What motivated Moshe to find out God’s name ? Did he think that this knowledge would convince his brothers of the legitimacy of his mission ? The Rambam formulated the question as follows:

If the question, as appears at first sight, referred only to the name as a mere utterance of the lips, the following dilemma would present itself: Either the Israelites knew the name or they had never heard it. If the name was known to them, they would perceive in it no argument in favor of the mission of Moshe, his knowledge and their knowledge of the divine name being the same. If, on the other hand, they had never heard it mentioned, and if the knowledge of it was to prove the legitimacy of the mission of Moshe, what evidence would they have that this is really the name of God?[1](Guide for the Perplexed 1:63)

The Performance of Wonders

Ibn Ezra claims that Moshe did not believe that the knowledge of God’s name would in itself have an impact on the opinions of Bnai Yisrael. He suggests an alternative reason for Moshe’s question. In his opinion, Moshe knew the name “El Shaddai”, the God of his ancestors, and he also knew that the liberation from Egypt would only be fulfilled with the help of supernatural miracles. His question did not relate to knowing the name of God, but rather whether that divine name would serve as an instrument in bringing about miracles:

עתה ביקש משה מה שם יאמר לישראל משמותיו כי בשם "אל שדי" לא יעשה אותות, רק בשם הנכבד... והנה בשם הזה יתחדשו בעולם אותות ומופתים. וכאשר נאמר לו זה השם הנכבד ביקש אותות ומופתים. (פירוש הארוך ג:טו)

Now Moshe asked which of his names he should say to Israel, because with the name “El Shaddai” he could not perform signs, just with the ineffable name…. And behold with this name signs and wonders will be renewed in the world. And when this ineffable name was told to him, he sought to do signs and wonders. (the long commentary 3:16)

According to Ibn Ezra, it was the knowledge of this name of God that enabled Moshe to perform signs and wonders. Therefore, only at the beginning of chapter 4, after he has learned the name, is he instructed in the implementation of the signs that are designed to convince Bnai Yisrael of his legitimacy (see Shemot 4:1-9). This concept is expressed by Ibn Ezra as well in his explanation of Tehillim 91:14:

כי בי חשק ואפלטיהו אשגבהו כי ידע שמי. יקראני ואענהו עמו אנכי בצרה אחלצהו ואכבדהו. (תהלים צא:יד-טו)

Because he set his love upon me , therefore will I deliver him, I will set him on high because he knows my name. He shall call upon me and I will answer him, I will be with him in trouble, I will deliver him and honor him.

אבן עזרא: אשגבהו - שלא יוכל האויב להרע לו בעבור שהוא יודע םוד שמי.

Ibn Ezra: I will set him on high - That the enemy will not be able to harm him because he knows the secret of my name.

Nevertheless, Ibn Ezra negates the concept that the name of God in itself has a magical power to bring about miracles:

וחלילה חלילה מהאומרים כי השם היה חקוק על המטה ובו בקע הים … רק אלקינו לבדו בקע הים. (פירוש הקצר ג:יג)

Heaven forbid for those who say that the name was engraved on the staff, and by virtue of that the sea was split… only God Himself split the sea. (the short commentary 3:13)

Rather, Ibn Ezra suggests that the connection to God that is achieved through the contemplation of this name is instrumental in the implementation of the miracle.

Continuity or the Dawn of a New Era ?

The Ramban rejects Ibn Ezra’s interpretation:

ואין דבריו נכונים בעיני. כי עדיין לא נאמר למשה שיעשה ביציאת מצרים אותות ומופתים גדולים ונפלאים, אבל שיצילם מיד מצרים ובשם "אל שדי" יוכל לבוא בלב פרעה להצילם וגם לנצח העמים. וכבר הוציא שרה מביתו בנגעים גדולים שהביא עליו, ונצח אברהם לבדו המלכים הגדולים, וכל זה בעזרת "אל שדי", השם הנודע לאבות.

And his words are incorrect in my opinion. For at this point Moshe was not told that he was to perform great and marvelous signs and wonders in the exodus from Egypt, but only that he would save them from Egypt. And with the name “El Shaddai” he would be able to reach the heart of Pharoah and also to defeat the people. And He redeemed Sarah from his (Pharoah’s) house by means of the great afflictions that He brought upon him, and Avraham by himself defeated the great kings, all with the help of “El Shaddai”, the name that was known to the fathers.”

Ramban denies a causal relationship between the performance of miracles and the new name that was revealed to Moshe. He supports his claim by noting that miracles were already performed during the time of Avraham, when they knew only the name “El Shaddai”. Ramban suggests two alternative solutions:

ודרך שאלה ביקש שיודיעהו מי השולח אותו, כלומר באיזה מדה הוא שלוח אליהם …אם היא במדת "אל שדי" היא שעמדה לאבות, או במדת רחמים עליונה שתעשה בה אותות ומופתים מחודשים ביצירה.

