שלח

Inadvertent Violation of the Entire Torah

The various circumstances in which a 'sin' offering is required were set out in Parashat Vayikra.[1] Our Parashah now appears to add another category:

וְכִי תִשְׁגּוּ וְלֹא תַעֲשׂוּ אֵת כָּל־הַמִּצְוֺת הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּר ה' אֶל־מֹשֶׁה׃ אֵת כָּל־אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה' אֲלֵיכֶם בְּיַד־מֹשֶׁה מִן־הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה' וָהָלְאָה לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם׃ וְהָיָה אִם מֵעֵינֵי הָעֵדָה נֶעֶשְׂתָה לִשְׁגָגָה וְעָשׂוּ כָל־הָעֵדָה פַּר בֶּן־בָּקָר אֶחָד לְעֹלָה לְרֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַה' וּמִנְחָתוֹ וְנִסְכּוֹ כַּמִּשְׁפָּט וּשְׂעִיר־עִזִּים אֶחָד לְחַטָּת׃ (במדבר ט"ו:כב-כד)

At first glance this case appears to be a communal level transgression similar to the one listed in the Vayikra requiring a special bull offering (par he'elem davar):

וְאִם כָּל־עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁגּוּ וְנֶעְלַם דָּבָר מֵעֵינֵי הַקָּהָל וְעָשׂוּ אַחַת מִכָּל־מִצְוֺת ה' אֲשֶׁר לֹא־תֵעָשֶׂינָה וְאָשֵׁמוּ׃ וְנוֹדְעָה הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר חָטְאוּ עָלֶיהָ וְהִקְרִיבוּ הַקָּהָל פַּר בֶּן־בָּקָר לְחַטָּאת וְהֵבִיאוּ אֹתוֹ לִפְנֵי אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד: (ויקרא ד':יג-יד)

Both passages discuss a communal transgression and both refer to the 'eyes' of the congregation. This term is traditionally understood as alluding to the leaders of the people who regarded as the 'eyes' of the people due to their capacity to guide.[2] Though in the context of the Vayikra passage a literal reading of the word me-einei (eyes) is plausible, in the Bamidbar passage it is more awkward.[3] The association of eyes with leadership may be supported by the nearby dialogue between Moshe and Chovav. Moshe entreats Chovav to remain with the Israelites instead of returning home referring to his ability to act as the 'eyes' (i.e. guide) of the people:

וַיֹּאמֶר אַל־נָא תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָנוּ כִּי עַל־כֵּן יָדַעְתָּ חֲנֹתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר וְהָיִיתָ לָּנוּ לְעֵינָיִם׃ (במדבר י':לא)

In any event, despite the similarities, the composition of the sacrifices is different in each case – in the Vayikra passage a bull is offered as the sin offering, whereas in the Bamidbar passage a he-goat is brought (as well as a bull as a burnt offering). Furthermore, our passage seems to deal with the case where the nation violates all the Mitzvot, whereas the Vayikra passage seems to deal with a singular transgression.

The traditional view – legal error

These discrepancies led Chazal to the view (referenced by Rashi) that our passage deals with a case where the Sanhedrin mistakenly rules that a certain form of idolatry was permitted.[4] Since idolatry amounts to an abrogation of the covenant, the Torah refers to it as a violation of all the Mitzvot:

בַּעֲ"זָ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְאַחַת מִכָּל הַמִּצְוֹת, תַּ"ל את כל המצות האלה — מִצְוָה אַחַת שֶׁהִיא כְּכָל הַמִּצְוֹת, מַה הָעוֹבֵר עַל כָּל הַמִּצְוֹת פּוֹרֵק עֹל וּמֵפֵר בְּרִית וּמְגַלֶּה פָנִים, אַף מִצְוָה זוֹ פּוֹרֵק בָּהּ עֹל וּמֵפֵר בְּרִית וּמְגַלֶּה פָנִים, וְאֵיזוֹ? זוֹ עֲ"זָ (רש"י)

According to this view the cause of the transgression is the same in both passages, being the product of an errant ruling by the Sanhedrin. The differences simply result from the form of transgression (idolatry vs other sins).

The obvious problem is that our immediate passage contains no clear reference to idolatry, and nor do the surrounding passages. If the passage revolves around idolatry, it should have been mentioned explicitly. Another more general problem is why this passage was separated from the Vayikra passage to begin with. The difficulty is particularly acute for the above interpretation which identifies the sin offering of our passage as a variant of the communal sin offering of the Vayikra passage, only restricted to a particular form of transgression (i.e. idolatry).[5]

Incidentally, the perception that the he-goat offering of our passage is a subcategory of the par he'elem davar, despite the distance between the texts, is evidenced by the fact that the Rambam considers them part of the same commandment. In his brief comments in Sefer HaMitzvot (#68) he only references the par he'elem davar and ignores our passage altogether, however it is clear from the Yad Chazakah (Hil. Shgagot 12:1) that he regards the special case of idolatry as a mere modification of the par he'elem davar.[6]  

The Ramban – special status of communal transgression

The Ramban seeks to explain the meaning of our passage without relying on the overly restrictive interpretation that the passage is dealing (exclusively) with idolatry. He suggests that it is possible to contemplate certain scenarios whereby the community 'inadvertently' abandons the entire Torah, or at least most of it:

הפרשה הזו סתומה במשמעה... ולשון הכתוב שלא נוציא אותו מפשוטו ומשמעו יאמר וכי תשגו מכל המצות ותעברו על כל מה שצוה השם לכם ביד משה שלא תעשו דבר מכל מה שצוה אתכם תקריבו הקרבן הזה ולכך לא הזכיר בכאן כאשר יאמר בקרבנות החטא אחת מכל מצות ה' והנה זה כפי משמעו הוא קרבן מומר לכל התורה בשוגג כגון ההולך ונדבק לאחת מן האומות לעשות כהם ולא ירצה להיות בכלל ישראל כלל ויהיה כל זה בשוגג כגון שיהיה ביחיד תינוק שנשבה לבין האומות ובקהל כגון שיחשבו שכבר עבר זמן התורה ולא היתה לדורות עולם או שיאמרו כמו שזכר בספרי (שלח קטו) מפני מה אמר המקום לא שנעשה ונטול שכר אנו לא עושים ולא נוטלין שכר... וכבר אירע לנו כן בעונותינו (כי) בימי מלכי ישראל הרשעים כגון ירבעם ששכחו רוב העם התורה והמצות לגמרי...

