Our Gemara on Amud Beis relates the well-known rabbinic adage about the importance of relating information while giving credit to the original source:

“Rather, this is what the mishna teaches us: Who is the first tanna? It is Rabbi Yosei. The identification is important, since whoever reports a statement in the name of the one who said it brings redemption to the world. As it is stated with respect to the incident of Bigthan and Teresh: ‘And Esther reported it to the king in the name of Mordechai’ (Esther 2:22), and Mordechai was later rewarded for saving the king’s life, paving the way for the miraculous salvation.”

According to Rashi’s interpretation, the Mishna took an extra step at the end to note Rabbi Yosei’s opinion, to append the text and make sure that credit was given to him as the originator of the prior teaching. And this was due to the important ethic of giving credit to the source.

Chasam Sofer (ibid) adds a twist: Why does the Mishna speak of serving “cheese” (gevina) with chicken instead of using the biblical language of milk? He answers that the gematria of the words gevina yosei = 156, which also equals the Hebrew word for chicken (of). So within the very choice of words, credit to the original author was hinted at. And, he says similarly, the message was hinted within Mordecai’s name, because the word Mordechai is phonetically similar to the Hebrew word mored, which means rebellion, hinting that Bigthan and Seresh were plotting a rebellion against Achashveirosh.

The Chasam Sofer shows clever word games that hint at a secret message transmitted. The question is, how is this relevant? Is this really a fulfillment of the idea that quoting the original source brings redemption? I believe there is a deeper idea here.

Why does quoting the original source bring redemption? And, if that is so, why is it a higher fulfillment to embed a mnemonic or hint to the content, as was shown by the Chasam Sofer? I believe the answer is that redemption comes from the fulfillment of a historical process. It is only logical to assume that redemption requires the nation to undergo an experience. Since the experience self-evidently has lasted for many generations, that experience must be integrated collectively via recognition of the lessons of our history. A historical process can only be fulfilled and be meaningful if the participants maintain a sense of their history. They need to know from where they came in order to understand what they are evolving into, and where they are going. This sense of history and giving credit to the source is what enables and speeds the redemption, because the sense of history and process potentiates and increases the developmental historical experience. This is why embedding verifications of the source, which bolsters the capacity of the chain of transmission, is part of the process of bringing redemption. We are not just victims of exile, but also a people undergoing an experience that is leading us somewhere, as surely as the Jews in the wilderness were led to the promised land. It often felt futile and like they were going in circles, but in reality, they were preparing themselves for something. The same is true for the experience of the Jewish people in exile.