SO THE LORD SAID TO HIM, "GO

DOWN, AND COME BACK UP WITH AARON; BUT LET NOT THE PRIESTS OR THE PEOPLE BREAK

THROUGH TO COME UP TO THE LORD, LEST HE BREAK OUT AGAINST THEM. AND MOSES WENT

DOWN TO THE PEOPLE AND SPOKE TO THEM.

(Shemot 19:24-25)

The two terms yerida and aliyah

have been given in the Hebrew language the respective meanings of "descent"

and "ascent." Accordingly when a body moves from a certain place to a

lower place, it is said to descend; and

when it moves from a certain place to a higher place than the one in which it

was, it is said to ascend.

Subsequently these two terms were used figuratively to denote sublimity and

greatness; so that when an individual's rank was lowered, he was said to have descended;

when, on the other hand, his rank became higher in respect of sublimity, he was

said to have ascended. Thus

God, may He be exalted, says: The stranger that is in your

on (Devarim 28:43)…

Similarly the term [to descend]

is also used to denote a lower state of speculation; when a man directs his thought toward a very mean object, he is said to have descended; and

similarly when he directs his thought toward an exalted and sublime object, he is

said to have ascended. Now

we, the community of men, are, in regard to place as well as degree of

existence, in a most lowly position if we are compared to the all-encompassing

heavenly sphere; whereas He, may He be exalted, is in respect of true existence,

sublimity, and greatness in the very highest position – an elevation that is

not a spatial one. And as He, may He be exalted, wished – as He did – to let

some of us have knowledge deriving from Him and an overflow of prophetic

inspiration, the alighting of prophetic inspiration upon the prophet or the

coming-down of the Indwelling to a certain place was termed descent;

whereas the removal of this prophetic state from a particular individual or the

cessation of the Indwelling in a place was termed ascent. In

every case in which you find the terms descent and ascent

applied to the Creator, may He be exalted, this last meaning is intended… When,

on the other hand, Scripture says, And

Moses ascended to God (Shemot

19:3), the third meaning of the term [to ascend] is meant; this, in addition

to the fact that [Moses] ascended to the top of the mountain upon which the

created light had descended. The verse does not mean that God, may He be

exalted, has a place up

to which one may ascend or from which one may descend;

He is exalted very high above the

imaginings of the ignorant.

(RaMBaM, Guide

of the Perplexed 1:10, Pines translation)

They encamped – And they stood

at a distance: Between Unity and Jealousy

Shlomo Fox

The

conclusion of parashat BeShalah:

It means, "Hand upon the

from generation to generation (Shemot 17:16) and the

opening of parashat Yitro: Jethro priest of Midian,

people, how the Lord had brought Israel ought from Egypt (Shemot

18:1) together teach us that there is a tribe like

Amalek but

also individuals

like Jethro. Therefore,

we should not say, "The whole

world is against us"!

Rabbi

Haim ben Atar writes:

I

decided to contemplate [the question of] how Jethro

merited authoring this passage. Indeed it is true that he had honored Moses,

the servant of the Lord, for which he himself was rewarded by being honored by

God. However, God could have honored him in a different way, not in this way

that makes it appear, God forbid, that the Lord's nation lacked knowledge until

the priest of Midian arrived and enlightened them. (Or HaHaim Shemot 18:21)

That

is to say: Why is the parasha in which the Theophany at Sinai is described is named after Jethro rather than Moses? Isn't it possible to honor the "other"

in a way less hurtful to Moses? R. Haim ben Atar's answer is no less

surprising:

It

seems that the point of the matter is for God to show the Israelites of that

generation and of every generation that amongst the nations there are people of

great understanding and knowledge. Go and learn from how knowledgeable Jethro showed himself to be in his advice and in his chosen

manner of organizing people. For there are those among the nations who

recognize the happy things, and the point of it is that Israel was not chosen

because they were more knowledgeable and educated than all the other nations – Jethro's knowledge is a proof of this. You should learn

from this that the Lord did not choose them because of Israel's great wisdom

and knowledge. Rather it was because of grace from on high and love of the

Patriarchs [that the Israelites were chosen]. This explanation is more fitting

to what it says (in Yalkut Shimoni 268) about how, "Jethro came before the Torah was given." God knew that

He had to do this before giving the Torah in order to say that there are more

wise people among the nations than in Israel, yet He still drew us near Him and

chose us, and that we should praise Him who chose us in particular, since He

chose us out of kindness. And also in regard to the opinion that he [Jethro] appeared after the Torah was given, it makes sense

that He arranged for his arrival earlier in order to demonstrate the intention

mentioned above, for without it the intention under discussion would not have

been revealed. Understand this.