The examples the Ramban brings include situations where the masses believe, for one reason or another, that the Torah is no longer applicable, or was otherwise optional in the first place. He notes that these have historical precedent and are not mere hypothetical examples.[7]

According to R' Yoel Bin Nun the remarkable implication of the Ramban's comments is that members of an entire community are, as a general rule, not regarded as willful transgressors.[8] Since people's action typically reflect their social environments, they are automatically deemed inadvertent.[9] This is the apparent meaning of the final verse in our passage:

וְנִסְלַח לְכָל־עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלַגֵּר הַגָּר בְּתוֹכָם כִּי לְכָל־הָעָם בִּשְׁגָגָה׃ (ט"ו:כז)

The verse seemingly asserts the principle that a communal sin is deemed inadvertent and therefore eligible for forgiveness. The rationale for this classification is that the Torah understands very well the dynamics and trappings of social pressure. The tendency to conform impairs or negates independent judgement.[10]

This reading is supported by the structure of the surrounding passages. The next passage deals with inadvertent transgression of an individual, and the following passage deals with the brazen transgressor (be'yad ramah) who sins willfully. The fact that there is no passage which deals with wanton transgression on a communal level is instructive.[11] An individual who openly transgresses in contravention to communal norms is guilty of rebellion. But this mode of rebellion is by nature not applicable to a community. It is precisely because of the contagious nature of transgressive behaviour within a social context, that the Torah is harsh on the individual yet forgiving towards the wider community.

The spies episode as the backdrop to our passage

R' Bin Nun's article was subsequently subject of a critique which, inter aila, argued that the Ramban's intention was never to recast every communal sin as inadvertent.[12] The Ramban's classification assumes that the actions of these groups are reflective of genuine but mistaken beliefs. The transgressions are only regarded as inadvertent if the people are subscribing to a philosophical view which renders their actions permissible.[13] Accordingly, there is no substantive difference between an individual and a community when it comes to determining whether an action is willful or inadvertent.

But this does not quite stand up to scrutiny. The Ramban explains the location of the passage as a result of its close proximity to the spies narrative:

ונכנסה כאן בעבור שהם מרו דבר השם ואמרו נתנה ראש ונשובה מצרימה (במדבר י״ד:ד׳) להיות שם במצרים כאשר היו בראשונה בלא תורה ובלא מצות והנה באה הפרשה להודיעם כי אפילו בע"ז יכפר על השוגגים אבל העושים ביד רמה יכרית אותם וכבר פירשתי

According to the Ramban, our passage contains the root principle which enabled the people to escape annihilation following the spies debacle. There, the individual leaders (i.e. ten of the twelve spies) who caused the mutiny were killed, whilst the wider congregation was forgiven. In that episode the congregation's behaviour was not 'inadvertent' in the conventional sense, yet the Ramban presents it as an application of the principle of our passage (and perhaps even establishes the paradigm).[14]

Reading our passage in light of the spies episode seems to corroborate the Ramban's explanation (as understood above).[15] The fallout following the spies' report was a perfect example of the social contagion which we have suggested justifies the labelling of the transgressors as inadvertent. The spies came back with a negative report and overnight triggered a pandemic of fear which triggered the mutiny.

Furthermore, the premise of our passage is that there is a rejection of all the Mitzvot which, in the context of the spies episode, is expressed through the refusal to enter the land and desire to return to Egypt. This dovetails well with the Ramban's position (Lev. 18:25) that the full significance of the Mitzvot can only be realised inside the land. But even if one demurs whether this is valid on an individual level, it is difficult to dispute its validity on a communal-national level.

The link between the two passages is also borne out by the corresponding language expressing forgiveness:

וְנִסְלַח לְכָל־עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלַגֵּר הַגָּר בְּתוֹכָם כִּי לְכָל־הָעָם בִּשְׁגָגָה׃ (ויקרא ד':יג-יד)

סְלַח־נָא לַעֲוֺן הָעָם הַזֶּה כְּגֹדֶל חַסְדֶּךָ וְכַאֲשֶׁר נָשָׂאתָה לָעָם הַזֶּה מִמִּצְרַיִם וְעַד־הֵנָּה׃ וַיֹּאמֶר ה' סָלַחְתִּי כִּדְבָרֶךָ׃ (במדבר י"ד:יט-כ)

It is noteworthy that as part of the Yom Kippur prayers these two verses are juxtaposed but placed in inverse order. This suggests an acknowledgement by the compilers of the prayers that the later verse provides the underlying rationale for forgiveness in the earlier verse.[16]

Another compelling point which emerges from the Ramban's explanation (but not explicitly mentioned) is the way it resolves a subtle but critical difference in the text of our passage and the Vayikra passage:

 וְאִם כָּל־עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁגּוּ וְנֶעְלַם דָּבָר מֵעֵינֵי הַקָּהָל... (ויקרא ד':יג)

וְהָיָה אִם מֵעֵינֵי הָעֵדָה נֶעֶשְׂתָה לִשְׁגָגָה... (במדבר ט"ו:כב)

As already mentioned, according to the traditional reading, there is no difference in terms of the process leading to the transgression. Both verses speak of an errant legal ruling. However, the key word ne’elam of the first passage is 'missing' in our verse. This alone suggests the subject matter of our verse is not a legal omission. A more precise reading suggests that the violation in our passage was actually instigated by the leaders rather than enabled by their ignorance of the law.

This once again matches the narrative of the spies in which the leaders (the spies were tribal leaders, see Num 13:3) directly caused the mass mutiny. Their influential positions make them directly responsible for the impact of their actions, whereas the followers - the congregation - receive mitigation.

Relationship with the tzitzit passage

The reference to the leaders as the 'eyes of the congregation' is also notable for its touchpoint with the spies who led people astray based on what their 'eyes' saw:

וּרְאִיתֶם אֶת־הָאָרֶץ מַה־הִוא וְאֶת־הָעָם הַיֹּשֵׁב עָלֶיהָ הֶחָזָק הוּא הֲרָפֶה הַמְעַט הוּא אִם־רָב... וַיַּעֲלוּ וַיָּתֻרוּ אֶת־הָאָרֶץ... וְשָׁם רָאִינוּ אֶת־הַנְּפִילִים בְּנֵי עֲנָק מִן־הַנְּפִלִים וַנְּהִי בְעֵינֵינוּ כַּחֲגָבִים וְכֵן הָיִינוּ בְּעֵינֵיהֶם׃ (במדבר י"ג)

This reference is particularly significant as it connects with the directive at the end of the Parashah (within the tzitzit passage) that one should not be led astray by one's eyes.

