Shemot 25:23-30 (Terumah) – Covenantal meals

25:23-30 records the instructions to build the table. The table was situated in the outer room of the mishkan proper facing the menorah, 26:35. While it is not clear how the table looked, the point of the table was to display bread, 25:30. Vayikra 24:5-9 records more information concerning the bread. There were twelve loaves that were placed on the table in two rows of six. Also, each Shabbat, the loaves would be replaced and the priests would eat the old loaves.

Several reasons have been suggested for the table and the bread. Rabbenu Bachya (on 25:23) writes that they are to remind a person that his food and sustenance comes from G-d. Yet, how was this message derived if the bread was made by people? Rabbenu Bachya quotes Chazal that the bread was particularly filling, which he explains was because G-d blessed the bread.

Seforno (on 25:23) writes that the table was based on the practice of placing a table before ministers. Apparently the idea is that mishkan was to follow the plans of a royal throne, with the aron representing the throne and the table would be situated before the throne. Yet, what then was the purpose of the bread?

My guess is that table with the bread are related to the covenant between G-d and the Jewish people. What is the connection? The answer is that in the Torah we see that participants to a covenant eat after they have established a covenant. This eating occurs both when a covenant is made between man and G-d or between man and man. For example, Bereshit 26:28-30 records that Yitzhak and Avimelekh made a treaty and then they ate together. Similarly, Yaakov and Lavan made a treaty together and they also ate afterwards, Bereshit 44-54. By the covenant at Mount Sinai, 24:11 records how the leaders of the people ate. Similarly, by the covenantal ceremony on Mount Gerizim and Mount Eval, Devarim 27:7 records how the people were to eat by the ceremony. I also believe that the bringing and hence the eating of the korban pesach in the desert (Bemidbar 9:1-5) was part of the re-establishment of the covenant at Mount Sinai after the people had sinned with the golden calf. (Possibly also the eating of the korban pesach in Egypt part of the covenantal process.) Also, the eating by the messengers of G-d in Bereshit 18:8 is part of the establishment of the covenant of Bereshit 17. (Note by the covenant by Noah, Bereshit 9:8-17, and the covenant of the pieces, Bereshit 15, there is no explicit reference to eating though there laws relating to eating (by Noah) and a fire passing through animals (covenant of the pieces), because the covenants were unilateral that no requirements were placed on Noah or Avraham.)

There seems to be two possible rationales for this connection between eating and making a covenant. It could be that the eating signifies a celebration of making the covenant or as proposed by Robert Sacks, (1990, p. 376-8) eating represents unity, which signifies that a covenant is an agreement which unifies two separate parties.

In any event, once there is a relationship between eating and establishing the covenant, then the role of the bread and the table, which holds the bread, becomes clear. The bread symbolizes the existence of the covenant between the Jewish people and G-d, and it was considered as being placed before G-d, 25:30 and Vayikra 24:8. The bread had to be eaten each week since eating after the covenant signified the completion of the covenant. There were twelve loaves because this represents all of the tribes of the Jewish people who were party to the covenant. Furthermore, even the division of the loaves into two groups of six also relates to the covenant since at the covenantal ceremony on Mount Gerizim and Mount Eval the tribes were also divided into two groups of six, Devarim 27:12,13. In addition, the bread was switched on Shabbat since Shabbat is a sign of the relationship between G-d and the Jewish people, 31:13. Interestingly both by the observance of the Shabbat (Shemot 31:16) and by the placing of the bread (Vayikra 24:8), the Torah uses the term brit olam, a covenant for all time, to stress the people's obligation to uphold these laws, as the commitment to these laws symbolize the people's eternal commitment to the covenant.

Shemot 25:18, 26:1 and 26:31 (Terumah) – A portal

Shemot 25:18 records that there were two keruvim attached to the cover of the aron. In addition, the image of the keruvim was woven into the curtains covering the mishkan, and in the curtain, parokhet, separating the two rooms of the mishkan, 26:1,31. The keruvim are also referred to in reference to the Garden of Eden. Bereshit 3:24 records that the keruvim were stationed east of the Garden of Eden along with a fiery sword to prevent someone from entering the Garden and eating from the tree of life.

What did the keruvim look like? 25:18-20 record that they were made of gold, attached to the sides of the cover of the aron, their wings were outstretched, and they faced each other. However, even with this information, we still do not know how they appeared. Was there any image on them? Josephus (1st century) wrote “that no one can tell us what they were like” (Antiquities, 8:3,3), but we can still try our best.

Rashi, (on 25:18, based on Talmud, Sukkah 5b) records that they had a baby face, which would correspond to the modern day image of cherubs. However, on 26:1 and 26:31, Rashi explains that keruvim were animals (see also Ibn Ezra on Bereshit 3:23). Furthermore, on Bereshit 3:24, Rashi quotes from the Midrash that they were angels of destruction. These explanations would seem to be contradictory since one would not expect that angels of destruction or animals would look like babies.

Rashbam and Hizkuni (on 25:18) explain that the keruvim were some type of bird, which accords with the reference to wings. A variation on this idea (based on Yehezkel 1) is to connect this idea with Rashi’s explanation that they were animals, and to understand that the keruvim were some type of flying animals, sphinxes. This corresponds to archeological findings of the ancient world of winged animals being guardians, and then the keruvim would have been symbolic guardians of the aron and the Garden of Eden.

While all the above suggestions are possible, they all suffer from one major problem. 20:20 records that one is not permitted to make any image of gold or silver even to be used in the worship G-d. If the keruvim had images on them, how could G-d have commanded for them to be in the mishkan? Rashi (on 20:20) notes that 20:20 forbids one from putting keruvim in synagogues, but then how could they be in the mishkan?

