Last week’s parasha ended with G-d’s instructions to Moshe that any altar for Divine sacrifice be constructed of earth or rough, undressed stones, ולא תעלה במעלת על מזבחי אשר לא תגלה ערותך עליו (“and you will not ascend upon My altar by steps, so that you will not uncover your nakedness upon it”; XX, 23). This is immediately followed by the first verse of our parasha: ואלה המשפטים אשר תשים לפניהם (“And these are the mishpatim which you shall place before them”).
The midrash (שמות רבה פ"ל סי' ב') tells us that the presence of the vav ha-chibbur, the prefix generally translated “and,” indicates an intimate connexion between our parasha and the preceding. The existence of such a connection appears bolstered by the fact that the last few verses of last week’s parasha (‘aliyath Maftir) constitute the opening passage of the wide-ranging discussion of the donations for the Mishkan, construction of its constituent parts and their assembly and erection, as well as all the accessories and accoutrements associated with it which dominates the rest of the Book of Exodus; yet, our parasha is concerned with social and civil laws: The adjudication of disputes and assessment of damages, treatment of the poor, widows and orphans, consideration of handicapped persons, and so on, entirely in keeping with their classification as mishpatim, “judgments.” The connection, in other words, is not obvious.
What might it be?
B.
Rashi enlightens us by explaining that מה הראשונים מסיני אף אלו מסיני (“just as the first [statements. i.e. those made in last week’s parasha] are from Sinai, so are these from Sinai”).
Rashi’s source appears to be a more-or-less parallel passage in the Mëchilta, which records a dispute between Rabbi Yishma‘él and Rabbi ‘Aqiva: ר' ישמעאל אומר לומר לך מה עליונים מסיני אף תחתונים מסיני ר"ע אומר "ואלה" יכול שונין ולא יודעים ת"ל "ואלה" כו' ערכן לפניכם כשולחן הערוך (“Rabbi Yishma‘él says, 'Just as the upper [statements] are from Sinai so are the lower ones from Sinai,' and Rabbi ‘Aqiva says, ‘"And these," could it be that one learns and does not know? It comes to teach, "And these...," he has arrayed them before you like a table which has been set’”). It will be noted that Rashi here sides with Rabbi Yishma‘él.
If we turn next to the Talmud, we find recorded another ramification of the difference between Rabbi Yishma‘él and Rabbi ‘Aqiva, which sheds considerable light on the Mëchilta cited above: א"ר ישמעאל כל המצות נאמרו כללותיהן בסיני ופרטותיהן באהל מועד ר"ע אומר כל המצות נאמרו כללותיהן ופרטותיהן בסיני (“Said Rabbi Yishma‘él, 'All of the mitzvoth, their general statements were said at Sinai and their details were said in the Tent of Assembly [Ohel Mo‘ed]'; Rabbi ‘Aqiva says, 'Their general statements and their details were said at Sinai'”; זבחים קט"ז:).
In light of this, we can better understand Rabbi ‘Aqiva’s statement above: Since all of the details of the mitzvoth, in his view, were said at Sinai, how could it be possible that one could learn what was said at Sinai and not know of these mishpatim? Therefore, in his view, the relationship implied by the vav ha-chibbur explains that all the details were laid out before the learner at the time the statements were made at Sinai. For Rabbi Yishma‘él, who held that detailed expositions of the mitzvoth were withheld until later on, in the Ohel Mo‘ed, their inclusion in the Sinaïtic revelation at the level of detail found in our parasha was not a foregone conclusion, and merited mention here, with the vav ha-chibbur to indicate the equivalence of these and those.
At the beginning of parshath Bë-Har (Leviticus XXV, 1), we note that Rashi comments: מה ענין שמיטה אצל הר סיני והלא כל המצות נאמרו מסיני אלא מה שמיטה נאמרו כללותי' ודקדוקי' מסיני אף כולן נאמרו כללותיהן ודקדוקיהן מסיני וגו' (“What has shëmitta to do with Mt. Sinai [since it could only be observed in the Holy Land]; were not all the mitzvoth said from Sinai? But just as all the general principles and details of shëmitta were said from Sinai, so were the general principles and details of all of them said from Sinai....”). Rashi appears to take Rabbi ‘Aqiva’s side here, and Rabbi Yishma‘él’s side in our parasha. Why the apparent inconsistency?
C.
The fact is that there is yet a third opinion, recorded elsewhere in the Talmud, which appears to contradict both Rabbi ‘Aqiva and Rabbi Yishma‘él. In Exodus XV, 25 we read of the incident at a place called Mara: שם שם לו חק ומשפט (“there, [Moshe] placed before [the people] law and judgment”) – מכאן שעל הדינין נצטוו ישראל במרה (“From here [we learn] that concerning dinim Israel were commanded at Mara”; סנהדרין נ"ז:), which again is mentioned by Rashi.