וְהָיָה לָכֶם לְצִיצִת וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם אֶת־כָּל־מִצְוֺת ה' וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם וְלֹא־תָתֻרוּ אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר־אַתֶּם זֹנִים אַחֲרֵיהֶם׃ (במדבר ט"ו:לט)

 Much has been written on the connection between the tzitzit passage and the episode of the spies,[17] but less so on the interaction between the tzitzit passage and our passage dealing with the inadvertent communal transgression. Aside from the role of the eyes in both passages, both contain a reference to the 'performance' – or lack thereof - of 'all the mitzvot'. In the entire Torah there is only one other such reference (as part of the Tochakha - Lev. 26:14) with one further reference in the rest of Tanakh (1 Chron. 28:8). In our passage, an offering is brought for the collective straying after the 'eyes of the congregation', whereas in the tzitzit passage the warning is not to stray after one's eyes.

Whilst our passage provides mitigation for the herd-like behaviour of the community (as evidenced in the episode of the spies), this should not be confused with acceptance. The very cause for mitigation highlights the power and potential corruption of social influences. This is where the Mitzvah of tzitzit comes in. The Mitzvah of tzitzit seeks to empower individuals to develop moral fortitude and courage to withstand external pressures. The details of how this is specifically achieved by the tzitzit is beyond the scope of this discussion. For our purposes, we will simply note that the tzitzit serves as a constant presence on the garments of the person which is an expression of a person's identity. The purple-blue of the tekhelet in particular was associated with royalty reminding the wearer of their lofty status as a member of the 'kingdom of priests'. Most dramatically, the tzitzit recalls the tzitz – the most holy of the exclusive garments worn by the Kohen Gadol.[18]

Through the continuous reminder provided by the tzitzit of the individual's noble standing before God, everyone is enjoined to exercise their personal autonomy and not blindly follow the 'eyes' of the leaders and the always-fickle zeitgeist.[19]

Why a he-goat?

Perhaps this also explains the particular form of the offering in our passage which differs from the bull offering of the Vayikra passage. The animal used as a 'sin' offering in our passage is a he-goat which in Hebrew is a seir-izzim. The word עז means bold which characterises the behaviour of a goat. Goats have a curious and bold nature (especially adult male goats) exemplified by their tendency to climb and explore. This is marked contrast to a sheep, who tend to be more timid and flock-oriented.

This difference in behavior makes goats natural leaders in a mixed herd. I found this out for myself when I participated in a corporate event at Ne'ot Kedumim where one of the tasks required us to move a mixture of sheep and goats from location A to B. The key to the successful completion of the task, we soon realised, was to attract the goats and then the sheep would follow.

The Talmud also utilises the goat-leader metaphor in noting that when God is angry at the herd, he blinds the goats:

מַאי מַשְׁכּוּכִית?...רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: עִיזָּא דְּאָזְלָא בְּרֵישׁ עֶדְרָא – כְּדִדְרַשׁ הַהוּא גָּלִילָאָה עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא: כַּד רָגֵיז רָעֲיָא עַל עָנָא, עָבֵיד לְנַגָּדָא סַמְוָתָא. (בבלי בבא קמא נב.)

 The appropriate offering in our passage is therefore the se’ir izzim. But here too there may be yet another allusion to the failure of the spies whose objection to entering the land boiled down to the words:

אֶפֶס כִּי־עַז הָעָם (במדבר י"ג:כח)

In this dramatic turn in their speech, the spies identified the very attribute they themselves were lacking. Physical and spiritual life in the land necessitates courage and fortitude. The nation will be ready to enter only once the likes of Pinchas emerge from the new generation – someone who can boldly stand up to evil and moral decay even whilst the actual leaders are immobilised.

---

[1] Although 'sin' offering is not the correct translation of Chatat (which has a wider meaning), I have used it here specifically to describe the scenarios where the Chatat is brought as a result of a sin.

[2] Traditionally this is understood to specifically refer to the Sanhedrin who were the ultimate legal authority. I will assume in this article the term refers to leadership in a broader sense. Interestingly, the proofs from the Midrash Halakha (and most of the classic commentators) focus on the opening part of the verse - kol adat yisra'el – which is interpreted as a strand of leadership (i.e. the Sanhedrin) rather than the community at large. See commentary of R' David Zvi Hoffman for an attempted defence of this interpretation. To me it seems that the main support for equating eyes with leadership comes from the Chovav passage as discussed above. For reasons discussed later, the wider context also suggests that the question of leadership is central to our passage.

[3] Regarding the Vayikra passage, Shadal notes:

כל עדת ישראל: כמשמעו, כל הקהל; וזה אמנם לא יהיה רק בשגגת המנהיגים והשופטים, אבל הכתוב לא הזכיר הסנהדרין ולא הזכיר כלל הוראת ב"ד, ולפי הפשט אחד הוא שתהיה השגגה בעבור הוראת ב"ד, או הוראת הכהן הגדול או המלך, או שתהיה ללא מורֶה.

Regarding the Bamidbar passage, the NJPS translates as follows: 'if this was done unwittingly, through the inadvertence of the community'. In doing so, they have effectively ignored the word me-einei.

[4] Rashi and Ramban seem to differ as to the main motivation for Chazal's interpolation of idolatry into the passage.

[5] The Talmud (TB Horiyot 8a) transfers laws from one passage to the other by utilising a gezerah shavah based on the common denominator of me-einei.

[6] Interestingly the Rambam groups three out of the four Chatat categories of the Vayikra passage as one Mitzvah (#69) and only counts the case of the par he'elem davar separately. However, the process for offering the Chatat (as distinct from the requirement to bring one) is counted as one Mitzvah for all the variations (see #64).

[7] Characteristically, the Ramban does not consider his peshat explanation and that of the Midrash Halakha to be mutually exclusive.

[8] Link to article here

[9] R' Bin Nun applies this category to non-religious Jews of our time which he argues is more accurate and preferable (emotionally and halakhically) to the frequently applied tinok she-nishba (which the Ramban also references here).

[10] The Netziv, without diverging from Chazal's interpretation, similarly noted the herd mentality as the central motif of our passage:

ונסלח לכל עדת בני ישראל וגו׳ כי לכל העם בשגגה. שאינו דומה יחיד העובד ע״ז דאז ודאי יש לחקור אם היה בשוגג ומתכפר בקרבן או במזיד. משא״כ כל העם השאטים אחרי מנהליהם מסתמא רוב העם בשגגה. דגופא בתר רישא אזיל. והכל הולך אחר הרוב ורובו ככולו. וזהו שמסיים הכתוב כי לכל העם בשגגה. זהו פשט המקרא. והדרשה בספרי ע״ז תדרש: (העמק דבר, ט:ו:כו)

[11] The Rambam references the brazen sinner (one who acts be'yad ramah) in a number of places but always in the context of an individual.

[12] See R' Michael Abraham's critique here. See response by R' Bin Nun here.   

