Skip to main content

Thought for the Day: The Giving/Receiving of the Torah -- The Marriage Between HaShem and the Jewish People

In parshas Yisro, we find two verses, Shmos 19:11 (before matan Torah) and 20:15 (after matan Torah) on which Rashi comments: this teaches that there were no blind among them. The inference is from the fact the both verses use the phrase כל העם/all of the people in their relationship to a visual experience. Of course, whenever we have two verses that teach the same thing, we need to wonder why we need two if one would do the job. Obviously, of course, there must be more than meets the eye here. (You better believe the pun is intended. I just thought of that while writing; I am pretty proud of myself, actually!)

This situation is more demanding of an explanation than usual. I can't remember another place off the top of my head where Rashi uses nearly identical wording in his comments on these two verses. The verse after matan Torah also has an interesting context, and it actually what first got my attention. Verse 20:15 says that they saw sounds. I have no idea what that means. Rashi just comments that they saw what is heard, something impossible in any other context. So here's the thing... how does having some sort of otherworldly vision prove that no one was blind? This is not normal eyesight. And we are still stuck with the problem of two verses that teach virtually the same lesson.

Regarding how seeing sounds proves that they also had regular vision, I have this thought: Whatever they experienced, the experience was best -- albeit inadequately -- described as "seeing". In order to know what that means, one must have experienced regular vision. That is, they all had to have vision in order to say, "I can't really describe what happened, but it was if I could see the sounds of the shofar." So the second verse clearly tells us that all had the ability to see. But we are still wondering why we need both.

The Sifsei Chachmin comments on the second time Rashi makes the point that no one was blind: This was after the experience of Har Sinai. Even just looking  at the Divine Presence can cause one to lose their site, all the more so the experience of matan Torah. That is the key. Anyone who has witnessed Birkas Kohanim knows that we cover our heads with our tallis -- even our sons come under our tallis. Moreover, the kohanim themselves cover their hands with their tallis. All because in the Beis HaMikdash, when the kohanim blessed the people, the Divine Presence was manifest in the gaps formed by their hands and the way they hold their fingers. Because we need to protect our eyes.

What was the context of the first verse? The nation told Moshe that we wanted to see our King, because there you can't compare a personal experience to hearing from another. But that means they knew they were risking losing their vision for the chance to meet their King. The entire Jewish people decided it was worth becoming blind for the rest or their lives for the opportunity to greet their King. HaShem didn't ask for that. It was wholly from our side. We wanted the Torah and we wanted HaShem to be our King and we were ready to give up everything for that. HaShem agreed and then gave us even more... He healed anyone who had been blind and then He gave us vision with the ability to see things that can usually only be experienced with the other senses.

We reached out to HaShem and said we were willing to give anything to personally meet our King, HaShem responded by giving us everything.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Thought for the Day: Pizza, Uncrustables, and Stuff -- What Bracha?

Many years ago (in fact, more than two decades ago), I called R' Fuerst from my desk at work as I sat down to lunch.  I had a piece of (quite delicious) homemade pizza for lunch.  I nearly always eat at my desk as I am working (or writing TftD...), so my lunch at work cannot in any way be considered as sitting down to a formal meal; aka קביעת סעודה.  That being the case, I wasn't sure whether to wash, say ha'motzi, and bentch; or was the pizza downgraded to a m'zonos.  He told if it was a snack, then it's m'zonos; if a meal the ha'motzi.  Which what I have always done since then.  I recently found out how/why that works. The Shulchan Aruch, 168:17 discusses פשטיד''א, which is describes as a baked dough with meat or fish or cheese.  In other words: pizza.  Note: while the dough doesn't not need to be baked together with the meat/fish/cheese, it is  required that they dough was baked with the intention of making this concoction. ...

Thought for the Day: What Category of Muktzeh are Our Candles?

As discussed in a recent TftD , a p'sak halacha quite surprising to many, that one may -- even לכתחילה -- decorate a birthday cake with (unlit, obviously) birthday candles on Shabbos. That p'sak is predicated on another p'sak halacha; namely, that our candles are muktzeh because they are a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not  מוקצה מחמת גופו/intrinsically set aside from any use on Shabbos. They point there was that using the candle as a decoration qualifies as a need that allows one to utilize a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור. Today we will discuss the issue of concluding that our candles are , in fact, a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not מוקצה מחמת גופו. Along the way we'll also (again) how important it is to have personal relationship with your rav/posek, the importance of precision in vocabulary, and how to interpret the Mishna Brura.  Buckle up. After reviewing siman 308 and the Mishna Brura there, I concluded that it should be permissible to use birthday candles to decorate a cake on Sha...

Thought for the Day: Why Halacha Has "b'di'avad"

There was this Jew who knew every "b'di'avad" (aka, "Biddy Eved", the old spinster librarian) in the book.  When ever he was called on something, his reply was invariably, "biddy eved, it's fine".  When he finally left this world and was welcomed to Olam Haba, he was shown to a little, damp closet with a bare 40W bulb hanging from the ceiling.  He couldn't believe his eyes and said in astonishment, "This is Olam Haba!?!"  "Yes, Reb Biddy Eved,  for you this is Olam Haba." b'di'avad gets used like that; f you don't feel like doing something the best way, do it the next (or less) best way.  But Chazal tell us that "kol ha'omer HaShem vatran, m'vater al chayav" -- anyone who thinks HaShem gives partial credit is fooling himself to death (free translation.  Ok, really, really free translation; but its still true).  HaShem created us and this entire reality for one and only one purpose: for use...