YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
**************************************************************
PARASHAT HASHAVUA
PARASHAT YITRO
by Rav Yair Kahn
I. A Strange Debate
In this week's parasha, immediately prior to the aseret
ha-dibbrot (ten commandments), an enigmatic dialogue is
recorded (19:21-25). Hashem orders Moshe to warn the nation
not to attempt to catch a glimpse of Hashem. Moshe argues
that this is unnecessary, since Har Sinai was already placed
out of limits to Bnei Yisrael. Nevertheless, Hashem overrules
Moshe and insists that the nation be warned. Moshe complies
and warns the people. Suddenly, directly following this
warning, while Moshe is still among the people, Am Yisrael
experience the revelation of the aseret ha-dibbrot.
Some obvious questions arise. Why did Hashem insist on
repeating the warning to the people? Why is this strange
debate recorded? Is there any connection between this warning
or debate, and the mass revelation that followed?
According to R. Yossi (Shabbat 87a), Hashem and Moshe
differed, as it were, regarding an additional issue. While
Hashem demanded two days of preparation prior to matan Torah,
Moshe decided to add a third day (see also Rashi Shemot
19:15). Although the Almighty accepted Moshe's modification,
nevertheless, we must attempt to understand the significance
of this episode. Furthermore, we can not avoid pondering the
relationship between this incident and the mysterious debate
mentioned above. We will return to these issues later, after
a short discussion revolving around the aseret ha-dibbrot.
B. Ten Commandments or Two
It is commonly assumed that all ten commandments were
issued directly from Hashem to the children of Israel.
However, we are all familiar with the tradition of 613
commandments. This number is derived from the verse "Torah
tziva lanu Moshe" - Torah = 611 (through the derasha of
gematria), was commanded by Moshe. The additional two - the
first two commandments of the aseret ha-dibbrot - were issued
directly by Hashem (see Makot 24a). This tradition is
supported by the switch from First Person of the first two
dibbrot, to the Third Person form of the remaining eight.
The Ibn Ezra (20:1) argues that all ten dibbrot were
given directly from Hashem. He supports this position by
quoting pesukim which clearly attribute the aseret ha-dibbrot
in their entirety to Hashem (see Devarim 5:19).
The Ramban (20:7), disturbed by this seeming
contradiction, suggested a compromise. All ten commandments
were spoken by Hashem directly to the children of Israel.
However, the people only managed to comprehend the first two.
Therefore, the last eight were repeated by Moshe Rabbeinu. To
be sure, this compromise neatly resolves the contradictory
sources. Nevertheless, it leads to quite a puzzling
conclusion. Were the first two easier to understand than the
last eight? Is it simpler to comprehend the existence of an
infinite, invisible, incomprehensible God, than the
prohibition against murder or theft? What is the purpose of
reciting commandments to the people that they find impossible
to understand? The Ramban addresses these difficulties.
However, I would like to suggest an alternate solution, based
on a Ramban in Sefer Ha-mitzvot.
C. The Experience of Sinai
Moshe Rabbeinu warned the Jewish people never to forget
the day they received the dibbrot at Har Sinai. "Be careful
and diligently guard your souls lest you forget those things
which you witnessed with your own eyes and they be removed
from your hearts all the days of your life and you should
inform these events to your children and you children's
children the day you stood before the Lord your God at
Chorev..." (Devarim 4:9-10). The Ramban mentions this pasuk
as the source for a biblical mitzvat lo ta'aseh (negative
commandment), which according to him, the Rambam omitted. The
Ramban maintains that there is an issur de-oraita against
forgetting the experience of Har Sinai. Memory and awareness
of this great encounter between Am Yisrael and the Infinite
must be passed down to future generations as a basic part of
the great massoretic tradition. It is this living tradition,
that we - Am Yisrael - personally experienced Divine
revelation, which upholds our faith in absolute terms.
It is clear that the significance of the revelation of
the aseret ha-dibbrot is not limited to the specific content
of the commandments. The experience of the Divine revelation
and its theological and religious implications are crucial
components of Ma'amad Har Sinai. As a matter of fact, this
was the stated purpose of the revelation. "And Hashem said to
Moshe I am hereby coming to you in the midst of a cloud in
order that the nation should hear as I speak to you and in you
they should believe forever" (Shemot 19:9).