[13] See the notes of R' Chavel on the Ramban citing the "Dvirei Sha'ul" of R' Yosef Sha'ul Nathansohn (1808–1875) who makes this argument. If this were correct, it would place the Ramban at odds with the Rambam's apparent view that "nebech apikorus is oich an apikorus".

[14] Another point to note is that when the Ramban refers to the historical precedents, he doesn't bother to determine the particular weltanschauung which led to the people abandoning the Torah.

[15] Even if we have read too much into the Ramban, I would like to submit this as peshat of our passage.

[16] We can perhaps explain another seeming anomaly. For some reason the instruction in our passage is embedded in the same speech as the law of Challah. The law of Challah is clearly located here since it relates to the entry into the land. This perhaps hints that the question of entry into the land also forms the backdrop to our passage.

[17] See Jacob Milgrom, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990) pp. 410-414. 

[18] Engraved on the tzitz of the Kohen Gadol were the words 'kodesh la-shem' which with the function of the tzitzit: 've-he-yitem kedoshim l'elokeikhem'. Both garments also had a tekhelet cord attached. Another commonality with the priesthood in general is that both the garments of the priests and the tzitzit contain, or may contain, an otherwise prohibited combination of wool and linen. In the case of the priestly garments this is explicit, in the case of tzitzit it is implicit (see TB Menachot 39b).

[19] There is of course a danger that this mindset may lead to anarchy. It is not coincidental that the very next section in the Torah presents the episode of Korach who argued against the leadership and priestly hierarchy on the basis that 'all the congregation is holy', a proposition which certainly resonates with the tzitzit passage (see Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 4).

בהעלותך

The Lights of the Menorah

The instruction relating to the Menorah at the beginning of the Parashah raises some difficult questions:

דַּבֵּר אֶל־אַהֲרֹן וְאָמַרְתָּ אֵלָיו בְּהַעֲלֹתְךָ אֶת־הַנֵּרֹת אֶל־מוּל פְּנֵי הַמְּנוֹרָה יָאִירוּ שִׁבְעַת הַנֵּרוֹת׃ (במדבר ח':ב)

First, the requirement to light the Menorah was already laid out on two previous occasions (Ex. 27:20-21, Lev 24:2-4), in addition to the reference as part of the construction directives (Ex. 25:37).[1] Why does it appear again here at the dramatic conclusion to the inauguration ceremony of the Mishkan?[2] What, if anything, does the verse impart that we were not already aware of?

Second, the verse expresses a command to be relayed to Aharon yet contains no direct instruction. The word be-ha'alotekha sets the timeframe for the command (i.e. when you light the lamps), but the subject of the verb ya-iru are the lamps.[3] It is unclear, even implicitly, what additional action is required of Aharon in this verse beyond the lighting itself. Lamps by definition provide illumination and the kindling requirement is already assumed in the word be-ha'alotekha.

The only words which may assist in identifying the requirement are 'el mul penei ha-menorah'. But what does this phrase mean?

Rashi informs us that the three wicks on either side had to be bent towards the middle.[4] This well-known explanation is difficult to accept as the straightforward meaning. If the point was that the lights on either side should face the middle, then the verse should have referred to the six lamps, not the seven lamps. Furthermore, since the flame obviously burnt upwards regardless, the visual effect and significance of this gesture seems limited. Finally, as we shall see, this technical point was already referenced (according to Rashi) within the construction directives. It certainly does not explain the strategic placement at the conclusion to the inauguration of the Mishkan.

Some of the other classic commentators understood that the command was to direct the lights across the frontside of the Menorah i.e. towards the Shulchan, which indeed seems to be a smoother translation.[5] This is also the way most modern scholars understand the implied requirement. However, we still remain with several challenges. Does moving the wick a few millimeters really make a difference to the extent of illumination on the Shulchan, given that light emitted from a flame naturally scatters in all directions? We are also left with the problem that the subject of the verb ya-iru is the lamps, and not Aharon. Most importantly, we still need to understand why this requirement appears in this dramatic location, distinct from the other passages relating to the Menorah.

Our last question can be broadened. Why were certain elements of the inauguration of the Mishkan only reported in the book of Bamidbar, separated from the main events (including the special eighth day ceremony) as reported in the book of Vayikra? These deferred components include: Birkat Kohanim, the gifts and offerings of the tribal leaders, and the description of Moshe entering the Kodesh HaKodashim to hear the voice of God emanating from between the Keruvim.

The problem gets worse as Sefer Bamidbar commences on the first day of the second month in the second year whereas the inauguration ended in the first month.[6] The Torah thus moves back in time to return to the inauguration ceremony, meaning this is not simply a point of chronology. Furthermore, Birkat Kohanim was briefly alluded to in Sefer Vayikra, but only in Sefer Bamidbar do we hear the full content of the blessing.

Vayikra and Bamidbar – between Tamid and Mussaf

To address these questions we need to consider the key differences between the books of Vayikra and Bamidbar. In broad strokes, we can say that Sefer Vayikra deals with the fundamental frameworks of the Mishkan and holiness of the nation, whereas Sefer Bamidbar tells the story of a dynamic and non-linear relationship between God and the people. Put differently, Sefer Bamidbar deals with the extraordinary and spontaneous, as opposed to the regular and ordinary.

I will note a few clear examples to illustrate the point. The selection of laws which appear before Birkat Kohanim include the following: a) eviction of contaminated people from the camp; b) special restitution for theft from a convert; c) case of suspected adultery; and d) a person who takes upon himself a Nazirite vow. It is easy to see how these relate to the realm of the exceptional rather than the routine. Following Birkat Kohanim, the tribal leaders spontaneously decide to bring gifts and offerings to participate in the inauguration. Later in our Parashah, Moshe is instructed to make the Chatzotrot (trumpets) whose sole purpose is to announce extraordinary events. The fire and the cloud above the Ohel Mo'ed are cast not as static symbols of God's presence, but actively guide the people in their journey. The laws of Pesach Sheni provide a special dispensation for people who are impure and therefore unable to bring the Pesach at its regular time. The Levi'im are installed to manage the dangers of uncurbed spontaneity. At the tail end of the book, we are provided with the details of the Mussafim which are the special additional offerings on festive days and stand in contrast to the Tamid (daily continual offering).[7] This is followed by the exceptional ability of a father or husband to annul vows in certain situations. The daughters of Tzelofchad boldly challenge Moshe leading to a new inheritance law to cater for their predicament. The actions of Pinchas are of course entirely outside the normative realm. The conquests of the sons of Menashe are undertaken through their own initiative.[8]

There are other examples and some which require more thought, but this should be sufficient for our purposes. The key distinction is also borne out by the very fact that Bamidbar is a narrative at its core with legal portions woven in. Narratives have motion built-in, and typically relate the extraordinary. With Vayikra the reverse is true. It comprises of a well-structured body of law with a few scattered narratives.