Rashbam (on 20:20, also see Abravanel) explains that the keruvim were in the mishkan as a model for the heavenly throne of G-d, and they were permitted since they were never intended to be worshipped. Hizkuni (on 25:18) adds that there are cases where exceptions are made to laws, as for example, we do circumcisions on Shabbat. Yet, the case of circumcisions on Shabbat is that we have two conflicting obligations and we rule that circumcision takes precedence. With regard to the keruvim, they did not have to be in the mishkan and then there would have been no need to make an exception for the keruvim. It seems that according to Rashbam and Hizkuni, the keruvim had to be in the mishkan to make the mishkan similar to the heavenly throne. Yet this still seems to contradict the prohibition of 20:20 to make an image even for the worship of G-d, and a possible parallelism between the mishkan and the heavenly throne could have been forgone.

Yehuda ha-Levi (The Kuzari 1:96) writes that certain images were forbidden and some such as the keruvim were permitted. G-d can decide what is permitted and what is forbidden. Yet, why should G-d act in such an arbitrary manner? Why was a there a need to put keruvim in the mishkan and break the general rule? It is usually thought that one cannot worship images in the worship of G-d since one might be led to idol worship, so why should this danger not exist also by the keruvim?

Cassuto (1967, p. 407) follows the idea that the keruvim were sphinxes and suggests that 20:20 only forbids images of real items, but does not forbid the keruvim who were imaginary beings. Cassuto argues that people will not be led to worship imaginary beings. Yet, one could argue that people are equally or even more apt to worship an imaginary being then a real being such as a calf (see Jose Faur, 1971, 8:1229,1231).

I believe that the keruvim could not have had a human or animal image in order not to violate the law of 20:20 forbidding images. 25:18-20 can be understood as describing golden arches, a geometric form with no human or animal imagery. 25:20 refers to outstretched wings, but this is to explain the shape of the keruvim, as outstretched wings joined together form an arch. 25:20 also uses the word face, panim, but it is clear from Bemidbar 8:2,3, and Vayikra 6:7, that panim also means the front and implies a sense of direction. The keruvim faced each other and they faced down towards the aron, which means that the arches joined together on the top of the aron as opposed to arching away from each other. When the keruvim joined together they formed a portal, and thus we always read of two keruvim together. The imagery of a portal applies both to the aron and to the curtains, as the symbolism is that G-d is on the other side of the keruvim. Therefore, the keruvim on top of the aron and on the curtains represent a portal that divides this world from G-d. Similarly, by the Garden of Eden, the keruvim formed a portal to the Garden but there was a fiery sword by the keruvim that stopped one from entering the portal.

Bibliography:

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1967, A commentary on the book of Exodus, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.

Faur, Jose, 1971, Idolatry in Encyclopedia Judaica, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 8, pp. 1227-1233.

Shemot 24:7 (Mishpatim) - The book of the covenant

שמות כד:ז - ויקח ספר הברית ויקרא באזני העם ויאמרו כל אשר דבר ה' נעשה ונשמע.

Shemot 24:7 records that during the ceremony to establish and celebrate the covenant Moshe read to the people the book of the covenant, 24:7. What was this book?

In Ezra (on 24:3,4,7 also see Seforno) is that the book of the covenant is 20:22-23:33. The basis for this idea is that the book of the covenant seems to relate to 24:4 which records that Moshe wrote down the words of G-d, and 24:4 follows 24:3, which records that Moshe told these words, presumably 20:22-23:33 to the Jewish people.

Cassuto (1967, p. 312) rejects the idea that the book of the covenant was chapters 21-23, since when Moshe read the book to the people, 24:7, he would then have been repeating to the people what he had told them the previous day, 24:3. Similarly, once the people had already stated that they accepted what Moshe told them in 24:3, then why did the people again state in 24:7 that they accepted what Moshe read to them, if 24:7 refers to the same message as 24:3?

Cassuto suggests that either the book of the covenant was a “short general document” about the covenant which was not recorded in the Torah, or it was chapters 20-23, which includes the Decalogue. Yet, why would this important document not have been included in the Torah and 24:3 could also refer to the Decalogue, which means that 24:7 would still be repeating 24:3.

Rashi (on 24:7) suggests that the book of the covenant was the Torah from the book of Bereshit until Shemot chapter 20. Rashi (on 24:3,4) accepts that the writing in 24:4 is referring to the book of the covenant, but he argues that 24:4 is not connected to 24:3. While this is possible, this understanding would make for a quite lengthy reading.

Haketav Vehakabbalah (on 24:7) suggests that the book of Bereshit alone could have been considered the book of the covenant since the book of Bereshit records numerous covenants between G-d and Noah and the patriarchs.

Maybe the book of the covenant could be further limited to just the covenants that G-d made with Avraham, and maybe also the akedah. This could mean that that Moshe wrote and read to the people Bereshit 12-22 or just Bereshit 15, the covenant of the pieces, Bereshit 17, the covenant of circumcision, and Bereshit 22, the akedah. These chapters would be appropriate messages for the people, especially the covenant of circumcision. They would inform the people that the earlier covenant between G-d and Avraham was still binding on them, even though they were making a new covenant.