ושמע משה שהבטיחו על מעמד הר סיני ומתן תורה והוא יודע שהתורה לא תנתן בשם אל שדי הנזכר באבות רק השם הגדול שבו היה העולם, ועל כן שאל מה אומר אליהם.

And by means of a question he requested that He inform him who is sending him, that is to say by which divine trait he is being sent to them,… if by the trait “El Shaddai” that stood by the fathers, or the trait of divine mercy by which new signs and wonders would be performed in the creation.

And Moshe heard that He had promised about the events of Mount Sinai and the giving of the Torah, and he knew that the Torah would not be given with the name “El Shaddai” which was utilized in the time of the fathers, but with the great name with which the world was created. He therefore asked what to say to them.

According to the first explanation, Moshe’s question related to the nature of God’s intervention that would support him – should he expect hidden miracles through the attribute of God reflected in the name “El Shaddai”, or could he expect public miracles through the agency of a different attribute of God ? According to the second interpretation, Moshe knew that the Torah would not be given with the name “El Shaddai”, and he therefore asked by what name it would be given ? In the first interpretation, Moshe is not sure whether or not his mission constitutes a continuation of the activity of the ancestors. In the second interpretation, Moshe is certain that the exodus from Egypt culminating in the giving of the Torah represents a new stage in the relationship between God and his people, which must be reflected in a different divine name.

R. Samson Raphael Hirsch further develops the second interpretation of the Ramban:

It must have been quite clear to Moshe that his mission was a double one: first to Pharoah to accomplish the salvation, and then the real and incomparably more difficult one to Israel – to educate and prepare them for the great goal to become “the people of God”…. Had his mission only been redemption from slavery, he would for the present only had to arrange his approach to Pharoah. But Moshe at once recognized that his mission to Israel was the real core of the task, to make them worthy to be saved, and thereby to lead them nearer towards their great destiny. He was in no doubt as to what he would have to say to Pharoah, but for his mission to Israel he wished further elucidation. Hence the question: “When I shall then come to the Children of Israel and say to them, the God of your fathers sent me to you” – this sending assumes something fresh, some new relationship – “which name shall I tell them ?” So the giving of this name must give them the key to the new relationship that they are to have with God…. Moshe’s question as to the name that he is to bring to them in his mission to Israel is equivalent to the question: What idea is he to bring to Israel which is to bring about a change in their ideas, and to bring them to decide by themselves to step from the service of Pharoah into the service of God ?

“I Will Be With Him In Trouble” – God’s Relationship to His People

Rashi has a different understanding than Ibn Ezra and the Ramban as to the nature of the encounter between Moshe and God at the burning bush. Rashi’s approach is reflected in his in his explanation of Shemot 3:2:

מתוך הסנה - ולא אילן אחר משום "עמו אנכי בצרה" (תהילים צא:טז)

In the midst of the bush: and not another tree in order to communicate: “I will be with him in trouble” (Tehillim 91:16)

Rashi’s comment, which refers also to Tehillim 91, is based on a midrash in Bereshit Rabbah 2:7 which posits that God chose to reveal himself in a thorn bush in order to indicate his identification with the suffering of the Jewish people in Egypt. God’s desire to have Moshe communicate that point to Bnai Yisrael is, according to Rashi, at the core of their discussion regarding God’s name:

אהיה אשר אהיה - אהיה עמם בצרה זו אשר אהיה עמם בשבעוד שאר מלכיות. אמר לפניו רבונו של עולם מה אני מזכיר להם צרה אחרת, דיים בצרה זו. אמר לו יפה אמרת, כה תאמר לבני ישראל אהיה שלחני אליכם.

I will be what I will be - I will be with them in this trouble as I will be with them in their bondage by other kingdoms. He (Moshe) said before Him: “Master of the Universe, why shall I mention to them another trouble ? This trouble is enough for them.” He responded: “You have spoken well. So shall you say to the Children of Israel: ‘I will be sent me to you’.”

Rashi’s interpretation is based on two peculiarities in the text.

ויאמר אלקים אל משה אהיה אשר אהיה,

ויאמר כה תאמר לבני ישראל אהיה שלחני אליכם.

And God said to Moshe: ‘I will be what I will be.’

And he said: ‘Thus shall you say to Children of Israel, I will be has sent me to you.’

The first difficulty is an apparent inconsistency in the wording of the verse. In the first part of the verse, God identifies His name as "אהיה אשר אהיה"(“I will be that I will be”), but at the end of the verse, He instructs Moshe to tell the people that his name is simply "אהיה"(“I will be”). The second textual difficulty is that the verse uses the phrase “and he said” (“ויאמר”) when there was no change of speaker. Generally, in Biblical dialogue, the term “ויאמר” is only used to indicate a change of speaker. This phenomenon often indicates a response that was not recorded in the text.[2] On the basis of these two factors, Rashi creates a dramatic dialogue in which Moshe convinces God to address Bnai Yisrael only about their current situation without reference to future difficulties that they might anticipate. It is understood from Rashi’s commentary that he views Moshe’s original request as an inquiry into the nature of God’s providential relationship to the people. The question is expressed as follows by Ramban:

לשון רש"י מדברי רבותינו והכוונה להם בזה כי משה אמר לפניו יתברך:… מה שמו שיגיד להם, השם שיורה הוראה שלמה על המציאות וההשגחה ?

