Why did the people not listen to Moshe?
Rashi #1: Because they could not be comforted on account of the shortness of breath (the result of their troubles) and the heaviness of work. 1
Rashi #2 (in his Perush on the Sidur): It is like telling a poor man going from door to door collecting, that tomorrow he will be crowned king.
Ramban: For fear that Pharaoh would have them killed by the sword, 2 and on the account of the ongoing pressure of the taskmasters.
Rashbam: Because, even though they believed Moshe when he first appeared to them, 3 they understood that they would be given a respite from the heavy work, and instead, their workload had increased.
Seforno: They did not stop to reflect, to have faith in Hashem's salvation, 4 that Hashem should acknowledge their faithfulness and consider it a kindness on their part. 5 This was the combined result of a lack of faith in Hashem and the hard work. 6
Targum Yonasan: They did not listen to Moshe due to their fussiness and because they worshipped idols.
Hadar Zekenim: Because they were unable to separate themselves from the idolatry they served. 7
Hadar Zekenim: This is difficult. Anyone who hears good news is happy!
Ramban: As the Shoterim said to Moshe (See above, Shemos 5:21).
Rashbam: See 4:31.
Seforno: As occurred with Avraham (See Bereishis 15:6).
Seforno: And that explains why Hashem's statement, "And I will give it to them as an inheritance" was not fulfilled with them, but only with their children.
Seforno: If not for which they would have taken Moshe's words to heart and realized that the correct thing to do was to place their trust in Hashem. And it is due to the lack of faith that the promise "v'Nasati... Lachem Morashah" (6:8) was not fulfilled with them, only with their children.
As the Pasuk "Mishchu u'Kechu Lachem" (12:21) indicates.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "'Mi'Kotzer Ru'ach' - When someone is in pain, his spirit and breath are shortened; he cannot take long breaths." Presumably their pain was due to their hard labor. If so, the verse's conclusion, "... and due to hard labor," seems redundant!
Gur Aryeh: There were two reasons that they failed to accept Moshe's message. They had "shortness of spirit" - out of worry over the difficult labor they still had to do. They also were physically weak from the difficult labor they had endured already.
Rashi writes: " ... But our Sages interpreted [this section as a response] to the previous one, when Moshe said [to Hashem], 'Why have You done evil, etc.' (5:22) ... However, the Midrash does not fit very well with the verses...." But even in Rashi's initial commentary above, which he presents as Peshat (the simple meaning of the text - see Rashi to 6:2), Rashi references the preceding section!
Rashi writes: "... But the Midrash does not fit well with the verses. Firstly, (the above verse says, 'and [by] My Name, Hashem, I was not known to [the Avos]' (6:3), whereas) it does not say, 'and My Name they did not ask of Me!'" What does this show us?
Gur Aryeh: If verse 6:3 is to be taken as a complaint against Moshe as compared to the Avos, it should be for having asked, "... If [Bnei Yisrael] say, what is His Name, what shall I tell them?" (3:13). Rather, the contrast is only that Hashem was not known to the Avos by His Unique Name; and this does not constitute a complaint against Moshe!
Rashi writes: "... And should you say that Hashem never informed the Avos His Name...." What is Rashi adding?
Gur Aryeh: Rashi is addressing a potential challenge to his previous point (see 6:9:1.3:1). According to the approach of the Midrash, perhaps that is exactly what our Pasuk means! Hashem says, 'I never had to inform the Avos of My Name - because they never asked! ... Whereas you, [Moshe,] did ask.' Rashi tells us that the Avos did in fact know Hashem's name; it was revealed to Avraham in Bereishis 15:7.
Rashi writes: "... And should you say that Hashem never informed the Avos His Name...." (yet the Avos did know Hashem's name; He revealed it to Avraham in Bereishis 15:7). If that is the case, how can we resolve the Midrashic approach to our section?
Gur Aryeh: The Avos were aware of Hashem's Name. What they did not know was its hidden meaning, 1 and how it expresses Hashem in Truth. 2 Neither did they ask Hashem for understanding in this matter; they preferred to walk with Hashem in Temimus (perfect trust and reliance). Moshe, in contrast, did request understanding of Hashem's Name.
Refer to 3:13:1.1:2.
That is why verse 6:3 uses the passive verb "Lo Noda'ti" (I was not known); rather than 'Lo Hoda'ti' (I did not inform). This implies recognizing and knowing Hashem himself, as the Name Hashem indicates His Truth. Only Moshe was told its hidden meaning, not the Avos. Also see Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 30, p. 117). Also refer to 5:23:1, as to how Moshe's error came about due to his great level.
Rashi writes: "And furthermore, [according to the approach of the Midrash,] how does the continuation (verses 5-6) follow?" What does this question add?
Gur Aryeh: If this section is coming to rebuke Moshe for having asked, 'Why have You done evil, etc.' (5:22), how do we understand the ensuing verses -- "I have heard the outcry of Bnei Yisrael... Therefore, say to them... [the four expressions of Geulah]" (6:5-7). 1
These verses have a completely different theme- their upcoming redemption. It must be that the main theme of our section is not the rebuke against Moshe.
Rashi writes: "Furthermore, [according to the approach of the Midrash - that our section is primarily a rebuke to Moshe,] how does the continuation (verses 5-6) follow?" If so, how can the Midrashic approach to our section be resolved?
Gur Aryeh: Certainly, according to Peshat, the main idea of our section is that Hashem would now redeem the Bnei Yisrael. But why does the text digress, to discuss by what Name Hashem revealed Himself to the Avos (6:3)? It must be that this entire message to Moshe had an undertone of complaint against him, for having asked Hashem's Name.
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 30, p. 117): Hashem is saying, I addressed the Avos by the Name Shakai, but did not fulfill My promises in their days. They nevertheless accepted this; they did not demand an explanation (that is why 'I made a covenant with them,' etc). So too, I shall not be demanding upon their descendants, and I will now redeem them -- despite that they are unworthy.
Rashi writes: "...As it says, 'Are My words not like fire, says Hashem, and like a hammer that smashes the rock (Mefotzetz Sala)?' (Yirmeyahu 23:29) - [i.e.,] it divides up into numerous Nitzotzos (lit. sparks)." In the metaphor of this Pasuk, Hashem's word is compared to the hammer - not to the rock - and the hammer does not splinter up into parts?
Gur Aryeh: In the metaphor, when striking rock with a forceful blow, many fiery sparks emerge from the hammer. So too, it is not the Word of Hashem that divides, but the various approaches towards understanding it. 1
Gur Aryeh: Also see Chazal's interpretation (based on this same Pasuk), "If that despicable (Yetzer ha'Ra) attacks you, drag him into the Beis Midrash; if he is iron, he will blow up (Mispotzetz)!" (Kidushin 30b). We see that this Chazal also views the sparks as having emerged from the hammer.