Based on the above, we can suggest that the aspects of the inauguration deferred to Bamidbar pertain to this theme. The content of Birkat Kohanim assumes God's immanence in the daily life of the nation. As already mentioned, the offerings and gifts of the princes were spontaneously brought and not an integral part of the planned proceedings.[9]

A similar point may be made about Moshe's entry into the Kodesh HaKodashim. The verse states three times that God spoke to him; however, we are not privy to the words spoken:

וּבְבֹא מֹשֶׁה אֶל־אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לְדַבֵּר אִתּוֹ וַיִּשְׁמַע אֶת־הַקּוֹל מִדַּבֵּר אֵלָיו מֵעַל הַכַּפֹּרֶת אֲשֶׁר עַל־אֲרֹן הָעֵדֻת מִבֵּין שְׁנֵי הַכְּרֻבִים וַיְדַבֵּר אֵלָיו׃ (במדבר ז':פט)

Clearly the content of the speech is less important than the very fact of the speech itself. I am reminded of the story told about the Rebbe who was giving a shiur. The Rebbe began reading: "And the Lord spoke to Moshe (Moses) saying..." However, before he could continue, one of his Chassidim became overwhelmed with emotion and turned pale. Over and over he mutters with shock and amazement: "The Lord spoke... to Moshe...".

In the above verse, the fact of the speech of God really is the drama. When Adam originally "heard the voice" of God in the Garden of Eden, his reaction was to hide (Gen. 3:10). Adam was exiled from Eden and the Keruvim were stationed outside to guard the way to the tree of knowledge. With the Mishkan inaugurated, Moshe now enters in the Holy of Holies (=Eden 2.0) to hear the voice of God emanate from the sacred space protected by the two Keruvim, but this time without a need to hide.[10]

Both the books of Vayikra and Bamidar speak of the entry to the Kodesh Hakodashim. In Sefer Vayikra, the Kohen Gadol enters under the cover of the Ketoret cloud at a set time - once a year - on Yom Kippur. The entry also has a defined purpose - atonement and purification. In Sefer Bamidbar, however, Moshe seemingly enters of his own volition (or perhaps when summoned), to receive a new communication from God.

'Let there be light'

With this background, we can now return to the verse of the Menorah.[11] The original instructions for the construction of the Menorah reference two related functions of the Menorah:

וְעָשִׂיתָ אֶת־נֵרֹתֶיהָ שִׁבְעָה וְהֶעֱלָה אֶת־נֵרֹתֶיהָ וְהֵאִיר עַל־עֵבֶר פָּנֶיהָ׃ (שמות כ"ה:לז)

Once again, it is not clear what the difference is between האיר and העלה and what the latter adds to the former.[12] It is notable, however, that the verb form עלה is adopted in the passages dealing with the Menorah in the books of Shemot and Vayikra, whilst the verb האיר is entirely absent:

צַו אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ שֶׁמֶן זַיִת זָךְ כָּתִית לַמָּאוֹר לְהַעֲלֹת נֵר תָּמִיד׃ מִחוּץ לְפָרֹכֶת הָעֵדֻת בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד יַעֲרֹךְ אֹתוֹ אַהֲרֹן מֵעֶרֶב עַד־בֹּקֶר לִפְנֵי ה' תָּמִיד חֻקַּת עוֹלָם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם׃ עַל הַמְּנֹרָה הַטְּהֹרָה יַעֲרֹךְ אֶת־הַנֵּרוֹת לִפְנֵי ה' תָּמִיד׃ (ויקרא כ"ד:ב-ד)

In our verse, the reverse is true. The verb form used to express the required action is האיר, whilst the verb form העלה is used in the infinitive form – be-ha'alotekha - only to express the point in time when the event is to occur.

From the perspective of the book of Vayikra, the lighting of the Menorah is a continual symbol of the divine presence in the Mishkan as expressed in the phrase 'lifnei ha-shem tamid'.[13] This may explain why the Vayikra passage refers to the lamps of the Menorah in the singular notwithstanding that there were seven separate branches each with their own lamp. From the Vayikra perspective, the unity and continuity of the flames is the goal and not the abundance of light derived from it.[14] The lighting of the Menorah is a fixed feature of the Mishkan which, like other core services carried out in the Mishkan (Ketoret, Korban Tamid, Lechem HaPanim), places a strong emphasis on regularity and consistency. As Sefer Vayikra deals with the framework and structure, the daily lighting of the Menorah and the continuous burning of the lamps, sits well within that context.

Sefer Bamidbar, in contrast, embraces change, initiative and creativity. In Sefer Bamidbar, the Torah therefore highlights the capacity of the Menorah to provide light. Light in its essence reveals and enables a new perspective. Before any other creation, God had to create light.

The Menorah of our passage omits the 'Tamid' element of the Menorah which represents stability and consistency. It does not even reference the time when the Menorah is lit. Read in isolation with the preceding passage discussing Moshe's ad-hoc entry to the Kodesh HaKodashim, the word be-ha'alotekha gives the impression that Aharon lights the Menorah as and when he sees fit. Even if this is not what happens in practice, the lack of timeframe and reference to regularity imbues the verse with this sense of spontaneity.[15]

More than the verse intends to provide a new instruction, it highlights a new function of the Menorah (i.e. the quality of illumination).[16] This explains why the subject of the verb in our verse are the lamps, rather than Aharon. It also explains why our passage references all seven lights as this emphasises the greater capacity for illumination. This element was absent from the prior passages which dealt with the Menorah which viewed the flame as a symbol of consistency of the divine presence and therefore referenced the lamps in the singular.

The prior passage relating Moshe's entry into the Kodesh HaKodashim described God's voice piercing the veil of nature, and now our passage presents God's light dispelling the darkness.[17] The Mishkan as a microcosm of creation is well-known and perhaps it is not coincidental that the voice of God and the creation of light which follows the inauguration of the Mishkan, are also the first steps in the Genesis creation story. Like God's speech emanating from the Kaporet, the light of the Menorah reflects God's active interaction and intervention in human affairs.

כִּי־אַתָּה תָּאִיר נֵרִי, ה' אֱלֹקַי יַגִּיהַּ חָשְׁכִּי׃ (תהילים י"ח:כט)

 

                                                         

---

[1] There is a further reference when Aharon is reported to light the Menorah after the Mishkan was finally set up (see Ex. 40:25)

[2] The Menorah as the climax of the inauguration is reinforced by the centrality of the Menorah in the Chanukah story and the associated Torah reading which covers the inaugural offerings of the tribal leaders, concluding on the eight day with the lighting of the Menorah.