The people’s response to hearing the book of the covenant as recorded in 24:7 “to do and to accept” could then refer to their acceptance of the earlier covenant to perform circumcision. This acceptance would then have differed from the people's acceptance recorded in 24:3, which referred to the laws recorded in chapters 20(?),21-23. If these two acceptances differ, then this implies that the writing in 24:4 was separate from the book of the covenant. The writing in 24:4 was part of the ceremony to celebrate the covenant between G-d and the Jewish people, and was just in reference to the laws in chapters 20-23, while the book of the covenant could then have been written prior to the Decalogue and/ or the ceremony to celebrate the covenant.

Shemot 24:8 (Mishpatim) - Sprinkling blood during the ceremony to establish the covenant at Sinai

שמות כד:ח - ויקח משה את הדם ויזרק על העם, ויאמר הנה דם הברית אשר כרת ה' עמכם על כל הדברים האלה.

During the ceremony to establish the covenant, Moshe took half of the blood from the sacrifices of the ceremony, sprinkled the blood on the people, and stated, 24:8, “here is the blood of the covenant that G-d has cut with you by means of all these words,” (Fox 1995 translation). It seems that Moshe literally sprinkled blood on the people, though the Abravanel (1997, p. 395) claims that the blood was sprinkled on the pillars mentioned in 24:4, since the verse explicitly states that the pillars represented the twelve tribes.

What was the purpose of the sprinkling of blood? When the covenant was renewed after the sin of the golden calf or by the additional covenant in Devarim, there is no mention of sprinkling blood on the people, so why here is this part of the ceremony of establishing the covenant? Furthermore, why was only half the blood from the sacrifices sprinkled on the people, while the other half was sprinkled on the altar (24:6)?

One possible explanation for the sprinkling of the blood is that it was a form of imprecation to the people not to violate the covenant, that they were pledging their blood, their lives, to uphold the covenant. Bekhor Shor (on 24:4,8, see also Hizkuni on 24:8, and Rabbenu Hananel on 24:8) points out that the splitting of the blood between the altar and the people was similar to the splitting of the animals in the covenant of the pieces in Bereshit 15, that a covenant was literally cut between two items. Thus 24:8 states that G-d cut the covenant with the blood. Bekhor Shor further suggests that the sprinkling of the blood substituted for the cutting up animals since both demonstrate what would happen from disobedience to the covenant. Furthermore, most likely this sprinkling of the blood reminded the people of putting of the blood from the korban pesach on their doorposts, just a few months earlier, 12:7,22,24.

Ibn Ezra (short comments on 24:8) notes that Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon, also suggested that the sprinkling of the blood was a form of imprecation, but he dismisses it as drush. Instead, he suggests that the sprinkling could have been either to purify the people or to make them kadosh with the establishment of the covenant. These two possibilities are not exclusive. Maybe the sprinkling of the blood on the altar was to purify the people, and then after the people said they would do and accept in 24:7, then they were sprinkled with blood to make them kadosh.

Abravanel (1997, p. 395, also Cassuto, 1967, p. 312) offers a different suggestion, that the sprinkling of the blood, half on the altar and half on the people, was to show the joining together of G-d and the people, which would be an appropriate symbolism for the ceremony of the covenant. Modern bible scholars like this explanation since they found other cases of blood pacts in different cultures, and some have also connected this symbolism with the idea (above) of imprecation. (See Malul, 2002, though Nicholson, 1982, disputes these analogies.) I doubt this idea because one of the crucial ideas in the Torah is that there are limits to how close a person can get to G-d. For example 24:1,2 allows only Moshe to come near G-d, and a blood pact, even symbolically, I think is over the borderline. (For more on this problem see our discussion on Shemot 20:19-23, “Establishing boundaries after the Decalogue.”)

Maybe the sprinkling of the blood was a temporary sign of the covenant. Following the idea of the Bekhor Shor, the splitting of the blood between the altar and the people was to show the people the act of making the covenant, and the blood remained as a sign of the covenant. The blood was not the real sign of the covenant, which was the luchot, the tablets, but a temporary sign until the luchot would exist, and hence it was not repeated by the other covenants. Why was there a need for a temporary sign? Maybe Moshe was worried what would happen when he went up to the thick cloud again after the ceremony was over. He understood from 24:1,2 that he would be gone for some time, and he was worried about the people’s allegiance to the covenant when he was gone. Hence he left a sign of the covenant, the blood, which was to remind the people of the covenant when he was away, but alas this sign was not successful as the people broke the covenant when they committed idolatry with the golden calf.


Bibliography:

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1967, A commentary on the book of Exodus, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.

Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.

Malul, Meir, 2002, The ceremony of blood, in The World of the Bible: Shemot, edited by Shemaryahu Talmon and Yitzhak Avishur, Tel Aviv: Divrei Hayamim, Yediot Achronot, pp. 148,149.

Nicholson, Ernest W., 1982, The covenant ritual in Exodus 24:3-8, Vetus Testaentum, 32:1, 1982, pp. 74-86.

Shemot 24:10 (Mishpatim) - The great vision by the ceremony to establish the covenant at Sinai

The end of Shemot chapter 24 records two revelations of G-d. Towards the end of the ceremony to establish the covenant, Moshe, Aharon, Nadav, Avihu and 70 of the elders of the people went up on the mountain (presumably Mount Sinai), 24:9. This going up on the mountain means that the ensuing vision was only for them and not for the entire nation. 24:10 then records, “And they saw the G-d of Israel: under His feet there was the likeness of a pavement of sapphire tiles, livnat ha-saphir, like the very sky for purity” (JPS translation in Sarna, 1991, pp. 152,153). 24:11 also records that the group of 74 people saw G-d. Afterwards, 24:17 records that the entire nation saw the glory of G-d.

