Haftarah Nasso: Reading the Text VI

“And the Lord heard the voice of Manoach, and the angel of the Lord came again to the woman, and she was sitting in the field, and Manoach her husband was not with her.”

Manoach had prayed to the Divine Attribute represented by the Name God, yet his prayers were heard by the Divine Attribute represented by the name Lord. We would expect a special favor to be an expression of kindness, God, meaning it should have said that God heard.

Why is the Angel now described as an Angel of the Lord and not as the Angel of God? It probably has something to do with God referring to Himself as Lord in the beginning of the verse. The name Lord implies that all this was supposed to happen; Manoach asking for a reappearance, and the return of the angel. This would mean that Manoach had to be sensitive on his own to the extra care that would be necessary in the child’s upbringing. Yet, we do not find the angel responding to that request at all.

Why does the verse have to remind us that Manoach was the woman’s husband? Why do we have to know that she was sitting in the field? Why did the angel not appear directly to Manoach if his return was only in response to Manoach’s prayer?

Here it says that the angel “came,” and in the first verse it said that the angel “appeared.”

The angel does not speak until the woman ran to get her husband. This emphasizes that the appearance was only for the sake of Manoach; so why did he not appear directly to the man?

It must have been necessary for everything to go through his wife.