Parshat Vaera begins by dramatically introducing a new dimension in Hashem's relationship with Moshe Rabbeinu (Shemot 6:1- "ani Hashem") and Am Yisrael (6:6-"lachen emor le-Benei Yisrael ani Hashem") that transcends His previous interaction with the avot (6:3-"u-shemi Hashem lo nodati lahem"). This monumental revelation is followed(6:6-8) by an equally compelling crescendo - the promise of imminent liberation and the formulation of four (or perhaps five - "ve-heveti") facets of redemption! And yet, in a stunning anti-climax, the Torah records that these breakthroughs simply fell on deaf ears (Shemot 6:9), "vayedaber Moshe kein el Benei Yisrael ve-lo shamu el Moshe mi-kotzer ruach u-meavodah kashah". The Torah does not elaborate or even define these factors that impeded Benei Yisrael's capacity to embrace liberation and a broadly optimistic, promising meaningful future, inviting a wide range of views among the mefarshim. Later (6:12), Moshe invokes Benei Yisrael's traumatic non-response to underscore the challenge of impacting Paroah "hein Benei Yisrael lo shamu eilai, ve-eich yishmaeini Paraoh, ve-ani aral sefatayim", one of the rare kal ve-chomers in the Torah, as the midrash and Rashi note. Evidently, the experience of Klal Yisrael's lack of responsiveness was perceived by Moshe as a considerable setback, jeopardizing his entire mission.
The formulation of "ve-lo shamu", conveying that they could not fully process or were incapable of reflecting upon, perhaps unable to fully comprehend Moshe's Divine mission is particularly intriguing in this context. Indeed, many of the mefarshim avoid this more literal meaning. Together with Onkelus they suggest that the "shamu" here connotes "ve-lo kabilu", they did not assent or accept Moshe's vision. Various explanations are offered for declining Moshe's presentation. Rashi indicates they rejected the "tanchumin" component, while Rashbam attributes their rejection to a loss of faith due to disappointment with their continued servitude. Baal Haturim posits that they remained convinced that the redemption had not yet arrived, as the forecast initially called for a significantly longer period of subordination. Ramban argues that notwithstanding their status as maaminim, they simply were not willing or spiritually able to pay the short-term price in torture and intense servitude even to reap the worthy spiritual goal. While there is significant range in the assessment of Am Yisrael in these and parallel interpretations, the common thread is a denial that Klal Yisrael were incapable of internalizing or reflecting upon Hashem's vision or its implications.
However, Seforno, Or ha-Haim, and others embrace the more straightforward, yet conceptually more challenging understanding of "ve-lo shamu", the idea that they were developmentally incapable of hearing or appreciating Hashem's vision, a perspective that requires further clarification. While Seforno indicates that this condition was related to their insufficient faith in Hashem, Or ha-Chaim posits that their inability in dire conditions that threatened their very subsistence and even their short-term survival to perceive a broader spiritual vision, a more optimistic future perspective stemmed from the precipitous decline of Torah study in this period, a defining dimension of Jewish existence that directly expands one's horizons and perspective. Thus, he declares: "u-lazeh yikearei kotzer ruach ki ha-Torah merachevet libo shel adam". [Or ha-Chayim's assessment about the decline of Torah study in Mitzrayim has been challenged by some based on the gemara Yoma 28b - "miyemeihem shel avoteinu lo parshah yeshiva mei-hem…hayu be-Mitzrayim yeshivah imahem…" However, others (see for example, Rinat Yizchak Shemot 6:9) have noted Rambam's (Hilchot Avoda Zara 1:3) affirmation of this decline, alongside the assignment of shevet Levi to protect and preserve the indispensable legacy of talmud Torah even in the periods where spiritual paucity intensified. The fact that shevet Levi remained an ally of Moshe Rabbeinu and avoided "avodah kashah" is consistent with Orah ha-Chayim's perspective.]. It should be noted that the Mechilta, as well as Targum Yonaton ben Uziel understood that "avodah kashah" refers to "pulchanh nuchraah", idolatry. While some understood this to indicate that a commitment to avodah zarah motivated a rejection of the plan to liberate Am Yisrael from Mitzrayim, it is conceivable that this factor is parallel to that of Or ha-Chayim and Seforno. The mentality associated with avodah zarah - the focus on physicality, on forces that appear to provide pragmatic benefits, on improving prosperity or neutralizing suffering in the present- is completely incompatible with embracing an authentic spiritual vision, one which is ordered by multiple and idealistic values and which transcends the moment or the individual, alternatively focusing on a greater religious goal and destiny. It is possible that the more literal and subtle understanding of "ve-lo shamu" translated into the mentality that underpinned numerous of the "ve-lo kabilu" explications, as well.