The language of Rashi is based on the words of our Rabbis, and their intention was that Moshe said before God: …What is His name that he should tell them, the name that completely transmits the concepts of His existence and His providence.

Yet, Ramban interprets God’s answer in Rashi’s commentary in a somewhat unconventional manner:

והקב"ה השיבו: למה זה ישאלו לשמי, אין להם צורך לראיה אחרת כי אהיה עמהם בכל צרתם, יקראוני ואענם והיא הראיה הגדולה שיש א-לקים בישראל קרובים אלינו בכל קראינו אליו.

And God answered: Why should they ask for my name, they need no other proof than the fact that I will be with them in all of their troubles. They can call upon me and I will answer them – that is the greatest proof that there is a God in Israel who is near to us whenever we call upon him.

According to Ramban, "אהיה אשר אהיה"is not one of the names of God. Rather, it is a response to Moshe’s request indicating that he does not need to provide Bnai Yisrael with a name in order to prove God’s providential relationship to them. Rather, that relationship will be demonstrated in the unfolding events in Egypt as well as in future events. The faith of Bnai Yisrael will not be based on theology, but on existential experience.

Theological Implications

Moses Mendelssohn, in his commentary, expands on the significance of Rashi’s commentary:

Because past and future time are all present in the creator, since in Him there is no change and dependence and of His days there is no passing – because of this all times in Him are called by a single name which embraces past, present, and future alike. Through this name He indicates the necessity of existence and at the same time the continuous and abiding character of providence. He says, then, by this name: “I am with the children of men, to be well disposed and to have mercy on whom I will have mercy. Say then to them, to Israel, that I am He who was, is and shall be, and who practices lordship and providence over all; I, I am the one and I shall be with them in this need, and shall be with them whenever they call unto me.

Mendelssohn connects the tetragrammaton (י-ה-ו-ה) to the revelation of God’s name at the burning bush.[3] As such, in his translation of the Torah, he translates the tetragrammaton as “the Eternal” instead of “the Lord”. According to Franz Rosenzweig, Mendelssohn’s translation is significant not just because he is the first Jewish translator to connect the meaning of the tetragrammaton to the name revealed to Moshe, but also because in so doing, he equates the impersonal God of creation with the present providential God. This, Rosenzweig claims, is the uniqueness of the Jewish theology of monotheism. Rosenzweig, however, prefers to translate the tetragrammaton as “the Providential”, a term that reflects Rashi’s interpretation.

Conclusion

Why did Moshe ask God to reveal His name before accepting the mission to liberate the Jewish people from Egypt ? The commentaries we have seen can be divided into two categories:

1. Those that relate the name of God to the role of miracles in the redemption, either as a vehicle enabling Moshe to perform wonders (Ibn Ezra) or as a reflection of the manner in which God will manifest himself through public miraculous acts (first interpretation of the Ramban).

2. Those that view the name of God as a reflection of the relationship between God and his people, either as the reflection of a new relationship (second interpretation of Ramban, Hirsch), or as the reflection of a strong relationship of empathy and caring (Rashi).

All of the commentaries agree, however, that the dialogue between God and Moshe reveals that the liberation from Egypt will be the beginning of a wondrous new era for the Jewish people and the world.

[1] There are some commentators who claim that the name was known to Bnai Yisrael. For example, Hizkuni contends that Yaacov gave the name to Yosef to pass down to future generations so they would be able to verify the veracity of those who would come to redeem them from Egypt.

[2] For another example of this phenomenon, see Bereshit 37:21-22. For a more in depth discussion, see the article entitled “ויאמר …ויאמר” in פרקי נחמה, Eliner Press, Jerusalem, 2001, pp. 495-502.

[3] This connection is introduced by Rashbam who claims that God called himself “אהיה” (“I will be”), and that we therefore call him “יהיה” (“He will be”). The second “י” in the word became a “ו” to read י-ה-ו-ה, a form that we also find in Bereshit 27:29 in the phrase “הוה גביר לאחיך” (“Be strong for your brother”) where the word “הוה” is another form of the word “היה”. Both Rashbam and Chizkuni, quoted in the previous footnote, view the name as “אהיה” and the phrase “אשר אהיה” as an explanation of the name. In this way, they explain why the term “אהיה” appears alone at the end of the verse. The fact that the name is in the future form is the basis for Mendelssohn’s translation, “the Eternal”.