The Rashbam (on 24:11 and 33:18, see also Ramban on 24:10) explains that the revelation of G-d is part of the establishment of the covenant. Possibly the idea is that when a covenant is made both parties to the covenant have to agree and the revelation was G-d’s way of telling the people that G-d accepted the covenant. Still, what did the 74 people see?

With regard to the saphir, it seems to have been a type of rock, but there is a disagreement as to what was its color. Ibn Ezra (on 24:10) notes that R. Saadiah Gaon thinks it was a white rock (see also Rashbam on 24:10), while he says it was red, as he argues that the word livnat refers to bricks. Sarna (p. 153) writes that it was a blue stone, lapis lazuli, or it could have been a blue sapphire. The last phrase of the verse “like the very sky for purity” would seem to be referring to the livnat ha-saphir, and this would support the idea that the saphir was the color blue.

The more difficult aspect of 24:10,11 is that the verses seem to record that the group of 74 people saw G-d. Is that possible? The Rambam (Mishnah Torah, Laws of Repentance 3:7) maintains very strongly that G-d is incorporeal, but even for those people who do not follow the Rambam (the Raavad on the Mishnah Torah(?), Rashi (?, see his comments on Shemot 7:4, and many Jews who lived prior to the Rambam?), how could the people see G-d if 33:20 records that if a person saw G-d he/ she would die? What did Moshe, Aharon, Nadav, Avihu and the 70 elders see, why did they not die, and why does the Torah describe what was beneath G-d?

Onkelos, followed by Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon (both on 24:10), explains that Moshe, Aharon, Nadav and Avihu and the 70 elders saw the glory of G-d, and the description of the floor beneath G-d was the throne of the glory of G-d. This glory of G-d is also unclear, but since the glory of G-d is not G-d, the glory of G-d allows for Moshe, Aharon, Nadav and Avihu and the 70 elders to have seen something, and the difficulty from 33:20 is also solved since Moshe, Aharon, Nadav and Avihu and the 70 elders did not see G-d. Note, I think the idea of G-d or the glory of G-d having a throne is difficult, see our discussion on Shemot 17:16, “In the right time in the future.”

A second approach is from Ibn Ezra, followed by the Ramban (both on 24:10), that the seeing here was a prophetic vision, and this would make this seeing different than 33:20 where Moshe wanted a "real" vision of G-d. Both commentators explain that this seeing was similar to the vision of the chariot of Yechezkel. This approach markedly reduces the significance of this vision here since many people in the Torah have prophetic visions.

The Rambam offers a third approach. He refers to 24:10 in five different chapters in the Moreh Nevuchim, (Moreh 1:4,5,28; 2:26; and 3:4), and as the Rambam believes that G-d has no body, then according to the Rambam, Moshe, Aharon, Nadav, Avihu and the 70 elders did not see anything. Instead, the Rambam argues that the verse is referring to an intellectual apprehension of G-d, and G-d’s relationship to matter in the world. This intellectual apprehension was an understanding how created the world as the Rambam (Moreh 1:28) writes that saphir was symbolic of the first material in the world.

Hirsch (1989, p. 423) offers a fourth approach. First, he writes, “Who would be presumptuous enough to try to specify what it was that they saw!” However, then he also tries to explain what Moshe, Aharon, Nadav, Avihu and the 70 elders saw. He writes that the revelation was "the phenomenon by which G-d announces his presence in the world." If I understand this correctly, it means that whenever the Torah records that G-d appeared to somebody or was seen this would mean the person saw G-d’s powers in some way. For example, 3:6 records that Moshe turned away from seeing the burning bush since he was scared to look upon G-d, as Moshe had been seeing the powers of G-d in the burning bush.

What then were these powers of G-d that the group of 74 people saw? Rambam, in the end of chapter 1:5 in the Moreh Nevuchim, writes that if an individual of insufficient capacity understands seeing G-d as the sensual perception of created lights then there is no harm in this thinking. Following this idea maybe the seeing of G-d's power here was that G-d created a light that appeared in a vertical direction, which was only seen by the 74 people, and when the light hit the ground (G-d’s feet in the verse) it turned the ground into a geometric pattern (the idea of bricks) of blue lights. The 74 people were mesmerized by this sight, and this is what 24:11 records that they stared at G-d, i.e., they stared at this geometric pattern of blue lights. This was a peaceful and very impressive demonstration of G-d’s powers to signal G-d’s partnership in the covenant with the Jewish people.

With this idea, the 74 people were not killed since they had only seen G-d’s power and not G-d, but it is possible that still they were negatively affected by this vision similar to the story of the four ta’anaim who entered “Pardes” (Tosefta Hagigah 2:3,4; Talmud Hagigah 14b-15b). Moshe, like R. Akiva, was unaffected, but Aharon would help build the golden calf, 33:4, Nadav and Avihu would sin by the dedication of the outer altar, Vayikra 10:1,2, and the seventy elders are not heard from again, as the seventy people in Bemidbar 11:16 seem to be a new group of seventy people. This is especially poignant by Hur, who likely was one of the elders since when Moshe went up to Mount Sinai, he told the elders, “Hur is with you,” 24:14. Hur was an important person prior to this event, 17:12, 24:14 (also 31:2?), but he is not heard from him again. Note even if this idea is correct, then Yehoshua would not have been part of this group since he would not have been considered as being an elder, see 33:11. Also, if this idea is correct, then we see the great danger of people having a vision of G-d.

Shemot 24:11 (Mishpatim) - Eating in conjunction with a vision of G-d?