[3] According to the Rambam (Hilkhot Bi'at HaMikdash, 9:7) a non-Kohen could light the Menorah. The basis for this view is TB Yoma 24b which states that the lighting was not an avodah. According to R' Chaim Soloveitchik (and various other Acharonim) the Rambam understood there was no Mitzvah to actively light the Menorah, only to ensure it was lit. The view may be connected with the fact that the Kohen is not the immediate subject of the verb (ya-iru) in the verse, as explained above.

[4] Rashi points to additional laws derived from the use of the word be-ha'alotekha to refer to the lighting

[5] See Rashbam, Bechor Shor, Shadal. NJPS translates: "let the seven lights lamps give light at the front of the lampstand". Regarding the word mul, Prof. Yoel Elitzur argues that it means 'adjacent', not 'opposite' as commonly translated and the meaning in modern Hebrew (Elitzur, "מול: 'Near, Below, On the Same Side As.'" Leshoneinu 67 (2005): 7-20 [Hebrew])

[6] Either ending on Rosh Chodesh Nissan (Rashi, Ramban) or 8 Nissan (Ibn Ezra)

[7] The Mo'adim themselves appear in Vayikra to outline the essential character of the days and establish them as Mikra'ei Kodesh. The Tamid referenced in Pinchas is set as the backdrop to the Mussafim and, in any event, requires explanation as it appears in two prior passages (Ex. 29:38-42, Lev. 6:2).

[8] We might add that the one spontaneous act in Vayikra of Nadav and Avihu ends in tragedy.

[9] A common suggestion is that the book of Bamidbar focuses on the Israelite interaction with the Mishkan whilst Vayikra focuses on the Kohanim. But this doesn't quite follow through. One of the difficulties is the lighting of the Menorah is in Bamidbar, yet it is performed by Aharon (however see note 2). Additionally, Parashat Vayikra itself does not deal with the Kohanim, but on the Israelite bringing the Korban. There is a general correlation, however, which I think derives from the fact that the Kohanim are symbols of law and structure.

"The priestly mind sees the universe in terms of distinctions, boundaries and domains, in which each object or act has its proper place and they must not be mixed. The Kohen's task is to maintain boundaries and respect limits. For the Kohen, goodness equals order." (R' Sacks, introduction to the Yom Kippur Machzor).

[10] The connection with the story of Eden continues in our Parashah as the episode of the 'grumblers' (Num. 11:1) who complained about the Manna contains allusions to the 'original sin'.  

[11] As discussed here the Menorah structurally parallels the Kaporet, which also helps to explain their juxtaposition here.

[12] Rashi and Rashbam interpret the phrase consistently with their respective explanations of the phrase 'el mul penei ha-menorah'. According to Rashi, the verse means the lights should face inwards towards the central stem, whilst according to Rashbam the meaning is the lights should point forwards towards the Shulchan.

[13] In the language of Chazal (TB Menachot 86b):

'מחוץ לפרכת העדות באהל מועד' עדות הוא לכל באי עולם שהשכינה שורה בישראל ואם תאמר לאורה אני צריך והלא כל ארבעים שנה שהלכו ישראל במדבר לא הלכו אלא לאורו אלא עדות הוא לכל באי עולם שהשכינה שורה בישראל מאי עדותה אמר רבא זה נר מערבי שנותנין בה שמן כנגד חברותיה וממנה היה מדליק ובה היה מסיים

[14] According to some, the ner ma'aravi (see previous note) burnt continuously by way of miracle. The Rambam himself does not reference anything miraculous about the ner maaravi (the centre lamp in his view). According to some interpreters of the Rambam, however, all the lights were meant to burn continuously and relit whenever they went out. Other Rishonim argue altogether that the command is only to light the Menorah at night.

[15] See note 14.

[16] Interestingly if we return to Adam's reaction upon hearing God's voice, Adam defends himself saying that he hid because he was ashamed of his nakedness. In response God makes for them כתנות עור. The Midrash, however, presents an alternative 'version' which can be tied into the discussion:

וַיַּעַשׂ ה' אֱלֹהִים לְאָדָם וּלְאִשְׁתּוֹ כָּתְנוֹת עוֹר וַיַּלְבִּשֵּׁם (בראשית ג, כא), בְּתוֹרָתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי מֵאִיר מָצְאוּ כָּתוּב כָּתְנוֹת אוֹר (בראשית רבה, כ':יב)

[17] The light of the Menorah described in our passage may be seen as a tangible representation of the priestly blessing – יאר ה' פניו אליך

שבועות

The Mass Ascent of Mt Sinai

During the preparations for Matan Torah, the people are cautioned not to ascend the mountain. Alongside the ominous warnings, Moshe is informed that at a certain stage they may (or should) ascend:

לֹא־תִגַּע בּוֹ יָד כִּי־סָקוֹל יִסָּקֵל אוֹ־יָרֹה יִיָּרֶה אִם־בְּהֵמָה אִם־אִישׁ לֹא יִחְיֶה בִּמְשֹׁךְ הַיֹּבֵל הֵמָּה יַעֲלוּ בָהָר (שמות י"ג:יט)

Rashi interprets this to mean that a Shofar (Yovel) sound will declare the departure of the divine presence, hence enabling them to ascend:

כְּשֶׁיִּמְשֹׁךְ הַיּוֹבֵל קוֹל אָרֹךְ, הוּא סִימָן סִלּוּק שְׁכִינָה וְהַפְסָקַת הַקּוֹל, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁאֶסְתַּלֵּק, הֵם רַשָּׁאִין לַעֲלוֹת

But this interpretation encounters a number of difficulties. The first problem is that we do not read of such a Shofar as the events unfold. If the plan dictates that a Shofar sound announces the departure of the divine presence, we may expect a reference to appear within the recorded events.[1]

We do of course hear of a prominent Shofar during the events of Matan Torah, but it is the exact opposite of the one Rashi tells us about. The Shofar we read about heralds the arrival of the divine presence and not its departure:

וְקֹל שֹׁפָר חָזָק מְאֹד וַיֶּחֱרַד כָּל־הָעָם אֲשֶׁר בַּמַּחֲנֶה... וַיְהִי קוֹל הַשּׁוֹפָר הוֹלֵךְ וְחָזֵק מְאֹד מֹשֶׁה יְדַבֵּר וְהָאֱלֹוקים יַעֲנֶנּוּ בְקוֹל (ט"ז:יט)

 The function of the Shofar as signaling the climax of the revelation of the divine presence (rather than the end) is consistent with other references to the Shofar: 

עָלָה אֱלֹהִים בִּתְרוּעָה ה' בְּקוֹל שׁוֹפָר (תהילים מ"ז:ו)

וְהָיָה בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא יִתָּקַע בְּשׁוֹפָר גָּדוֹל וּבָאוּ הָאֹבְדִים בְּאֶרֶץ אַשּׁוּר וְהַנִּדָּחִים בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם וְהִשְׁתַּחֲווּ לַה' בְּהַר הַקֹּדֶשׁ בִּירוּשָׁלִָם (ישעיהו כ"ז:יג)

Presumably due to this problem, Rashbam understands that the Shofar referred to in our verse is, in fact, identical with the Shofar we subsequently read about. According to the Rashbam, the word bimshoch in this context refers to the cessation of the sound. The meaning is that when the Shofar sound subsides, the revelation has concluded and therefore it is permissible to ascend.

