A Different View of Mercy

Rabbi Dr. Darrell Ginsberg

Throughout the Torah, we see a shift between two prominent names of God – “Hashem” and “Elokim”. To the secular scholar, this change implies the Torah was not of Divine origin, but the product of different authors. Without a methodology to understand Torah or a firm grasp of the mesora, it is easy to see why this type of conclusion is reached. As Jews, we know it is one of the fundamental tenets of our faith that the Torah indeed was given from God at Har Sinai. We also know that what makes Judaism unique from other religions is our dedication to the empowering of the mind, to constantly furthering our intellectual development. As such, the fact that the change in names takes place requires elucidation. In Parshas Shemos, an example of the switch between names affords us an opportunity to gain a greater insight into the way God manifests Himself to the Jewish people and the world (please note that the objective of this article is NOT to offer a universal formula applicable to all such instances). 

During God’s first revelation to Moshe, Moshe hides his faces after the initial communication. The Torah continues (Shemos 3:7):

“Hashem said, "I have indeed seen the suffering of My people that are in Egypt. I have heard how they cry out because [of the harshness] of their slave-masters, and I am aware of their pain.” 

The Ramban (ibid) notes that this is the first time in this section that God reveals Himself as “Hashem” (meaning the four letters), rather than as “Elokim”. To understand his question, we need to look at the beginning of this section.

The rise of the new king in Egypt portends a new chapter in the developing plan to redeem the Jews from Egypt (ibid 2: 23-25):

“A long time passed and the king of Egypt died. The B'nei Yisrael moaned because of their enslavement, and they cried. Their plea about their enslavement went up to God (haElokim). Elokim heard their groaning and Elokim remembered His covenant with Avraham, with Yitzchok and with Yaakov. Elokim saw the B'nei Yisrael, and Elokim took knowledge of them.” 

We see throughout this description the use of “Elokim” instead of “Hashem” and it is this break in the trend that is being referenced by the Ramban. We must understand what it was at this moment, during the prophecy of Moshe that causes this switch to take place.

There is another subtle but equally important comment offered by Rabbeinu Chananel (ibid). As we know, the name “Elokim” refers to the attribute of Justice as manifested by God, while “Hashem” refers the attribute of Mercy. In general, we tend to view these as distinct ideas without overlap. Therefore, one could assume that in the quoted verses above, the attribute of Justice is the underlying idea behind God’s decision to now initiate the redemption. Interestingly, Rabbeinu Chananel writes that in this case, “Elokim had mercy on them.” He seems to be indicating here that there was some conjoining of these two attributes, or that God’s Justice was merciful. If this is the case, then the delineation is not as clear as once thought. This is also somewhat problematic according to the Ramban – the specific name of “Hashem” was not used here, but God was still applying some type of mercy. Therefore, the change to “Hashem” would not seem to be as noteworthy. And, more importantly, how do we understand the idea of merciful Justice versus acting Mercifully (or pure mercy)? After all, it would be absurd to maintain that God’s Mercy is unjust!

When we take a closer look at the verses, we see that when God “heard their groaning,” He “remembered His covenant with Avraham, with Yitzchok and with Yaakov …” In other words, it was the covenant, the “guarantee” God made with the avos, that was the impetus for His involvement. The idea of abiding by a covenant is not an idea of mercy, but one of justice – a pretty clear and obvious deduction. In this instance, God saw the covenant in danger of being destroyed, and therefore began the process of the redemption. What about the idea of being merciful alongside the name “Elokim”? There are two possible threats that can bring about the ideological destruction of Bnai Yisrael, thereby negating the bris. The first comes from within the nation. In Egypt, there was a distinct possibility that the Jewish people would become idolatrous, assimilating into the surrounding environs, accepting upon themselves a religious system anathema to Judaism. Had this been the scenario, there would be no feature of mercy expressed in judgment. The other possibility is an external threat, a force outside the people threatening its very existence. In the case of the Jewish people in Egypt, their bondage had entered a new phase. They were not just suffering from the physical torment of being enslaved. Their very existence as Jews was in danger. We see this idea clearly in the Haggada, as we analyze the Sifrei and recount the different types of suffering encountered by the Jews (Devarim 26:7)  – “We prayed to Hashem, God of our forefathers, and Hashem accepted our prayer, and perceived our oppression, and our labor, and the pressure upon us (lachatzeinu).” The Ritva explains that the Egyptians, after failing to decrease the population of the Jews by killing the male children, resorted to a different method --they began to try to assimilate the Jewish people into their own religion. The reality that the danger to the religion was coming from outside the Jewish people could be expressed in the characteristic of “mercy” being applied to “Elokim”. The idea of mercy here is stressing that the danger was not due to the Jewish people rejecting God, but to having a philosophy which rejects God forced upon them.

At this point, the Ramban’s observation would seem to be more difficult to understand – after all, it seems like the same idea could have been conveyed using the formula of Rabbeinu Channanel. We must posit that the change to “Hashem” was a qualitative change, but what did it reflect? The idea of mercy as perceived by the world at large is usually associated with leniency in punishment, assisting the dis-advantaged, and a plethora of other examples. In many instances, the reference to Hashem evokes these very types of actions. However, there is an application of the idea of mercy that may be unfamiliar to some. The Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 1:54) offers a well-known explanation as to Moshe’s famous request from God, when engaging God after the sin of the Golden Calf, to “show me Your glory.” Moses’s personality was unique in that he was constantly striving for more knowledge, a perpetual yediyas Hashem. Nothing sums this up more that this request. Moses asks God for more knowledge, knowledge of His actions and His essence. God responds that it is impossible for man to know His essence, but that he will reveal to Moshe the knowledge of His actions. Further explanation is required as to this back and forth, but there is one interesting detail that is pertinent to our topic. In the conversation Moshe has with God, the name “Hashem” is used, connoting Mercy. In other words, the fact that God allows for man the opportunity to know more about Him, to gain in insights, is indeed within the category, if not the paradigm, of Mercy.  This could be the reason for the switch from “Elokim” to “Hashem”. When describing the overall plan for the redemption of the Jewish people to Moshe (Shemos 3:8), God explains that “I have descended to free them from the hand of Egypt…” Onkelos explains that “descended” means God is revealing Himself in freeing the Jews from Egypt. Within the plan to save the Jews is an element that need not necessarily be present. The redemption could have been the complete annihilation of the Egyptian people, with the Jews simply walking out of Egypt. Instead, God was using the redemption as an opportunity to allow the Jewish people to gain insights into Him. They would see God as Creator of the universe, manifest through his control of nature. They would see God as melech elyon, the one and only King. They would be afforded an opportunity into yediyas Hashem – knowledge of God – and this opportunity is indeed an act of mercy from God.