שמות כד:יא - ואל אצילי בני ישראל לא שלח ידו ויחזו את האלקים ויאכלו וישתו.

Shemot 24:9-11 record that Moshe, Aharon, Nadav, Avihu and the 70 elders went up, most likely a little bit up on Mount Sinai, had a vision of G-d and ate and drank. R. Lamm (2013, p. 117) writes, “The juxtaposition of these two activities (the vision of G-d and eating), so disjointed and antithetical, so inappropriate to each other, presents us with what is probably the most painful paradox in all the Torah.” Was it wrong for Moshe, Aharon, Nadav, Avihu and the elders to have eaten at that time?

Onkelos views Moshe’s, Aharon’s, Nadav’s, Avihu’s and the 70 elders’ behavior very positively. He writes “that they be held G-d’s glory and rejoiced in their offerings which were accepted as though they were eating and drinking.” This means that he thinks that they did not eat. The Talmud (Berakhot 17a) gives similar explanation and learns from this sentence what the life in the afterlife will be like. This implies that these people at this time had a comparable status in this world to the righteous in the next world. However, this approach does not accord with the simple understanding of the text that Moshe, Aharon, Nadav and Avihu and the 70 elders ate and drank.

Rashi (on 24:11) and the Rambam (Moreh 1:5, see Levine, 2002-03) view the eating as real and they both write that Nadav, Avihu and the 70 elders should have been punished for their actions. Yet, the fact that they were not punished immediately would seem to indicate that their eating should be viewed positively. Also, why should Moshe and Aharon have been different from Nadav, Avihu and the 70 elders that they were not punished?

A third approach is that Moshe, Aharon, Nadav, Avihu and the 70 elders ate and it was a positive experience. The Ramban (on 24:11, also see Seforno on 24:11) writes that Moshe, Aharon, Nadav, Avihu and the 70 elders ate the sacrifices referred to in 24:6 and their eating and drinking was because they made a holiday to celebrate receiving the Torah. Similarly, Luzzatto (on 24:8,11) views the eating in a positive fashion. He writes that the eating was the meal that typically accompanies the establishment of the covenant, and he believes (also Cassuto, 1967, p. 315) that they ate after they had their vision when they came down from the mountain. A minor proof for this idea that the people ate after they had come down from the mountain is that the following verse, 24:12, records that G-d told Moshe to go up on Mount Sinai, which implies that he had come down from the mountain at some point. With this approach, the juxtaposition of seeing the great vision of G-d and eating was not a paradox.

Bibliography:
Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1967, A commentary on the book of Exodus, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.

Lamm, Norman, 2013, Derashot Ledorot, A commentary for the Ages: Exodus, Edited by Stuart W. Halpern, Jerusalem: Maggid Books and New York: OU Press.

Levine, Michelle, 2002-03, Maimonides’ philosophical exegesis of the nobles’ vision (Exodus 24:10): A guide for the pursuit of knowledge, The Torah u-Madda Journal, 11, pp. 61-106.

Shemot 20:19-23 (Yitro) – Establishing boundaries after the Decalogue

Shemot 20:19-23 record G-d’s first instructions to Moshe after the Decalogue. G-d told Moshe that the people are not to make gold and silver idols, that they can make an earthen altar to offer sacrifices, that if they make an altar of stones the stones cannot be hewn, and that one is not to ascend the altar by steps in order that one’s nakedness will not be exposed.

Do these laws have any connection with the Decalogue? N. Leibowitz (1976a, p. 352) writes that, “there must be some special reason why G-d chose to make these laws the subject of his first message immediately after the historic revelation at Sinai,” but what is the reason?

Amos Chacham (1991, vol. 1. p. 405) suggests that these laws complete the sayings of the Decalogue concerning the laws between man and G-d, and then afterwards parashat Mishpatim records the laws between man and man. Nahum Sarna (1991, p. 115) suggests that “these verses, together with 23:19, encase the regulations controlling interpersonal and societal behavior within a framework of prescriptions that govern the relationship of the individual to G-d.” A third idea is that after the injunction against idolatry in the Decalogue the people needed some instructions as to how to worship G-d (see Ibn Ezra on 20:21). Thus, 20:19-23 begin by elaborating on the second saying of the Decalogue that using idols to worship G-d is prohibited, and then there are three laws concerning the worship of G-d. While all these suggestions are possible, still maybe there is some particular message from these laws.

N. Leibowitz (1976a, pp. 352-360) notes two conflicting messages from 20:19,20 based on an interesting argument with regard to the connection between the verses. 20:19 records that G-d told Moshe that the people saw that G-d spoke to them from the heavens, and 20:20 records the law that the people cannot make gold and silver idols. She quotes Albo (see also Ibn Ezra, Ramban and Seforno) who explains that the connection between the verses is that since G-d could speak to the people from the heavens, there is no need for people to worship G-d through gold and silver idols. On the other hand, N. Leibowitz explains that Cassuto (1967, p. 255, see also Bekhor Shor, Hizkuni) understood the verses as saying that since G-d spoke to the people “from afar” it is “impossible to communion with G-d through” gold and silver idols. N. Leibowitz explains that the message of these verses according to Albo is the immanence of G-d, while according to Cassuto it is the transcendence of G-d.

Maybe there is another possible connection between the verses. Following Cassuto, the point of 20:19 is the great distance between G-d and mankind, but due to this distance, one might be tempted to worship G-d through intermediaries such as gold and silver idols, and hence the Torah forbids these practices in 20:20. This idea would also correspond to the conditions of the people after the Decalogue, that having been scared out of their wits, they might have thought to use idols to worship G-d.