R. Haim ben Atar,

who lived in Morocco and made aliyah to the Land of

Israel in the year 1700 was aware of the nations' wisdom and requires of us

that we query why the Israelites were chosen. The choice was not made because

the Jewish People were intelligent, but rather because of "grace from on

high and love of the Patriarchs." What is the nature of this grace and why

did we merit the love of the Patriarchs? We must clarify these questions every

day.

Another

question regarding Jethro – could Moses have thought

of having the Theophany at Sinai take place and

taking part in it himself without his own wife being present? Jethro understood this, most certainly if we assume – in accordance

with the order of the verses – that Jethro arrived before the Theophany at Sinai. Even

if we assume that Jethro arrived only afterwards,

Scripture defends Moses, teaching us how important the family unit is when we

reconstruct the making of the covenant.

After

learning about the view of the "other-Jethro,"

let us take an internal and critical look at the Theophany

at Sinai.

On

the third new moon after Israel had gone forth from the land of Egypt, on that

very day, they entered the wilderness of Sinai. Having journeyed from Refidim, they entered the wilderness of Sinai and encamped

in the wilderness. Israel encamped there in front of the Mountain… On the

third day, as morning dawned, there was thunder, and lightening, and a dense

cloud upon the mountain, and a very loud blast of the shofar;

and all the people who were in the camp trembled. Moses led the people out of

the camp toward God, and they took their places at the foot of the mountain. Now

Mount Sinai was all in smoke, for the Lord had come down upon it in fire; the

smoke rose like the smoke of a kiln, and the whole mountain trembled violently…

All the people witnessed the thunder and lightening, the blare of the shofar and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw

it, they fell back and stood at a distance. (Shemot 19-20, with breaks)

Really? Is

the Theophany at Sinai to be viewed as an ideal

situation, one of perfect solidarity, involving the people's universal

acceptance of the Torah and assimilation of its values?

Consider

the continuation of the passage: All

the people witnessed the thunder… and when the people saw it, they fell

back and stood at a distance. Notice how

Scripture returns to describing the Israelites in the plural, and how the

people fell back and stood at a distance. What made the people take their distance?

This

appears after the description of how Mount

Sinai was all in smoke, for the Lord had come down upon it in

fire; the

smoke rose like the smoke of a kiln,

and the whole mountain trembled violently. How

was it that this "holy fire" produced smoke? If there really had been

smoke as thick as the smoke of a kiln, Moses would not have been able to remain

on the mountain! Furthermore, we must ask what happened at the climax of the Theophany that caused the people to say to Moses, You speak to us, and we shall listen,

and let not the Lord speak with us lest we die.

These

questions brought R. Meir Simkha

HaKohen MiDvinsk in his Meshekh Hokhmah to explain the smoke mentioned in our parasha in terms of the dictum of R. Hanina

according to which anyone who is envious of Torah scholars in this world, who

is jealous of their status (he is not referring to the creative competitiveness

between scholars) – "his eyes shall fill with smoke in the next world."

That is to say, there is a different kind of "smoke," not smoke that

arises from a burning fire, but rather the "smoke of jealousy." Borrowing

from R. Hanina, one can explain that when then the

Israelites saw the mountain all in

smoke, they understood that their

hearts were not pure of jealousy and that they were unworthy of seeing the

divine glory in clear light, but rather only through smoke, and so they fell back and stood at a distance. The smoke which the Israelites saw on the

mountain did not arise from a natural fire, and "divine fire" could

not produce smoke. The Israelites should have seen something like Moses' bush [that] burned but was not consumed. This all leads to the conclusion that the smoke

existed in their eyes alone, it was the "smoke of

jealousy." The Israelites were jealous of each other; each looked at his

fellow and asked: "Is he as worthy as I am to participate in this event?"