Based on the above remarks, it is no longer perplexing
that incomprehensible commandments were recited by Hashem at
Har Sinai, since it is not necessarily the content of the
mitzvot that is critical, but the experience of Divine
revelation. However, we have not yet fully understood the
distinction between the first two dibbrot and the remaining
eight. A glance at the people's reaction to Ma'amad Har Sinai
is instructive. After experiencing the Divine revelation, Am
Yisrael requested that the remainder of the Torah be received
by Moshe Rabbeinu, and subsequently transmitted to them. This
request, while mentioned only briefly in our parasha, is
recorded in greater detail in Va-etchanan:
"... on this day we have witnessed that Hashem can speak
to man and he can survive. And now, why should we perish
... if we continue to listen to the voice of Hashem our
God any longer we shall die. For who is of flesh that
has heard the voice of a living God speaking from amidst
the fire as we and lived. You go near and hear all that
Hashem our God shall say and speak to us all that Hashem
our God shall say to you..." (Devarim 5:21-24).
At first glance, this argument seems somewhat
contradictory and inconsistent. After reaching the conclusion
that one can survive Divine revelation, the people
paradoxically avoid further revelation lest they perish.
The solution, however, is simple. The experience at
Sinai was a dual one. Primarily, it was a profound awareness
of the absolute and infinite nature of Hashem's existence.
Through the Sinaitic revelation, Am Yisrael realized that the
essence of true objective existence is only the existence of
the Almighty. However, there was a secondary aspect of the
Sinai experience which resulted from this awareness. The
people in their finitude were enveloped by the infinity of the
Divine encounter. They became acutely aware that, aside from
Hashem, nothing else really exists. Therefore, they realized
that their own finite lives were actually meaningless and
insignificant. Although Am Yisrael survived matan Torah, they
felt overwhelmed and erased by the awareness that only Hashem
exists in absolute terms.
[This idea is expressed in Pirkei Rebbi Eliezer (ch. 41)
in midrashic style. The midrash states that the (literally)
breathtaking experience of Ma'amad Har Sinai actually caused
the demise of the children of Israel. However, they were
subsequently revived.]
We already established that it was the experience of
Sinai, as opposed to the content of the commandments, that was
of critical importance. Furthermore, we claimed that the
content of this experience was the absolute nature of Hashem's
existence, and the negation of the existence of all else.
Based on these two premises, we can return to the distinction
between the first two dibbrot and the remaining eight. After
all, the first two dibbrot reflect the Sinai experience.
"Anokhi" expresses the absolute existence of Hashem, while "lo
yihiyeh lekha" refers to the negation of the existence of all
else. Although, Am Yisrael did not manage to comprehend the
content of the ten commandments, they profoundly experienced
the Divine revelation. "Anokhi" and "lo yihiyeh lekha" were
deeply felt by the entire nation.
Hashem was pleased with the reaction of the people.
"...and Hashem said unto me I have heard the voice of the
words of this people which they have spoken to you; they have
done well all that they have spoken" (Devarim 5:25) It is
interesting, however, that according to Chazal, Moshe was not
pleased at all. (See Rashi, Devarim 5:24)
Perhaps we can suggest that Moshe Rabbeinu, who had a
singular and unique relationship with Hashem, perceived the
purpose of the dibbrot as an opportunity for the entire nation
to elevate themselves to his level and to fully comprehend the
infinite word of God. In his characteristic humility, Moshe
saw no reason to differentiate between himself and others.
Therefore, he was disappointed when the people rejected this
opportunity, preferring that the Torah be transmitted
indirectly. Hashem, on the other hand, knew that this was not
the main purpose of the Sinaitic revelation. The Divine plan
was that Am Yisrael should collectively experience Sinai, and
develop a personal awareness of the essential messages of the
revelation. Am Yisrael must become profoundly aware of
"anokhi" and "lo yihiyeh lekha."
We can at this point return to the previously mentioned
differences between the approach of Moshe and that of Hashem.
