Efrat, Israel – How was Moses different from the many other prophets recorded in the biblical tradition? Was there a distinction only in degree, or was there a much more fundamental difference, a difference “in kind” between Moses and those who came after him?
The opening verse in this week’s portion of Matot may well provide us with an insight concerning this issue. We read, “And Moses spoke unto the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel saying: This is the thing [zeh hadavar] which G-d has commanded.  When a man vows a vow unto G-d…(Numbers 30:2-3)
In his commentary, Rashi cites a Midrash (Sifrei, B.T. Nedarim 77) which makes the following distinction: whereas Moses as well as the other prophets introduced their prophecy with the word, ‘Thus said G-d,’ (koh amar haShem), the expression ‘zeh hadavar asher tzivah haShem’ “this is the thing which G-d has commanded” is unique to Moses, and represents Moses’ additional and superior prophetic status.
Rashi is apparently contrasting Moses with the other prophets; he does not seem to flesh out, however, the substance of this superiority. One of the most important super commentaries - or commentaries on the primary commentary Rashi - Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi, the R’em (1448-1526, chief rabbi of Constantinople), suggests that the phrase “koh amar haShem” (“Thus said G-d…”) expresses the intention or the essence of the vision, though not necessarily the vision itself; after all, the other prophets only see ‘through a glass darkly,’ (aspaklarya sh’ainah me’irah). On the other hand, Moses’ prophecy is through ‘..a glass brightly,’ (aspaklarya me’irah) and therefore he had the power to express precisely what was given to his eye or communicated to his mind, word for word.
In Emek HaNetziv, the classic commentary on the Sifri written by Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (1817-1893), he questions any interpretation which could possibly suggest that even the vision of the other prophets was anything less than an exact transmission. Moreover, the Netziv proves the use of the word ‘koh’ elsewhere in the Torah as taken by the Talmudic sages to indicate something absolute and exact. After all, when the priests are commanded to bless the Israelities, we read the following words, “And G-d spoke unto Moses telling him to speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying: ‘This is how [koh] you must bless the children of Israel… (Num. 6:23). And our sages insist that the blessing is to be recited exactly as presented in the text, 22 words, no more and no less.
The Netziv therefore explains that what makes the prophecy of Moses unique, and the significance of “this” rather than “thus,” lies in the fact that Moses communicated the divine word immediately upon his having received it, whereas the other prophets could only present their message after a delay of a period of time; after all the prophetic state had a paralyzing and debilitating affect on the other prophets, weakening their physical condition, while Moses received the G-dly message naturally, without the requirement of time-in-between for recuperation.
Rabbi Isaac Bernstein, the late erudite Rav of London, called my attention to the following commentary of Rabbi Yitzhak Zev Soloveitchik (Hidushei HaGryz): when the young shepherd Moses is confronted by a burning bush which is not consumed, the Almighty attempts to convince him to accept the responsibility of Jewish leadership. Moses is hard to convince, “Who am I that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt?”  (Ex 3:11). But G-d counters Moses’ resistance: “Certainly I will be with you” (Ex. 3:12).
The Gryz points out that the real significance of this dialogue is more profound than Moses’ seeking assurance and G-d guaranteeing “back-up.” Moses is questioning the efficacy of human involvement altogether in what he thinks ought to be a divine mission. After all, did not the Almighty promise the patriarchs that he, G-d himself, would act as the redeemer (Midrash Rabbah 15)? The divine response “I will be with you” is G-d’s explanation that indeed He will act as the redeemer but that G-d acts through human instruments.  G-d requires, as it were, human beings to be His full partners; the ground rules with which the world is governed require divine objectives to be realized through human agency. Hence, G-d must insist that He and Moses go to Pharaoh and redeem Israel ‘together,’ G-d is choosing Moses to redeem the Israelites alongside of Him!
I would suggest that herein lies the truest distinction between Moses and the other prophets, as well as the significance of the differences in phraseology in the Hebrew text.  The other prophets succeeded in receiving and transmitting a divine will; Moses succeeded in living a life and doing deeds which were the human extension of the divine plan, “this is the thing which G-d commands.”  The other prophets conveyed words in accordance with the divine message; Moses, however, changed reality in accordance with the divine plan. The other prophets spoke words which were a transmission of the divine; Moses lived a life which was an extension of the divine.
Perhaps this is why the Sifrei chooses to point out this distinction in the contest, the laws of oaths and promises. Human beings have the power to alter reality by the oaths and words which they utter, as well as to effectuate forgiveness and absolution (Numbers 30). The realm of oaths and promises unmistakably points out the almost G-d-like powers of human beings, the ability of humans to serve in an almost divine capacity. It is indeed the most exalted goal of every person to become a vehicle for the expression of the divine will.  Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch so interprets the biblical words sung by the Israelites after the splitting of the sea: “This is my G-d, and I shall be His sanctuary” (Exodus 15:2). (‘Zeh Keili  V’anvehu,’ is usually translated, This is my G-d and I shall glorify Him, but Rabbi Hirsch takes ‘neveh’ as sanctuary or home).
Moses’ physical being, Moses’ every act, was indeed a sanctuary and extension of the divine.  Moses is therefore the greatest of all prophets and the highest human achievement of Jewish history. 

&