else. It's so touching because he has lost, he, he has no more arguments.

Yeah.

Right? At this point, it is, you know what it is like? It is really in a sense like with your kid. Your kid will say 12 reasons why they don't want to do their homework. When you have answered all 12, then they will admit there's a good TV show on, right? Which of course they could have said originally, I don't want to do my homework, and that's it. But they give 12 reasons why they can't do their homework. Moses gives 4 reasons why he can't take the Jews out of Egypt. But the truth is he doesn't want to take 'em out of Egypt. He wants somebody else to do this. That's the beauty of this whole thing. We finally are reduced to the truth. Mouth schmouth. What is God's name? Big deal. You know, he figures maybe one of them, God'll say, you know, good point. I mean, that's essentially what he was trying. So finally he is bereft. I mean, that's a good one. I don't speak well, right? That is a pretty good message, a pretty good objection for someone asked to take a nation out of another nation. All right. And, uh, God says, I will be there. He is now left with no answer except pick somebody else, please. Which is of course why he had all the other objections originally. And now that he said the truth, it would be like you when your kid finally said, I don't wanna do homework. God gets angry. Finally, at 14, in verse 14, God became angry with Moses. And he said, there is your brother Aaron the Levite. He, I know, speaks. Let's see. He speaks all right. And he will meet you. Uh, and he will see you and he will be happy in his heart, uh, to see you. You'll speak to him and put the words in his mouth. I'll be with you and with him as you speak and tell both of you what to do, and he'll speak for you to the people. That way he will serve as your spokesman, with you playing the role of God to him. Which is a very interesting line, meaning the role of God, meaning my role. You're getting, you'll get the orders from me and he can do the speaking since you are so worried about your inability to speak. One word on this, and I'm gonna end with verse 17 for today, cuz it's perfect. It's a perfect thematic ending as opposed to chapter ending. The, the fact that Moses doesn't speak well at all is, is very important. God may intentionally— my, my thoughts on this— my God may have intentionally picked a man to lead who does not have charisma. It's very hard to have charisma if you don't speak well, right? In our time, our time is the opposite again of what is going on here. In our time, the medium is the message. In the Torah, the message is the message. The medium is only a medium. Moses could not have had a talk show. Could not have run for office because soundbites would have showed him to be an ineffectual speaker. My belief is that we have worse leaders today than at times in the past. My belief is that in large part it is due to the need to be televisionable and articulate. And I am articulate and I'm saying this, that the relationship between leadership and ability to articulate is, it's a bonus. It's a help. Roosevelt's ability to speak, Churchill's ability to speak were very important and helpful, but they are by no means enough. And today they are regarded as enough to look good on the TV screen. Is critical. To sound good is critical. To be good is not critical. And that's the opposite here. You are indeed, all of us ultimately are to see ourselves as media of God's message. And I don't mean that at all flakily. I have no, I am not a poet. I do not think that way. It's when you see yourself as an end in yourself and not as a vehicle to something higher than yourself that problems begin. The religious view, which is very different from the secular view, is that you are a medium for good values, for good ideas, for to, that you are A medium to something higher, not the end. My argument is that the arts have suffered from that. The great artists who wrote like Bach, to the glory of God, I write this piece and so on. You have, you had, he looked, viewed himself as a medium. Are you with me? Is it being clear? He himself was just, that's all he was. I, I have a gift from God called musical ability, and I'll use it to glorify God. In the ultimate sense, that's how one should look at, look at all of one's life. I have a gift, and how do I use it? Do I use it for me or do I use it for God? And now, for those of you uncomfortable with that, What's your alternative? There is a third alternative. I use it for another ideal, which is nice, but ideals bereft of God have turned out pretty dangerous in the 20th century, called the state, fascism, communism. And now, not to mention, listen, even regarding yourself as a medium to God is dangerous. The bombers in the Middle East regard themselves as media, not as ends in themselves. So there's no guarantee, but when done right, this is the way one should see what one has in life as a gift of God. At any rate, leadership is not charismatic. Leadership is moral in the Torah. Moses is chosen for his moral greatness, not his ability to blow people away when he walks into a room. And finally, verse 17. And take with you this rod with which you'll perform the signs. That's very touching. Uh, 'cause, and I have 3 ideas on this with which I conclude. Keep this rod and perform the miracles with it. One, this will always remind you from where you came. Meaning two things: you were a shepherd, and where you met me. Number two, you remain a shepherd with his rod. Just the flock has changed. It's now the Hebrews. And as Everett Fox notes. You are gonna make this battle just with a staff, with a rod, not with a sword and not with a helmet. We will continue in the fall. I trust that I'll see many, if not, uh, all of you. One question, Lori, did we get a chance to send around a sheet? Oh, we didn't. All right. Well, A commercial message from me. I, I, if you are interested in getting the journal that I write, there's a signup sheet that Lori has in the back. And I, it's a great way of staying in touch while we don't see each other. But in any event, thank you so much for being with me. That's Claude.

On tomorrow's Sunday Fireside Chat.

If you write something, now I'm not talking about a, Well, actually, I am. I'm talking— I guess I am talking even if you write a nonfiction, you know, a history of Luxembourg in the 19th century, you know, in a paper for a history class. But whatever it might be, especially if it's your thoughts, though, that's what I was getting at. If you write what you think about a subject— this is what I think about, let's say, I don't know, gun control. This is what I think about war. This is what I think about capital punishment. And it's, it's not clear. That's because you're not clear. And by the way, that's not a sin not to be clear. It's a sin to think you're clear when you're not, but it's not a sin not to be clear. That is why it is imperative that somebody honest read your website.

Join us tomorrow to hear more on Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager. Visit DennisPrager.com for thousands of hours of Dennis's lectures, courses, and classic radio programs, and to purchase Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles. We want to take just a second to thank the team at Life Audio for their partnership with us on the podcast. Go to LifeAudio.com to find dozens of other Faith-centered podcasts in their network, including shows about prayer, Bible study, parenting, and more.

Precious metals dealers come and go. This is Nick Grovich, president of Amped Coin and Bullion. We've stood the test of time since 1983. With the flurry of coin and bullion dealers coming and going, how do you know who to trust and what to buy? At Amped Coin and Bullion, we value educated consumers. We want to alert you to good bullion buys in the market, and help you steer clear of the tricks and bad deals. Call AMFED Coin and Bullion for a free coin performance review. 800-221-7694 or americanfederal.com.