The addition of the extra day of preparation described by the
gemara is symbolic of the attempt made by Moshe to prepare the
people to comprehend the infinite word of God. The Almighty
while accepting Moshe's proposal of an additional day,
insisted on frightening the people with a stern warning
immediately prior to the dibbrot. Moshe Rabbeinu was
reluctant to warn the people, for he perceived Sinai basically
as a learning experience. He correctly assumed that to
frighten the nation immediately prior to matan Torah would be
educationally counterproductive, since it would be difficult
for the people to comprehend if they were terrified. Hashem,
on the other hand, was primarily concerned with the EXPERIENCE
of revelation - that Am Yisrael should become acutely aware of
"anokhi," the all-encompassing absolute nature of the
existence of God. Hashem was interested in the nation
discovering the frightful truth of "lo yihiyeh lekha" - the
negation of the existence of the entire finite order. Hashem
realized that the people had already been warned, but demanded
nevertheless that the dibbrot be issued specifically within
the context of the frightening Divine warning.
Both the argument as described by the pshat and that
described by the gemara revolve around the same point of
disagreement. Moshe wants the Jews to understand God's word,
to relate to the contents of revelation, to have an
intellectual learning experience of Torah. (That is why he is
Moshe Rabbeinu). Therefore, he wants additional preparation
time, but objects to increasing the emotional stress. God
sees Sinai as being primarily experiential rather than
intellectual and therefore opposes Moshe on these two points.
After the dibbrot, when the people rejected further
direct revelation, Moshe Rabbeinu was distraught. He felt
that he had failed in his mission. Hashem responded that the
Divine revelation at Sinai had achieved its purpose. "O that
their hearts would remain such to fear me and guard all the
commandments all their days" (Devarim 5:6).
Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to pass on the
tradition of Sinai throughout the generations. This
obligation is not limited to the details learnt at Sinai, but
includes the profound experience of "anokhi" and "lo yihiyeh
lekha." This awareness must not be lost, and it must be
transmitted as a living tradition throughout Jewish history.
"...and you shall inform your children and your children's
children" (Devarim 4:9).
ADDITIONAL NOTE by Rav Ezra Bick:
I would like to place Rav Kahn's explanation within the
wider context of the medieval philosophic discussion of matan
Torah.
The Rambam (Guide, p.2, ch. 33) denies that the Jewish
people as a whole could have directly received the word of God
at Har Sinai. The reason has to do with the Rambam's theory
of prophecy (ibid. ch.32), which we will not go into here.
Therefore, the Rambam claims that only Moshe comprehended the
contents of the dibbrot, whereas the Jewish people only heard
the "great voice" without comprehending the meaning, or even
actually hearing the words. The Ramban (20,15 and elsewhere)
disagrees, stressing the accepted masora of the Sages that at
least the first two commandments were transmitted directly
(and hence not included in the verse, "Torah tziva lanu
Moshe"). Various philosophers of the middle ages viewed the
Rambam's view as basically uprooting the basic value of the
experience of matan Torah - a direct revelation of Torah to
each and every Jew.
Rav Kahn's explanation can provide a middle way between
the two, allowing the Rambam to preserve the intellectual
level needed to achieve prophecy, without foregoing the
religious significance of the direct perception of the first
two dibbrot. For, as he has shown, one does not have to
intellectually understand the words of the first two dibbrot
in order to directly assimilate their meaning. The non-
intellectual experience of the Jews at Har Sinai directly
inculcated into them the powerful realization and awareness of
God's reality, beyond what intellectually they undoubtedly
already had known. Even more so, it impressed upon them,
children of the Egyptian polytheistic culture, the total
negation of the possibility of any rival to God, of any
sharing in his absolute existence. As we have seen in
Parashot Va-eira and Bo, this theme of the uniqueness of God
is one of the important motifs of yetziat mitzraim in general.
They therefore come away from this experience knowing - in a
far deeper way than merely intellectual agreement - that God
IS, and that there can be NO OTHER. In other words, "anokhi"
and "lo yihiyeh lekha."
This distinction between the content of the dibbrot, and
of revelation and Torah in general, and the experience of
being at Har Sinai, is, I think, crucial to understanding the
importance of parashat Yitro. We are all familiar with the
ambiguous attitude of the halakha towards singling out the
asseret hadibbrot as being central to Judaism. (At one time,
the dibbrot were recited daily in the Temple, together with
the shema, but this practice was abolished by the Sages.