Thus, we should understand the verse they

fell back and stood at a distance as

expressing the people's inner realization that they were indeed, distant. This is not a description of physical position,

but rather of their understanding that the statement all that the Lord says we shall do did not spring from the unity expressed in the

phrase Israel [singular] encamped. Instead of unity, there was division, the divisiveness

of jealousy between man and his fellow: "smoke."

The

people understood that they were distant from perfection, that they were far

from constituting that single person who could receive the commandments from

God. As a result, they told Moses, "You, Moses, speak to us in God's stead

for we are unworthy to hear God's speech."

We

have seen, then, that while there indeed was a moment of unity – Israel encamped – there was also an element of envy that brought

with it the vision of smoke and the understanding that they were "standing

at a distance" and were not yet worthy of hearing God.

The

Lord spoke those words to your whole congregation at the mountain, with a

mighty voice out of the fire and the dense clouds. He inscribed them on two

tablets of stone, which He gave to me. When you heard the voice out of the

darkness, while the mountain was ablaze with fire, you came up to me, all your

tribal heads and elders. (Devarim

5:19-20)

This

description of the Theophany at Sinai, "united

yet alone," is amplified in the Gemara's

description of the event:"

They

stood beneath the mountain (Shemot 19). Rav Avdimi bar Hama bar Hasa said: This teaches

us that he held the mountain over them like a basin, and told them, "If

you accept the Torah – that is good; and if you do not – there will be your

graves."

Rav Aha

bar Yaakov said: This implies a powerful excuse

regarding the [validity of Israel's acceptance of the] Torah.

Rava

said: Even so, it was accepted by the generation of Ahasuerus'

era. For it is written: The

Jews established and received (Esther 8) – they established that which

they had already received. (Shabbat 88a)

What

motivates the midrash to say

that the Theophany at Sinai was forced, leaving everyone the excuse "I agreed under

duress"? And what does the Gemara gain by

mentioning that only later in the Persian period, in the days of Esther and Mordechai,

did they really accept the Torah – that the observance of the Torah was

coercive during the entire First Temple period?

Megilah 7a

teaches us about Esther's special way of thinking:

Rav Shemuel bar Yehudah said: Esther

sent [a message] to the Sages: Establish me [my commemoration] for the

generations!

They

sent her [and answer]: You create jealousy between us and the nations.

She

sent them [her reply]: I am already written about in the Chronicles of the

Kings of Persia and Medea.

Rav and Rav Hanina and Rabbi Yohanan and Rav Haviva learned (Everywhere in Seder Moed

where these pairs are mentioned together, Rabbi Yonatan

is mentioned instead of Rabbi Yohanan) [that]: Esther

sent [a message] to the Sages: Write of me for the generations!

They

sent her [a reply]: Indeed,

I wrote down for you threefold (Proverbs 22), threefold and not fourfold

and Esther wants to add a fourth, as her story is also about Amalek]. Eventually they a found a supporting verse written

in the Torah: Write

this as a memorial in the book (Shemot 17): Write this – what is written here [in Shemot]

and in the Mishneh Torah; a

memorial – that which is written in the

Prophets; in the book – that which is written in the Meggilah.

This

is like the disagreement between the Tana'im: Write this – what is written here; a memorial – that which is written in the Mishneh

Torah; in the book – that which is written in the Prophets – so says R. Yehoshua.

R. Eliezer HaModa'i says: Write this – what is written here and in the Mishneh Torah [i.e., in Devarim];

a memorial – that which is written in the Prophets; in the book – that which is written in the Meggilah.

Esther

teaches that the story of the Meggilah must be

established or written for the generations; it seems that what is special about the Meggilah is

the acceptance of responsibility and the performance of a deed. That is to say, not the story as a story, but rather the story as a

guide to desirable behavior. Esther could have waited in the king's

palace for relief and deliverance[that]

will come to the Jews from another quarter,

instead she decided to answer Mordechai's request and

risk her life. That is how we should practice and understand The Jews established and accepted it

for themselves and their offspring. A

willed acceptance of the Theophany at Sinai means "acceptance

of the covenant requires personal involvement." Only commitment bordering

on self-sacrifice can revoke the jealousy within the people and the jealousy of

the nations, so that we can return to the condition of Israel encamped, as one body, without judgment of the other.