This interpretation, however, is contradicted by a parallel verse in Sefer Yehoshua which clearly demonstrates that these words, taken together, refer to the actual sounding of the Shofar and not its cessation:

וְהָיָה בִּמְשֹׁךְ בְּקֶרֶן הַיּוֹבֵל בשמעכם [כְּשָׁמְעֲכֶם] אֶת־קוֹל הַשּׁוֹפָר יָרִיעוּ כָל־הָעָם תְּרוּעָה גְדוֹלָה וְנָפְלָה חוֹמַת הָעִיר תַּחְתֶּיהָ וְעָלוּ הָעָם אִישׁ נֶגְדּוֹ׃ (יהושע ו':ה)

When the Israelites surrounded the city of Yericho, they were instructed to charge towards the city at the sound of the Shofar. There are a number wider parallels between the capture of Yericho and Matan Torah beyond this specific phrase which we will return shortly.  For our immediate purposes, the context makes it clear that the phrase – bimshoch ha-yovel - refers to the sound of the Shofar (either its commencement or its elongation) as Rashi suggested, and not its termination per Rashbam. The phrase is basically identical to the phrase in our verse making it untenable to interpret them differently.

This leads us to a more profound problem affecting either interpretation. The idea of ascending Mt. Sinai once the divine presence has already departed, seems to lack significance. It seems strange to inform the people that they are permitted to ascend once there is nothing to see and the party is all over. More importantly, ascending a mountain in Tanakh has the connotation of a purposeful spiritual ascent, as in the verse:

מִי־יַעֲלֶה בְהַר־ה' וּמִי־יָקוּם בִּמְקוֹם קָדְשׁוֹ (תהילים כ"ד:ג)

The critical point is that our verse seems to contain an invitation for the people to participate in the spiritual union at the summit, and not just for a leisurely hike when all is over. The sense is that there will come a later stage, heralded by the Shofar, when everyone is called upon, to 'ascend the mountain' to personally encounter the divine presence.

Ascending at peak time

As mentioned above, Matan Torah shares a number of wider parallels with the conquest of Yericho, in addition to the role of the Shofar already discussed. Both events are prefaced with a personal revelation involving an angel whereby the leader (Moshe/Yehoshua) is instructed to remove his shoes. Both events are associated with counts of seven (post-facto in the case of Matan Torah in the form of sefirat ha-omer). Both prominently feature a separation barrier, a leading position for the priests, and the centrality of the ark/tablets. The miraculous nature of the conquest may also be seen as a function of divine revelation comparable in concept to Sinai.

Based on these parallels, Jonathan Grossman argues that we are to understand the plan at Mt. Sinai at face value.[2] When the Shofar would sound as indeed it did - during the revelation itself, not once it had concluded - the people were meant to ascend and join Moshe at the summit. This would model what happened at Yericho whereby the Shofar sounded at the climax, the walls collapsed, and the people ascended (ve-alu ish ke-negdo).

Why did this not happen in practice? The Torah itself provides the reason - because the people were too fearful:

וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה דַּבֵּר־אַתָּה עִמָּנוּ וְנִשְׁמָעָה וְאַל־יְדַבֵּר עִמָּנוּ אֱלֹקים פֶּן־נָמוּת׃ (שמות כ':טז)

This emerges even more explicitly from the review of the events in Sefer Devarim:

אָנֹכִי עֹמֵד בֵּין־ה' וּבֵינֵיכֶם בָּעֵת הַהִוא לְהַגִּיד לָכֶם אֶת־דְּבַר ה' כִּי יְרֵאתֶם מִפְּנֵי הָאֵשׁ וְלֹא־עֲלִיתֶם בָּהָר לֵאמֹר׃ (דברים ה':ה)

According to this verse the sole reason they did not ascend was that they were overawed by the divine presence manifest through the fire.

As enticing and simple as this proposal sounds, there seems to be good reason that it was not proposed by the classical commentators. Firstly, there is a technical issue that the prohibition against ascending is referred to again after the Shofar sounds (see v. 21-24). The straightforward reading suggests the same restriction remained in place even after the Shofar.

Furthermore, if there was really a dramatic point at which they were supposed to ascend, one would expect this to be far better defined. The five-word instruction seems far too concise and vague to counter the forcefulness of the restriction. Too many questions remain open, some more difficult than others. How were they supposed to physically overcome the barrier? Were they all simply meant to rush to the top? How could the summit of the mountain contain them all? What were they supposed to actually do once they reached the top?

In the case of Yericho the plan is clearly set out – the walls are to come crashing down enabling them to enter and fight. But at Mt Sinai, according to this reading, all is left to the imagination.[3] The idea of a mass of people chaotically rushing up a mountain, lacks the order and structure we are familiar with when it comes to divine service (at least as far as concerns the Torah).[4]

Transposing Mt. Sinai into the Land of Israel

Understanding the deeper meaning of the verse perhaps requires an abstraction of the mountain reference. As mentioned before, 'ascending the mountain' in biblical language correlates with spiritual ascent more generally, which loosens its attachment to the specific reality in front of us. For example, in the verse referred to earlier (mi ya'aleh vehar hashem), it is unclear that 'ascending the mountain' refers to a geographical movement altogether. I do not mean to allegorise the ascent altogether but to locate it elsewhere.