This explanation of 20:19,20 relates to one of the crucial ideas in the Torah is that there exists a divide between man and G-d that cannot be crossed. G-d’s first instruction to Moshe after the Decalogue not to make gold and silver idols, 20:20, signals a barrier between mankind and G-d that one cannot worship G-d through these intermediaries. However, if the boundary between G-d and man is too great, then the people might doubt their ability to have a covenant with G-d. Thus, the following verse, 20:21, that one can make an altar of earth to offer sacrifices, is an attempt to minimize the boundary that the people can come close to G-d by offering sacrifices, and it is relatively easy to make an earthen altar. However, these sacrifices do not obliterate the boundary. The following verses, 20:22,23 put limits on this type of worship that stones in a stone altar cannot be hewn and that even the slight possibility of impropriety from walking up steps to the altar is prohibited. 

Thus, maybe the entire section of 20:19-23 revolves around the theme of the barrier between G-d and mankind, and this compliments the section prior to the covenant, 19:21-25, which records the barrier on the mountain between G-d and the Jewish people. Prior to the Decalogue, the Torah referred to a physical barrier, while after the Decalogue the Torah was referring to spiritual barriers. These two “barrier” sections encase the Decalogue. They are the last instructions from G-d to Moshe before the Decalogue and the first instructions from G-d to Moshe after the Decalogue.

Bibliography:

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1967, A commentary on the book of Exodus, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.

Chacham, Amos, 1991, Da'at Mikra: Commentary on Shemot, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976a, Studies in Shemot, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1991, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Shemot 20:7 (Yitro) – The third statement in the Decalogue: In vain

שמות כ:ז - לא תשא את שם ה' אלקיך לשוא כי לא ינקה ה' את אשר ישא את שמו לושא.

While most of the laws of the Decalogue are basic laws of religion and humanity, one law is particularly surprising. 20:7 records, "You are not to take up the name of G-d in vain, for G-d will not clear him that takes up His name in vain," (adaptation of Fox, 1995, translation). The law appears to be very important since the end of verse records that G-d will punish those who violate the law and it is included in the Decalogue, but what is the prohibition? What does it man "to take up G-d's name in vain?"

N. Leibowitz (1976a, pp. 324-333) review three different approaches to understanding 20:7. The first approach is that the verse prohibits a person from swearing in vain while using G-d's name. The Rambam (Laws of swearing 1:4-7) lists the four types of swearing that come under this prohibition, but all four cases are pretty rare. For example, one case is where a person swears that a man is a woman, and a second case is where one swears that a man is a man. Could it be that the Torah included in the Decalogue these rare cases? Ibn Ezra (on 20:7) attempts to defend the importance of this law by arguing that it is very common for people to profane G-d’s name by swearing falsely using G-d's name, and that this is the most serious prohibition in the Decalogue. Yet, if the Torah meant to forbid swearing, why did the Torah not refer to swearing explicitly as for example it does in Vayikra 19:12?

The second approach to understanding 20:7 is from the Talmud (Berakhot 33a, in the name of Rav or Resh Lakish or Resh Lakish and Rav Yochanon) that the verse refers to making a berakha le-vatalah, an unnecessary blessing. With this approach the person is saying G-d's name in a blessing, and it is in vain since the blessing is unnecessary. Yet, could this really be the intent of the verse? There is only one blessing recorded in the Torah, birkat ha-mazon, and it is recorded in Devarim 8:10. Did the people even know about birkat ha-mazon by the Decalogue?

The third approach to understanding 20:7 is from Ramban (on 20:7) and Cassuto (1967, p. 243) that the verse prohibits invoking the name of G-d in conjunction with "worthless practices," and he relates this idea to various pagan practices. (The Rambam, Laws of oaths, 12:11, seems to derive this prohibition from Devarim 28:58.) N. Leibowitz extends this approach to include invoking G-d to deify various causes or "isms" (socialism?), when a person claims he is acting out of a desire to worship G-d but really he is acting based on his own interest or desires. N. Leibowitz likes this third approach since it can be connected with the previous verses that record the prohibition of idolatry.

Yet, the third approach does not specifically relate to the recitation of G-d's name but to people who ascribe their actions to G-d when they are not. The person is insincere, possibly a liar, but usually he is not invoking G-d's name, unless one argues that as part of his "worthless practices" he mentions G-d's name, which would seem to be quite rare.

My guess is that 20:7 is an example of a fundamental principle in the Torah that a person cannot become too close to G-d. A person cannot be "buddy, buddy" with G-d, see our discussion on 20:19-23, "Establishing boundaries after the Decalogue." If a person freely says G-d's name for no reason then this shows he is being too close to G-d, as he is treating G-d as a friend and not as G-d. This prohibition is independent of whether the person says G-d's name in conjunction with some particular action or he just states G-d's name. In addition, the principle that one cannot get too close to G-d is not just when one is flippant in using G-d's name, but the phrase in vain also refers to when one worships G-d when one is not commanded to do so. Thus, the prohibition of 20:7 would include reciting G-d's name even when one is worshipping G-d, but one is worshipping G-d in a way not commanded by G-d, which could be the case of a bracha le-vatalah.

The prohibition of 20:7 is to show the barriers that exist between G-d and mankind even when man wants to worship G-d. This is a fundamental idea in the Torah and this could be why this prohibition was included in the Decalogue.

Maybe this approach can even explain the flow of the Decalogue. After the prohibition of idolatry, the Torah tells people that even when they want to worship G-d, they must only do so as commanded, and the following law is an example of being commanded, to rest on Shabbat.