Standing for the asseret hadibbrot, a common custom, is in
fact frowned upon by several halakhic authorities). It is not
at all clear that these commandments have a more central role
to play in our understanding of Torah or our halakhic
practice. In any event, the Jews will be learning Torah for
the next forty years. Actually receiving the Torah - in their
hands - is scheduled for not less than forty days after matan
Torah, when Moshe will return with the tablets. In terms of
the history of the Jews in the desert, and by projection the
history of the Jews in all times, the importance of this
experience was in the direct connection to the word of God.
The rabbinic dictum that all Jews, of all generations, were
present at Har Sinai reflects this experience and definitely
not the intellectual understanding of the content of this
parasha.
One might have argued that the experience created a
people of Torah, that the Jews had acquired the Torah in this
direct manner. Rav Kahn is arguing that the experience
created a people of God, that the connection and perception of
God has been burned into the Jews by virtue of what they
heard. (Of course, even so it is still significant that the
presence and existence of God among the Jews is through Torah,
through the word of God, rather than the power of God alone
which they had experienced at the crossing of the sea - see
last week's shiur). In any event, this is apparently a
crucial link in the formation of the Jewish people. To
summarize the steps we have delineated in the last few weeks:
first, the victory over Egypt and the exodus; secondly, the
crossing of the sea; thirdly, the giving of the Torah. We
have tried to show that these are three stages in the creation
of the Jewish relationship with God.
Questions and further points:
1. Compare the argument between Moshe and God in this parasha
with the parallel disagreement between God and Moshe that was
explained in the shiur on Parashat Va-eira concerning how to
lead the Jews to a true freedom. This may well be a crucial
factor in understanding the future history of the relationship
between Moshe and the Jews in the coming parashot as well.
2. One difference between the pshat disagreement concerning
warning the people and the talmudic disagreement on the number
of preparation days is that God wins the first but defers to
Moshe concerning the second. Explain.
3. Rav Chaim Volozhiner (Nefesh HaChaim 3), arguing with early
Chassidut, declares that one should engage in "yir'at Hashem"
before learning Torah, but not while actually learning.
Learning is not that sort of religious experience. Today's
shiur sheds light on this point (and vice versa).
4. The Ramban (20:16) claims that this verse ("Speak you to
us and we shall hear, and let not God speak to us, lest we
die") occurred BEFORE the giving of the Torah, and describes a
different occurrence than the verse in Devarim (5:21-24),
which took place AFTER matan Torah. How should these two
requests be understood, especially in light of today's shiur?
(It would help to read the Ramban first.)
=============================================================
=
News from Outside the VBM:
"The Har Habayit Connection in the Parsha" is a new e-mail
list written by a panel of Rabbis and Torah scholars and aims
to provide a brief insight into parshat hashavua, encouraging
the connection to the Temple Mount.
You can subscribe by sending this message:
subscribe har-parsha (e.g. subscribe har-parsha David Kingson)
to majordomo@etzion.org.il .
=============================================================
=
VISIT YHE'S WEB SITE:
HTTP://WWW.vbm-torah.org
**************************************************************
To subscribe send e-mail to: majordomo@etzion.org.il:
subject:(leave blank or type word 'subscription'), on first
line of text type: subscribe YHE-PARSHA .
To participate in a weekly discussion group on this shiur,
moderated by the instructor, please subscribe to YHE-PAR.D as
described above. For direct questions or comments regarding
this shiur, please send email to parsha@etzion.org.il.
Copyright (c) 1997 Yeshivat Har Etzion. All rights reserved.
**************************************************************
SHIURIM MAY BE DEDICATED TO VARIOUS OCCASIONS - YAHRZEITS,
SEMACHOT,
BIRTHDAYS, ETC. PLEASE E-MAIL office@etzion.org.il FOR AN
APPLICATION.
YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH
ALON SHEVUT, GUSH ETZION 90433
E-MAIL: office@etzion.org.il or OFFICE@ETZION.ORG.IL