We may further appreciate the Or ha-Chayim -Seforno position when we consider some facets of "kotzer ruach" (and, briefly, "avodah kashah"). Meshech Chochmah and Rav Hirsch (who do not necessarily adopt the perspectives of Seforno and Or ha-Chayim) each posit that kotzer ruach signifies the inability of one whose present fate is precarious to seriously confront his future, or to be sufficiently inspired by a more lofty ideal. Rav Hirsch argues that kotzer ruach is the opposite of "erech appayim", patience that derives from Divine vision and timeless perspective. In light of Or ha-Hayim and Seforno, one may more fully appreciate that Torah commitment and Divine faith not only expand horizons, neutralize hopelessness, provide a different perspective on obstacles, challenges and priorities, but also largely moderate the otherwise natural human focus on the present. Rav Soloveitchik zt"l frequently developed the idea that halachah embraces a Bergsonian notion of qualitative time, in which the past remains relevant, even halachically accessible in some respects and the future as the embodiment of aspiration and destiny is a living force. Yetziat Mitzrayim by means of zechirat and sippur particularly crystalizes this theme. Moreover, the idea of time-consciousness, as the Rav and others have noted, differentiates slaves from the community of the liberated, and is therefore a crucial facet of the process of yeziat Mitzrayim and the countdown to mattan Torah. Certainly "avodah kashah" may also signify Klal Yisral's slave mentality, so acutely documented by Ibn Ezra in his analysis of yeziat Mitzrayim, kriyat yam suf, and the subsequent sojourn in the midbar. The spiritual impoverishment of "kotzer ruach" conjoined with the equally halachically problematic "avodah kashah" engendered a toxic mix that impeded, even made inaccessible or unhearable, at least temporarily, the vision of "ani Hashem" and the multiple facets of geulah!!
It is noteworthy that the solution advanced by Hashem is formulated (6:13) broadly and ambiguously: "vayezavem el Benei Yisrael", a pasuk that predictably is subject to numerous interpretations. One midrash suggests a targeting of the offending avodah zarah! The Yerushalmi (Rosh Hashana 3:2, also cited by Netziv Haamek Davar and others) focuses on the mitzvah of freeing slaves in timely fashion! It is conceivable in light of Seforno and Or Hahayim "vayezaveim" also broadly calls for a rigorous campaign to re-imbue Am Yisrael with the values of Torah and emunah, to embrace the principle of tzivui, sine qua nons for neutralizing "kotzer ruach" and "avodah kashah", paving the way for the successful receptivity to "ani Hashem" and the four geulot. The emphasis throughout the process of yetziat Mitzrayim on an avodah experience, the ultimate stress on ve-lakahti and numerous hints linking the exodus to mattan Torah, and the goal of "halelu avdei Hashem ve-lo avdei Paraoh" are certainly consistent with this perspective, alongside the other insights of the classical commentators.
Finally, we note that at mattan Torah when Am Yisrael experienced gilui Shechinah, Hashem's unmediated presence, and embraced with naaseh ve-nishmah commitment the halachic ideals and principles that also transformed, expanded, and broadened their perspective and purview on all facets of life, the Torah (Shemot 20:14) remarkably uses the expression "ve-kol ha-am roim et ha-kolot". The capacity to hear, reflect, fully appreciate and internalize the Divine vision had reached transcendent proportions. The contrast to "ve-lo shamu mi-kotzer ruach u-meavodah kashah" could not have been more pointed!