Bibliography:

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1967, A commentary on the book of Exodus, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.

Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976a, Studies in Shemot, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Shemot 16:2-4 – The mahn: A double test for the Jewish people

Shemot 16:2,3 records that after the Jewish people left Egypt they complained that they were now starving while in Egypt they had been well-fed. It is not clear if the people really had so much food in Egypt, but this is a good example of relativism, that when people are starving, even small but sufficient quantities of food would be viewed relatively as being copious. This complaint was after being one month in the desert, 16:1. Maybe the people saw the depletion of their flocks, and hence they feared that their supply of food could not last that long in the desert. This idea might explain the mention of the 15th of the month in 16:1, as the full moon enabled the people to calculate the monthly depletion rate of their flocks.

In any event, G-d responded to these complaints by telling Moshe, “Here, I will make rain down upon you bread from the heavens, the people shall go out and glean, each day’s amount in its day, in order that I may test them, whether they will walk according to my Instruction or not,” (Fox translation), 16:4. This bread from the heavens would later be called mahn, 16:15, and would supply the Jewish people with their food throughout their stay in the desert, 16:35. The mahn would appear to be a wonderful gift from G-d to the people, but 16:4 refers to the mahn as a test. This idea is repeated in Devarim 8:16, but what was the mahn testing?

Furthermore, the idea of G-d instituting a test is problematic (see Rambam, Moreh, 3:24) since if G-d knows the outcome of the test, what is the point of a test? One answer is that the test is really for the educational benefit of the person being tested. To return to the test of the mahn, the question then is what educational benefit did the Jewish people learn from their experience with the mahn?

Rashi (on Shemot 16:4) writes that the test of the mahn was whether the Jewish people would follow the laws involved with the eating of the mahn, such as not leaving any food over for the next day, 16:19, and not going out on Shabbat to search for mahn, 16:27,28. The educational lesson would then be that the Jewish people would know what it means to follow the laws of G-d.

N. Leibowitz twice criticizes Rashi’s view. Once, she (1976a, p. 266) writes that Rashi’s approach “is forced since the text plainly indicates that the actual giving of the mahn indicates the trial, not the additional instructions associated therewith.” (I believe that here she is referring to the verse in Devarim 8:16, as in Shemot 16:4 the phrase “in order that I may test them” follows the phrase “the people shall go out and glean, each day’s amount in its day,” which indicates that the test is related to the gleaning, as Rashi writes.) Secondly, (1980a, p. 86) she writes, “by the same token, surely every precept in the Torah can be termed a test or trial!” Instead, she prefers Ramban’s approach.

The Ramban (on Shemot 16:4), based on Devarim 8:16, explains that the test of the mahn was because it could not be stored. Therefore, every day the Jewish people had to show their trust in G-d that they would have food to eat the next day.

While the approaches of the Ramban and Rashi appear to conflict, maybe they apply to different times. The first time the mahn is referred to as a test is in Shemot 16 before the giving of the Torah, and the test of the mahn here could follow Rashi’s approach. The second time the mahn is referred to as a test is in Devarim 8 at the end of the people’s forty years in the desert, and then the test of the mahn could follow Ramban’s approach.

When the people left Egypt, they had listened to Moshe with regard to the giving of the korban pesach, but as they were about to make a covenant with G-d, they had to learn about following G-d on a daily basis. Therefore, following Rashi’s approach, the mahn at that period was an educational lesson for the Jewish people to teach them what it means to follow G-d on a daily basis. Thus, the end of the verse, “whether they will walk according to my instruction or not” refers to following the law and not to a belief in G-d.

With regard to the test in Shemot 16:4, I understand Rashi to mean that the test was not with regard to leaving the food over for the next day, but with not collecting more than was needed each day, and not to collect on Shabbat. Thus, the test just referred to gleaning, as the most immediate antecedent to the phrase, “in order that I may test them” in 16:4 is the daily gleaning. The Torah records that the people passed both aspects of the test. 16:21 records that the people left the extra mahn in the field, and 16:30 records that after failing the first time, the people did not go out to look for the mahn on the following Shabbat.

Accordingly, the mahn taught the people about following G-d on a daily basis to prepare the people for the ensuing covenant at Mount Sinai. N. Leibowitz is correct that this same type of test would apply to all the laws, but for the period prior to the covenant, it was this law, maybe because it was related to the Shabbat, that was chosen to be the one to inculcate into the people the need to follow G-d on a daily basis.

The mahn continued for the next forty years, and during this extended period, the test of the mahn was to teach the people faith in G-d as suggested by the Ramban, see our discussion on Devarim 28:69, 29:3-5 "Full covenantal knowledge." Thus Devarim 8:16, at the end of the forty years, refers to the mahn itself and not to following G-d’s law as recorded in Shemot 16:4. The lesson of belief in G-d needed an extended period, and the people passed this test, as while they complained about the taste of the mahn, Bemidbar 11:6 and 21:5, the Torah never records that they doubted the mahn would arrive each day. This lesson in belief in G-d from the mahn was also applicable to the future generations, and thus the mahn was set aside for future generations to see, Shemot 16:33.

Bibliography:

Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976a, Studies in Shemot, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

-----, 1980a, Studies in Devarim, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization

Shemot 14:1–31 - Why did G-d do a miracle to spllt Yam Suf?

