 |
|
|
PARASHAT
HASHAVUA PARASHAT
MISHPATIM The Covenant at
Sinai By Rav Yair
Kahn 1.
The Sequence of Events Immediately after
the Torah documents ma’amad Har Sinai and the aseret
ha-dibbrot, there is a lengthy legal section containing various
“mishpatim.” This section deals with a wide range of civil laws,
including the laws of slavery, damages, shomrim, and money lending. The end of the parasha returns to
the Har Sinai theme and narrates the Sinaitic covenant and the return of Moshe
to Har Sinai to receive the Torah laws.
A simple reading of
the Torah indicates that after ma’amad Har Sinai and the giving of the
aseret ha-dibbrot, Hashem gave the mishpatim
section to Moshe, who presented these laws to the people. After the people accepted the laws,
Moshe recorded these mishpatim.
He then built an altar and erected twelve monuments for the twelve
tribes. Various animals were
sacrificed on the altar; half of the sacrificial blood was collected in
utensils, and half was sprinkled on the altar. Moshe than read the “Sefer
Ha-Brit” (book of the covenant) to the people, who subsequently accepted the
covenant with the famous statement “na’aseh ve-nishma” (we will do and we
will listen). The covenantal blood
collected in the utensils was then sprinkled on the people. Moshe, the seventy elders, and two of
Aharon’s children, Nadav and Avihu, climbed Har Sinai and had a profound
religious experience. Moshe alone
was then summoned to return to Har Sinai for forty days to receive the Torah and
tablets.
According to this reading, the mishpatim section separates the
covenant from the Ten Commandments.
However, this separation is a bit strange. Shouldn’t the Sinaitic covenant have
taken place within the context of ma’amad Har Sinai and the aseret
ha-dibbrot? Why did Hashem
teach Moshe mishpatim in between the two?
Perhaps this is what led many commentators to apply the rule of “ein
mukdam u-me’uchar ba-Torah” (the Torah is not necessarily in chronological
order) to our parasha. In
Parashat Yitro, Rashi comments: “And they should be ready for the third
day” – which is the sixth of the month.
And on the fifth [of the month], Moshe built the altar at the foot of the
mountain and the twelve monuments, the entire episode as stated in
Parashat Mishpatim.
Ve-ein mukdam u-me’uchar ba-Torah.” (Rashi, Shemot
19:11) Rashi echoes this position in our
parasha as well: “And to Moshe, He said, ‘Go up’” – this
parasha was said prior to the aseret ha-dibbrot – on the fourth of
Sivan, Moshe was told to go up.
(Rashi, Shemot 24:1).
According to Rashi, on the fourth of
Sivan, Moshe was commanded to make a covenant between Yisrael and Hashem. The covenant took place on the fifth of
Sivan, during the three days of separation and preparation for ma’amad Har
Sinai, which transpired on the sixth or seventh of the month. The mishpatim section was taught
only after Moshe received the aseret ha-dibbrot.
Rashi’s position allows for a seamless transition from the covenant to
ma’amad Har Sinai. The
application to the Biblical narrative, however, is quite a challenge. Why is the covenant documented at the
end of Parashat Mishaptim and not as part of the ma’amad Har
Sinai narrative in Parashat Yitro, if that is when it actually
occurred?
In general, the rule “ein mukdam u-me’uchar ba-Torah” should not
be applied arbitrarily. The Ramban
notes in the beginning of Parashat Korach (Bamidbar 16:1)
that chronological order is the default assumption. The non-chronological rule is applied
only when necessary and only if there is a reasonable explanation for why the
Torah departed from a chronological presentation. Although there are commentators who seem
more “trigger happy” than the Ramban when applying the principle of “ein
mukdam u-me’uchar,” the Ramban’s position seems quite reasonable and
convincing.
It seems to be this lack of a compelling reason that the Torah would have
documented an earlier Sinai covenant at the end of Parashat Mishpatim
that leads the Ramban to argue with Rashi’s explanation, claiming that the order
in which these parashiot are documented corresponds to the sequence in
which they occurred (Ramban, Shemot 24:1).
There is an additional difficulty with Rashi’s interpretation. In introducing the covenant, the Torah
states, “And Moshe came and told the people all the words of Hashem and all the
mishpatim” (24:3).
According to the Ramban, this is a clear reference to the beginning of
the parasha, which begins, “And these are the mishpatim
that you shall place before them” (21:1).