Shlomo Fox teaches at Hebrew Union College, at Beit

Shemuel and at Kolot. He is

the educational director of the I.D.F. project at Beit

Morasha.

And enjoin upon them the laws and the

are to follow.

(Shemot 18:20)

And enjoin– as in and

ignored the warning (Ezekiel 33:5), and it means "observe."

(Ibn Ezra, ad loc)

And enjoin [ve'hizharta]

upon them – As in And the knowledgeable will be radiant [yazhiru], that he

will clarify and elucidate the laws and teaching for them until they are pure

and bright like the very heavens. In this he also restates what he had said elsewhere:

and I made known God's laws and

His teachings.

(R. Yitzhak Shemuel Reggio ad loc)

You

shall not make for yourself a sculptured image: which means: Do not make of sculpture of

yourself.

(Or Ha'Hayyim Shemot 20:4)

Please do not bury me in Egypt –

why?… Lest they make me an

object of idolatry.

(Yalkut Shimoni, Bereishit, 47, 156)

Let us now discuss anger. There

is the short-tempered person of whom it is written "One who is quick to

anger is like one who worships idolatrously". This is the person who

becomes furious whenever his will is contradicted, becoming filled with rage,

to the point where he loses good judgment. Such a person would destroy the

world if only he could, because his intelligence has no control over him; like

all animals of prey, he is unreasonable, and of him it is written (Job 8): You

sake? It is easy for him to transgress all sorts of sins

in the world if his fury carries him there, for he has no motivation other than

his anger – wherever it leads him, he follows.

(Mesillat Yesharim, Chapter 11)

Included in the widespread idolatry in

today's world is a powerful reality: the concentration of all thought and

activity towards the accumulation of wealth and the success of possessions.

They are the mighty gods upon whom they lean, they are supported by their

faith; by sanctification of their names, they deny the existence of God above.

(Quoted

from the "Baal HaAkedah" by Prof. Nechama Leibowitz z"l, in New Studies in the Book of Shemot ,

p. 234)

The names change, the multiplicity remains.

Culture and civilization, nation and state, nationality and race, economy and

class – here you see a partial list of the pantheon of contemporary gods. Who

can deny the existence of these gods? Never had an 'idol worshipper' bowed to

his god with greater sacrifice, greater faith, than does modern man…

therefore, even until this day, in man's heart a war is waged – between the

worship of the One and worship of the many, and the outcome of this battle is

uncertain.

(From

"Franz Rosenzweig: Jehuda

Halevi – Anmerkungen",

translated and quoted by Prof. Nechama Leibowitz z"l)

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom,

please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew

  edition distributed in Israel $700

• English

  edition distributed via email $ 100

Issues may be dedicated in honor

of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be

made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear

in the English email.

In Israel, checks made out

to Oz VeShalom may be sent to Oz VeShalom-P.O.B.

4433, Jerusalem 91043. Unfortunately there is no Israeli tax-exemption for

local donations.

US and British tax-exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made through:

New Israel Fund, POB 91588,

Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford

Street, London W1H 2DD, Great Britain

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NEW ISRAEL

FUND IS NO LONGER ACCEPTING DONATIONS UNDER $100.

PEF will also channel donations and provide a tax-exemption. Donations

should be sent to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison

Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA

All contributions should be

marked as donor-advised to Oz ve'Shalom, the Shabbat

Shalom project.

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel.

It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice,

concepts which have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views

peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the

religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It

maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just

society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an

imperative.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom's programs include both educational and

protest activities. Seminars, lectures, workshops, conferences and weekend

programs are held for students, educators and families, as well as joint

seminars for Jews, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. Protest activities focus on

issues of human rights, co-existence between Jews and Arabs, and responses to

issues of particular religious relevance.

5,000 copies of a 4 page peace

oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz

VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to

over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom's educational forums draw people of different

backgrounds, secular and religious, who are keen to deepen their Jewish

knowledge and to hear an alternative religious standpoint on the subjects of

peace and social issues.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom fills an ideological vacuum in Israel's society. Committed both to

Jewish tradition and observance, and to the furthering of peace and

coexistence, the movement is in a unique position to engage in dialogue with

the secular left and the religious right, with Israeli Arabs and with

Palestinians.