Within the Torah, there is only one other prominent reference to a mass ascent of a mountain and that is the entry to the Land of Israel. When Moshe instructs the spies, he tells them to 'ascend the mountain':[5]

וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם עֲלוּ זֶה בַּנֶּגֶב וַעֲלִיתֶם אֶת־הָהָר (במדבר י"ג:יז)

The identity of the mountain in the verse is unclear and the reference seems somewhat odd as the approach from the south is not known as a mountainous region. Rashi, for example, simply assumes there was some mountain on route. Yet it seems the Torah deliberately wishes to describe the entry into the land in terms of ascending a mountain. When God instructs them to turn around to commence the 40 years of wondering in the wilderness, some of the people refuse and insist on 'ascending the mountain':

וַיַּעְפִּלוּ לַעֲלוֹת אֶל־רֹאשׁ הָהָר (במדבר י"ד:מד)

The determination of the group to ascend the mountain without God's consent may be seen as a continuation of the tension at Mt. Sinai, where God had to repeatedly warn against a forced ascent.[6]

The dialogue between Mt. Sinai and the Land of Israel is further supported by the description of the approach to the land in the historical review in Sefer Devarim:

ה' אֱלֹקינוּ דִּבֶּר אֵלֵינוּ בְּחֹרֵב לֵאמֹר רַב־לָכֶם שֶׁבֶת בָּהָר הַזֶּה: פְּנוּ וּסְעוּ לָכֶם וּבֹאוּ הַר הָאֱמֹרִי... (דברים א':ו)

The choice of words here is dramatic. God demands that they stop lingering at 'this mountain' – Mt. Sinai – in favour of a different mountain which is none other than the Land of Israel.[7] In light of this relationship between the two 'mountains', we might suggest that the mass ascent referenced at Mt. Sinai is realised in the entry into the land.

To support this approach, however, we need to locate the Yovel/Shofar associated with this event. Here we may return to the presentation of the conquest of Yericho which was the entry point to the land. As already mentioned, the episode contains numerous parallels to the Sinai experience, but most significant for our purposes is the call to ascend following the blast of the Shofar with the exact same expression used at Mt Sinai.   

If correct, the symbolic significance is that the Land of Israel represents an expansion of Mt. Sinai on the spiritual plane. The Torah's laws guide the people living throughout the length and breadth of land, on a private-individual as well as a national level. Thus, the Torah received on top of Mt Sinai infuses holiness to the entire nation and land.[8]

Yovel of Sinai and the Yovel laws

Perhaps the most significant corroboration within the Torah, of the nexus between the ascent of Mt. Sinai and ascent to the land, is the law of Yovel. Aside from the Yovel laws and the Yovel at Sinai, there is no other reference to 'Yovel' in the Torah.

The location of the Yovel laws is highly significant. The beginning of Parashat Behar notably geolocates us at the summit of Mt. Sinai. As we now approach the conclusion of the covenant with the blessing and curses, we may indeed expect to hear the Yovel (=Shofar) to enable their ascent of the mountain.

Instead, we are presented with the Shofar announcing the advent of the Yovel year. [9] The Yovel year comprises of two central tenets - emancipation of Jewish slaves and the return of the land to its original owners in accordance with the initial allocations. These laws are themselves premised on God's ownership of the Land of Israel and his acquisition of the Israelites as the Chosen People.

כִּי־לִי בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל עֲבָדִים עֲבָדַי הֵם אֲשֶׁר־הוֹצֵאתִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲנִי ה' אֱלֹקיכֶם (ויקרא כ"ה:נה)

וְהָאָרֶץ לֹא תִמָּכֵר לִצְמִתֻת כִּי־לִי הָאָרֶץ כִּי־גֵרִים וְתוֹשָׁבִים אַתֶּם עִמָּדִי (ויקרא כ"ה:כג)

Both of these points were strongly emphasised in the prelude to the Sinai covenant:[10]

וְעַתָּה אִם־שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ בְּקֹלִי וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת־בְּרִיתִי וִהְיִיתֶם לִי סְגֻלָּה מִכׇּל־הָעַמִּים כִּי־לִי כׇּל־הָאָרֶץ׃ (שמות י"ט:ה)

It follows therefore, that the Yovel law, which recalls and renews the experience of the entry to the land and sanctity of the people, stands in for the Yovel of Sinai. The purpose of this transposition is to highlight that the Mt. Sinai covenant sets the blueprint for a holy existence in the land which embraces the entire nation. If all goes to plan, the divine presence which only Moshe was privy to encounter directly at the summit of Sinai, diffuses across the entire land and people. In other words, the settlement of the land on the basis of the Torah's value system, constitutes the fulfilment of the ascent of the mountain as instructed at Sinai.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Another potential issue emerges from the Talmud (TB Beitzah 5a) which considers the clause redundant on the assumption that it was self-evident that the restriction was contingent on the divine presence residing on the mountain.

One might counter that the temporary nature of the prohibition was indeed obvious; the function of the Shofar was primarily to signify the departure of the divine presence to determine the precise point of reversion. Perhaps this is implied in Rashi, but it should be noted that the Talmud takes a different direction and derives from here the law: כל דבר שבמניין צריך מניין אחר להתירו.

[2] See here

[3] One might suggest that God knew that no one would dare ascend in the midst of the revelation. The concern was that people would approach before the fireworks kicked-off and then it would be too late to retreat. The purpose of such a hypothetical instruction would be to convey the message that God invites everyone to approach, whereas distance is a result of human limitation. In any event, this doesn't address the technical issue.

[4] Chaotic crowds on a mountain trying to get close to a fire may conjure up images of Mt. Meron on Lag BaOmer. Depending on one's viewpoint that may or may not inspire.

[5] The Akeidah also refers to an ascent of a mountain (albeit not a mass ascent) and there are indeed many correspondences between the Akeidah and Matan Torah.

[6] The question of whether or not to 'ascend the mountain' seems to be a recurring theme in Jewish history. Some of the debates around religious Zionism centred on the Talmud's alleged injunction against ascending en masse to the land (TB Ketubot 111a) שלא יעלו ישראל בחומה. Incidentally, I wonder whether the use of word chomah is intended to recall the chomah of Yericho which they were prohibited from approaching until the 'appointed time' on the seventh day. (The controversies around ascending to Har HaBayit may also be added to the list.)  

[7] Another place we find such a phrase is with Korach who challenged the privileged position of Moshe under a cynical claim of equality. Korach argued that the entire congregation is holy (as God indeed declared at Mt. Sinai) and therefore challenged the uniqueness of Moshe and the Kohanim. In the terms of this article, in Korach's view everyone has a right to 'ascend the mountain' and this should not have been the exclusive remit of Moshe and the Kohanim.

[8] The expansion of holiness as described resonates with the structural form of Sefer Vayikra (an example of the principle of form follows function), discussed here.

[9] Ibn Ezra (Lev. 25:10) assumes this is the original meaning of Yovel (cf. Ramban). For more on the etymology of the word Yovel see here.

[10] Another connection between Yovel and Shavu'ot is that both are preceded by a 7x7 counting period. Interestingly, there are also a number of similarities between the presentation of Yom Kippur (on which the shofar of the Yovel was sounded) and Shavu'ot in Parashat Emor (e.g the phrase etzem ha-yom ha-zeh appears in both).