However, according to Rashi, these mishpatim had not yet been
taught to Moshe! Rashi is forced to interpret “mishpatim” as referring to
laws commanded before Har Sinai:
“‘And all the mishpatim’ - the seven laws of bnei Noach,
Shabbat, honoring one’s father and mother, the laws of the red heifer, and other
various laws previously given at Mara.” The difficulty of this interpretation is
obvious.
Although the Ramban’s interpretation fits more smoothly into Scripture,
Rashi’s position is the prevalent interpretation adopted by our Sages. The gemara states:
R. Yossi said: On the second day [of
Sivan], Moshe went up [to Har Sinai] and went down. On the third day, he went up and came
down… On the fourth day, he went up and came down. On the fifth day, he built an altar and
brought a sacrifice on it.
(Shabbat 88a)
Another gemara (Chagiga 6a)
states that the chagiga sacrifice pre-dates the command of Hashem. The only sacrifice that can be
considered a chagiga that was brought before the word of Hashem was revealed at Sinai is the
shelamim sacrifice that was brought during the Sinaitic covenant. (See Rashi, s.v. yeshna and
Tosfot Rid for an alternate explanation).
This again indicates that the covenant took place prior to the
commandments.
In his commentary on the Torah, the Ramban claims that the Tannaim
actually debated this issue in the Mekhilta (Parashat Yitro). While according to R. Yehuda, the altar
and twelve monuments were indeed erected on the fifth day, R. Yossi ben R.
Yehuda argued that “on that very day” all the actions were performed. According to the Ramban, “on that very
day” refers to the day that the aseret ha-dibbrot were given, and he
argues that this opinion retains the chronological consistency of these
parashiot. Accordingly, the
parasha of mishpatim was taught immediately following the Ten
Commandments, and the covenant was made at the end of that day.
Nevertheless, Rashi’s position is clearly more prevalent, despite the
textual difficulties. We will
therefore attempt to make a convincing argument to explain why the Torah chose
to depart from chronological sequence in this case. 2. Accepting the
Mitzvot
According to the Ramban, the Torah separated ma’amad Har Sinai and
the aseret ha-dibbrot from the Sinaitic covenant. Why were these two events separated, and
why was mishpatim section used for the separation?
Ma’amad Har Sinai was a profound moment of divine revelation. Revelation is fundamentally different
than covenant. Revelation is
unilateral; Hashem decides on His own, as it
were, to reveal Himself to finite man.
It is an act of divine grace, and man is totally passive in the
encounter. Covenant, on the other
hand, is bilateral. Two parties are
required to make a covenant; even a covenant between man and Hashem requires active human
involvement.
The aseret ha-dibbrot were given to man by Hashem – man receives the Torah
passively. Our sages (Shabbat 88a)
describe the dibbrot as being imposed on Yisrael. 'And they stood at
the bottom of the mountain' [literally - under the mountain]. Rav Avdimi the son of Hama the son of
Hasa said: This teaches that Hakadosh Barukh Hu placed the enforced the mountain
upon them like a tub and said to them: If you accept the Torah – fine and if not
– there will be your grave.
(Shabbat 88a) This is ‘Matan Torah,” the
giving of the Torah. However, there
is also an idea of kabbalat Ha-Torah, in which man actively
accepts the Torah. The Sinaitic
covenant is based on the Children of Israel actively and freely accepting the
Torah, as they loudly proclaim “na’aseh ve-nishma.”
According to the Ramban, the covenant, in contrast to revelation, can
only occur after “mishpatim.” There must be tangible content to the
acceptance of the Torah, and to accomplish that, certain mitzvot must
have already been given.
Furthermore, our Sages consider the Sinaitic covenant as completion of
the collective “geirut” of Yisrael.
The gemara writes regarding the conversion process:
Rebbi says: “Like you, like your fathers”
– just like your fathers only entered the covenant through circumcision,
immersing [in a mikva], and sprinkling sacrificial blood [on the altar],
so too, they [geirim] enter the covenant only through circumcision,
immersing, and sprinkling sacrificial blood. (Keritut
9a) The gemara explains that we know
that our ancestors entered the covenant through mila, as circumcision was
necessary in order to participate in the korban Pesach. How do we know that one enters the
covenant through immersion and sprinkling the blood? Sprinkling sacrificial blood – as it says,
“And he sent the youth of the children of Israel [who offered burnt-offerings,
and sacrificed peace-offerings].” But
what is the source for immersing? As it is stated, “And Moshe took half the
blood and sprinkled it on the people,” and there is no sprinkling without
[prior] immersion. (ibid.) The gemara’s source for the
requirements of immersing and sprinkling blood is found in the Sinaitic
covenant.