Shemot 14:4,8 record that G-d hardened Pharaoh's heart to chase the Jewish people to enslave them again. Why did G-d harden Pharaoh’s heart? Why did G-d want Pharaoh to chase the Jewish people? From a geographic perspective, it was not necessary for the Jewish people to cross over any body of water since before the Suez Canal (in 1869) was built, the Sinai desert and Egypt were not completely separated by water. (This fact was noted by the Ibn Ezra in his comments on 14:17.) What was the need for the miracle of the splitting of the Yam Suf?

One possible reason is that 14:4,18 record that the events at Yam Suf were for the Egyptians to recognize G-d, and 14:25 records that the Egyptians recognized G-d at Yam Suf. Yet, had not the Egyptians already recognized G-d by the ten plagues? Most likely, the soldiers chasing the Jewish people were soldiers who had not experienced the plagues since they were in fortresses in the Sinai desert, see Sarna (1991, p. 69). However, still what was the point of this recognition if they were going to die a few second after they recognized G-d and was this a sufficient reason for such an unbelievable miracle?

14:4,17,18 provide a second reason for the miracle of the splitting of the Yam Suf that G-d's glory would be enhanced by the events at Yam Suf. How was G-d's glory enhanced by the miracle of Yam Suf? Rashi (on 14:4) quotes from the Mechilta that when G-d takes revenge on the wicked people, then G-d's glory is increased, but why were the ten plagues not enough revenge on the Egyptians? Ibn Ezra writes that G-d's glory would be enhanced when the people would see G-d's great powers to drown the Egyptians. Yet, again why did this not occur through the ten plagues?

My guess is that as impressive as the ten plagues were, still a question must have lingered in the minds of the people. During the plagues, Moshe conducted extensive negotiation with Pharaoh to get his permission, and the people only left Egypt when they had Pharaoh's permission (12:31,32), as 13:17 records "when Pharaoh let the people go." Why should an all-powerful G-d need to have Pharaoh's permission? G-d should have told the people to leave Egypt without bothering to speak to Pharaoh, and if Pharaoh had attempted to stop the people, then G-d would have protected the people. The Torah explains that the point of the plagues was an educational lesson both for the Jewish people and for Pharaoh, and hence Pharaoh's permission was a way of showing that he recognized G-d, for example see 7:5, 10:1,2, and our discussion on 7:1-12:29, "The ten plagues in Egypt: Their structure, order and maybe their rationale." Yet, still the Jewish people must have been wondering about G-d's powers. (Maybe this doubt explains why the people were screaming at Moshe before they were saved, 14:11,12.)

Accordingly, a second reason for the miracle at Yam Suf was to show the people that G-d was all-powerful, as literally the people walked into the Yam Suf, and G-d stopped the Egyptians from stopping them even though they tried. If G-d had just had the people march through divided water, then this would not have increased the people's faith in G-d since they knew that G-d could do wonders. The people had to see that G-d did not need to ask permission from Pharaoh, and hence they had to see that G-d had saved them from Pharaoh. Thus, 14:31 records that when the people saw what G-d had done to the Egyptians, they feared G-d and they believed in G-d. This increase in faith that resulted from the destruction of Pharaoh and his army was the enhanced glory to G-d that was mentioned in 14:4,17.

14:30 records that the Jewish people saw the Egyptian soldiers dying. The fact that the Torah mentions this result implies that their deaths were another important outcome of the miracle at Yam Suf. If the Egyptian army had not been destroyed, then during the entire time that the people were in the desert they would have been worried that the Egyptians would return and attack them. Thus, Moshe told the people that after the events at Yam Suf, they would never see the Egyptians again, 14:13.

Yet, still why was there a need for such a great miracle of splitting the waters of the Yam Suf? The answer is that this miracle coming after the ten plagues was to incorporate the three educational elements of the plagues: To recognize G-d, 7:17, to know that G-d exists in the world, 8:18, and to know that there are no forces in the world comparable to G-d, 9:14, 

The first element occurred when the Egyptian soldiers recognized G-d before they died, 14:24 (our first reason above). The second element by the plagues was the distinction within the plagues between the Jews and the Egyptians. This distinction happened by the miracle at Yam Suf, as the both the Egyptians and the Jews were in the Yam Suf, and the water only covered up the Egyptians while the Jews continued to walk through the Yam Suf, 14:26-29. The third educational element in the plagues was G-d's control over the forces of nature, hail, wind and the sun. One major force was left out by the plagues, the power of rushing water, tsunami, and hence here by Yam Suf when G-d split the water and had the waters stand still, this showed that G-d also controls this force of nature.

There are two literary connections between the splitting of the Yam Suf and the third educational element of the plagues which was from the third set of plagues, plagues seven, eight and nine. One connection is that by the eight plague and the miracle of the Yam Suf, the Torah refers to an east wind, 9:13,14 and 14:21. Two, by the seven, eight and ninth plagues, Moshe raised his arm/staff before the onset of the plagues, 9:22, 10:12 and 10:21 and so too by the Yam Suf, Moshe raised his arm/ staff, 14:21,26,27. In these cases, the miracles are so unbelievable, no one would think that Moshe caused the miracle, but by Moshe acting prior to the miracle, this showed Moshe's connection with G-d. By the plagues, Moshe had acted in front of Pharaoh (or nobody) and the Jewish people had not seen this connection, but by Yam Suf the people saw this connection. Accordingly, 14:31 records that after the miracle of Yam Suf the people believed that Moshe was G-d's servant.

To summarize, the main reason for the miracle of the splitting of Yam Suf was to increase the Jewish people's faith in G-d. In addition, the outcome of the miracle was that the Egyptians also recognized G-d, the Jewish people realized that they did not have to be worried from the Egyptian army in the future and their faith in Moshe was increased.

Bibliography:

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1991, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society