So Rashi appears trebly conflicted: The bënei Yisra’él were commanded concerning dinim at Mara, before Ma‘amad Har Sinai; they received both the generalities and the details at Ma‘amad Har Sinai; and they received the generalities at Ma‘amad Har Sinai, but the details later on in the Ohel Mo‘ed! How can this be?
For help, we turn to the Maharal mi-Prag. The Maharal (in his Gur Aryeh) calls our attention to yet a fourth ma’amar Chazal: התורה נתנה כללותי' ופרטותי' מסיני חזרו ונשנו באהל מועד וחזרו ונשנו בערבות מואב (“The Torah’s generalities and details were given from Sinai; they relearnt them in the Ohel Mo‘ed, and relearnt them again on the plains of Mo’av”; חגיגה ו.). On this basis, he makes the following suggestion:
Certainly all of the mitzvoth were learnt, with all their ramifications, at Mt. Sinai. However, at different times, on different occasions, emphasis was given more to certain mitzvoth than to others. Thus, those mitzvoth clearly connected to the ‘Asereth ha-Dibbroth, shabbath, the prohibition of idolatry and obligation to recognize the one and only G-d of the universe, and so on, were quite naturally stated with more force and emphasis at Mt. Sinai than some others. In the Ohel Mo‘ed, amongst other things, the sacrificial worship was especially emphasized (which is why the Torah appears to tell us that Moshe first learnt of the sacrifices there; rather, the correct interpretation is that those mitzvoth with their details were especially emphasized on that occasion, since the location and timing made the sacrifices particularly relevant). Then, as they were about to enter the Holy Land, other mitzvoth, previously stated but hitherto in the background, now came to the fore.
‘Ad kan the Maharal. Something like this is evident in the structure of the two Talmudim, which reflect the different curricula of the yëshivoth in Bavel and those in Eretz Yisra’él: The Yërushalmi contains gëmara on most of séder Zëra‘im, the order of the Mishna dealing with such laws as tërumoth u-ma‘sëroth, shëmitta, and so on, because they are vital issues to farmers resident in the Holy Land; those mishnayoth were learnt in Bavel, but much less emphasis was placed on them, because they were not urgent matters of practical halacha there.
Following this logic, we can see that the partial revelation at Mara, in which Moshe was instructed to tell the bënei Yisra’él about specific mitzvoth, including shabbath, honoring one’s parents, and dinim, were intended as a response to the rebellion there, to give a foretaste to the people of the sort of society they were being primed to inhabit, a society emphasizing justice and compassion, with a weekly day of rest, so that they would recognize that they had not been brought out into the desert to die of thirst, but should take heart, trust G-d, and persevere.
The heart of the matter, it seems to me, lies in the very different verbs used to describe the revelation at Sinai and the two subsequent reviews mentioned: The Torah was given (nittëna) at Sinai; in the latter two locations, the halachoth were nishnu, reviewed and repeated (from the same root as shéni, “second,” and Mishna). The same verb is used by Rabbi ‘Aqiva in the Mëchilta: Could it be that they learn (shonin) but do not know them? Rabbi ‘Aqiva understood that the dinim were taught at Mara and again at Sinai, where they were “laid out like a set table,” discussed in full when the emphasis was to be made.
And it is here that we can discern the connection to what had gone before.
D.
Mishpatim, we have said, means “judgments.” Rashi tells us concerning the prohibited altar steps: שע"י המעלות אתה צריך להרחיב פסיעותיך ואע"פ שאינו גלוי ערוה ממש שהרי כתיב "ועשה לך מכנסי בד" מ"מ הרחבת פסיעות קרוב לגלוי ערוה כו' והרי דברים ק"ו ומה אבנים הללו שאין בהם דעות להקפיד על בזיונן אמרה תורה הואיל ויש בהם צורך לא תנהג בהם מנהג בזיון חברך שהוא בדמות ויצרך ומקפיד על בזיונו על אחת כמה וכמה (“that because of the stairs you have to broaden your steps, and even though it is not actually ‘revealing one’s nakedness’, for it is written ‘and make for yourself cloth trousers’ [Exodus XXVIII, 42]; nonetheless broadened steps are close to revealing nakedness... and the words are a deduction from a minor premise to a major premise: Just as the Torah says concerning these stones, which are not sentient to mind their shame, that you not engage in shaming conduct, your fellow, who is in the image of your Maker and does mind his shame, how much more so?”).
Only a society in which great care is taken to recognize and preserve the exalted status of the human dëmuth Eloqim, in large part by observing the Torah’s dinim or mishpatim as laid out in our parasha, is one worthy of carrying out the Divine service of sacrifices, qorbanoth (from the same root as qarov, “close”), through which both individuals and the society of which they are members are brought close to the Holy One, Blessed is He, and maintained in that state.
No comments:
Post a Comment