Once we define the covenant at Sinai as geirut, the necessity of
the mishpatim is obvious. In
describing the process of conversion, the gemara includes, “You inform
him of some easy mitzvot and some hard mitzvot” (Yevamot
47a). In other words, entering a
covenant of geirut requires knowledge of certain mitzvot. Since very few mitzvot were
actually taught in the aseret ha-dibbrot, before the covenant was made, a
more comprehensive list of laws had to be taught to the nation. This list is that of the
“mishpatim.” When Moshe
taught Yisrael the mishpatim, the people collectively accepted them; only
at that point could the collective covenant of geirut be made.
This idea is found explicitly in the Ramban’s commentary at the beginning
of Parashat Teruma: Upon telling the aseret ha-dibbrot
to the nation of Israel face to face, and commanding them through Moshe certain
mitzvot that are like paradigms to the mitzvot of the Torah… (Ramban, Shemot
25:1) 3.
Revelation and Covenant
Perhaps we can enlist the distinction between covenant and revelation to
explain the position of Rashi as well.
The Torah intentionally separated the covenant from the revelation at
Sinai in order to differentiate between these two distinct ideas.
The Torah begins with the revelation, which is of primary
importance. At Sinai, Hashem revealed Himself to Yisrael,
and as we mentioned in last week’s shiur, the revelation at Sinai is the
foundation for our trust in Moshe and our belief in the Torah. It is a unilateral act of grace on the
part of Hashem whose purpose is
to eternalize the collective faith in Torat Moshe: “I hereby come to you
in the thick of the cloud so that the nation should hear as I speak to you and
also in you shall they believe for eternity” (Shemot 19:9). Yisrael at the Sinai revelation are
passive participants, absorbing the religious experience and the related divine
messages.
In contrast, the covenant of Sinai is a bilateral agreement. Both sides make mutual commitments, and
the children of Israel are actively involved. They are taught laws and must be
pro-active and accept them. They
issue the famous proclamation, “na’aseh ve-nishma” and immerse
themselves in ritually pure water, sacrificial blood is sprinkled on them, and
they collectively enter a covenant with Hashem.
These two distinct ideas touch upon a much broader issue. When we worship Hashem, are we meant to passively
accept divine will? Or are we perhaps charged by Hashem to be similar to Him – so that
just as He is the Creator, so too we are meant to be creative? As we have seen
above, there is no simple answer to this question. There are areas in which the proper
spiritual reaction is to surrender and accept, but regarding other areas, Hashem wills that we be actively
involved. For example, Torah
She-Bikhtav, which contains the divine word and will of Hashem, cannot be altered at
all. Even the distortion of the
corner of a yud renders a sefer Torah pasul. The study of Torah She-Bikhtav is
accomplished through reading the divine word accurately. With pure faith, we accept the divine
word we received at Sinai. Torah
She-Ba’al Peh (the Oral Law), on the other hand, is given to Yisrael to
understand based on human intelligence; it is left to Yisrael to study and
develop. In fact, even divine signs
do not influence its interpretation (Bava Metzia 59b). It is noteworthy that the gemara
(Gittin 60b) quotes R. Yochanan’s opinion that the covenant of Torah was
made specifically with respect to Torah She-Ba’al Peh.
Based on the above, we can explain the Torah’s departure from
chronological sequence according to Rashi.
Had the Torah described these events consistent with historical
chronology, it would have been very difficult to isolate either of these
distinct ideas. The need to
accurately identify the spiritual messages contained in the complexity and
dualism of the Sinai experience is sufficient justification for presenting a
chronologically inaccurate account.
The default consistency of the Torah with historic reality applies only
when the spiritual message of the Torah is not affected. However, since the Torah is not a book
of history, it is not bound by the historical chronology. The Torah has a religious agenda, and
whenever that agenda is negatively affected by the chronological account, the
“ein mukdam u-me’uchar” principle can be applied. The importance of clarifying the
distinction between divine revelation and covenant is ample justification for a
non-historical presentation. |