02/08/2013

“And Moshe came, and he told over to the nation all of G-d’s words” (Sh’mos 24:3). It is quite difficult to keep track of the conversations between G-d and Moshe and between Moshe and the nation just prior to the public revelation at Mt. Sinai without a scorecard (see http://ohr.edu/991 and http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/holidays/shavuot/chronology.htm). For example, even though the nation responded twice using the words “we will do everything that G-d has spoken” (19:8 and 24:3), the first one occurred on the 2nd day of Sivan (see Rashi on 19:8), in response to G-d’s offer to enter into a covenant with them and make them His treasured nation (19:3-6), while the second occurred on the 4th (see Rashi on 24:1 and 24:3), and seems to refer to the nation accepting G-d’s commandments to (temporarily) separate from their spouses (“p’risha”), to move back from Mt. Sinai during the lawgiving (“hagbala”), the seven Noachide laws and the laws taught to them at Marah (see Rashi on 24:3).

Rashi’s comment that Moshe told the nation about the need to separate from their wives and move away from Mt. Sinai on the 4th day of Sivan has caused quite a stir, since the Talmud (Shabbos 86b-87a) says that Moshe told them about “hagbala” on the 3rd, while “p’risha” was done on the 4th (with Rashi explaining that when Moshe went back up on the morning of the 4th, he told G-d that the nation had accepted the “hagbala” that was commanded on the 3rd, after which G-d told him about “p’risha,” which Moshe relayed to the nation later that day). How could Rashi say both were relayed to the nation on the 4th if the Talmud says explicitly that “hagbala” was told to them a day earlier?

Mizrachi poses this question and leaves it unanswered. Maharal (Gur Aryeh, who uses the days of the week rather than the days of the month and follows the opinion of the Rabanan when he frames the question) says that the need to do “p’risha” was said on the 4th (the same day that “hagbala” was), but not undertaken until the 5th. Taz (Divray Dovid) doesn’t understand Maharal’s answer, since Rashi (on the Talmud) says explicitly that the two were not said on the same day. Besides, the 4th and 5th referred to by Maharal are the 4th and 5th days of the week, which correspond to the 3rd and 4th of Sivan, so if both were said on the 4th day of the week they would have been said on the 3rd of Sivan, while Rashi on Chumash says that both were said on the 4th of Sivan. Although Taz says he has no answer to Mizrachi’s question on Rashi, he nevertheless adds that Rashi must not have meant that both were said on the 4th, only that both were said by the 4th. (Rashi’s wording indicates that he meant both were said on the 4th.)

It could be suggested that even if “hagbala” and “p’risha” were commanded separately, both could have technically been commanded on the 4th. Rashi (on the Talmud) says that Moshe was told about “hagbala” when he went up on the 3rd and he told the nation about it that evening, which could mean after the “day” had officially ended and the next one started. Although the Talmud still calls this the 3rd, it might have done so to contrast “hagbala” with “p’risha,” or because before the Torah was given it wasn’t clear that the Children of Israel’s days began the night before (see http://www.aishdas.org/ta/5765/naso.pdf), while Rashi (on Chumash) called it the 4th because once Moshe added a day (so that the days of separation would begin at night, see Chasam Sofer on 19:10), after the sun set on the 3rd it really was considered the 4th. However, Rashi (24:1-3) implies that not only were they both relayed to the nation on the same calendar day, but at the same time, during the daytime (“bo bayom”), after G-d had told Moshe (on the 4th) to “go up;” it would be very difficult to explain these words to be referring to two separate conversations.

Nachalas Yaakov points out that the original commandment of “hagbala” (19:12-13) was said to the entire nation, without making any exceptions, while the verse Rashi says occurred on the 4th specifies that Moshe, Aharon, Nadav, Avihu and the 70 elders can approach the mountain, suggesting that on the 3rd the general commandment was given, which is what the Talmud refers to, while on the 4th the specifics were added, which is what Rashi (on Chumash) is referring to. This gives added meaning to Moshe telling over “all of G-d’s words,” as not only was the need to do “p’risha” relayed, so were all the details of “hagbala.” I would also add that it can’t really be said that Aharon, Nadav, Avihu and the elders “went up to G-d” (24:1) if they never left Mt. Sinai in the first place; it was only after everyone moved away from Mt. Sinai (because of what was said on the 3rd) that these individuals could “go up to G-d” after being given permission to do so on the 4th.

Mizrachi’s question is based on the assumption that Rashi’s commentary on Chumash needs to be consistent with the Talmud. And this is usually true. However, if another Rabbinic source from the Talmudic era provides a more straightforward reading of the verses, Rashi will sometimes explain them accordingly. And, in this situation, the Talmud says that “hagbala” was commanded before “p’risha” even though “p’risha” is mentioned (19:10-11) before “hagbala” is (19:12:13) and that they were commanded on different days even though the Torah implies that they were commanded at the same time. The Talmud’s version of the events is not the only officially sanctioned version, as the Talmud (which is quoting Rava) says that according to everyone the Torah was given on Shabbos, while Pirkay d’Rebbe Eliezer (46, see Radal) and the M’chilta (B’shalach, Vayasa 1) say it was on a Friday. (Rava likely meant that in regards to the dispute between Rabbi Yosi and the Rabanan as to whether the Torah was given on the 6th or 7th of Sivan, which day of the week the Torah was given on was not in dispute. He was not saying that that no one, anywhere, says that the Torah was given on any day other than Shabbos.)

When the M’chilta discusses what G-d told Moshe to tell the nation and what their response was (Yisro, Bachodesh 2, expounding on 19:9), three opinions are quoted. The first, Rabbi Yosi HaG’lili, is that the discussion was about the need to move away from Mt. Sinai (i.e. G-d telling them they had to “hagbala” and their agreeing to do so), which is how Rashi on the Talmud explains this verse. The third opinion, Rebbe, is that the nation wanted to hear directly from G-d rather than indirectly, through Moshe. G-d’s response is not included in the M’chilta, but Rashi uses this approach in his commentary on Chumash, and takes it a step further (on 19:10); G-d responds by saying “if so, that I am to communicate directly with them, they have to prepare themselves,” through “p’risha” and “hagbala.” (Although Rashi doesn’t explicitly include “hagbala” in the response, the flow of the verses seems to indicate this, see P’nay Yehoshua on Shabbos 87a.) It is clear that Rashi is explaining the verses in his commentary on Chumash differently than the Talmud, following the M’chilta (or at least Rebbe’s approach in the M’chilta) instead. [This is how Mirkeves HaMishna (a commentary on the M’chilta) and Torah Sh’laima (24:12) understand Rashi as well.] And since Rashi, in his commentary on Chumash, explains the verses according to the M’chilta rather than following the Talmud, there is no issue with his saying that “hagbala” and “p’risha” were commanded on the 4th of Sivan, which is a much cleaner way to read the verses, even if the Talmud quotes Rava that “hagbala” was commanded a day earlier.