כי תשא

Two Stories of Faltering Hands – Amalek and the Golden Calf

The Torah readings of this week bring together two different episodes involving Moshe on top of a mountain. Parashat Ki Tissa relates Moshe’s presence on top of Mt Sinai as the people sin with the golden calf down below. On Purim we read about Moshe’s ascent of the mountain whilst Yehoshua leads the battle against Amalek. 

The outcome in both cases is of course very different. Yehoshua successfully defeats Amalek whereas the episode of the golden calf represents a colossal failure. Yet a close comparison of the two episodes demonstrates that the contrasts run far deeper.

1) In the battle of Amalek, Aaron and Chur ascend with Moshe whereas Yehoshua fights down below. When it comes to Mt Sinai, Yehoshua escorts Moshe to the mountain whilst Aaron and Chur stay in the camp (but fail to prevent the sin):

וְאֶל־הַזְּקֵנִים אָמַר שְׁבוּ־לָנוּ בָזֶה עַד אֲשֶׁר־נָשׁוּב אֲלֵיכֶם וְהִנֵּה אַהֲרֹן וְחוּר עִמָּכֶם מִי־בַעַל דְּבָרִים יִגַּשׁ אֲלֵהֶם׃ (שמות כ״ד:י״ד)[1] 

2) The theme of Moshe’s hands is central to both passages. In the battle with Amalek, though Moshe struggles to maintain his posture, Aaron and Chur succeed in holding his hands aloft. However, when Moshe sees the golden calf whilst standing alongside Yehoshua, his hands falter and he smashes the tablets. If we accept the view of the Rashbam that Moshe’s actions were not intentional, rather his hands weakened upon seeing the golden calf, the contrast is even starker. (Yehoshua’s helplessness here must also be considered alongside his complete misreading of the situation, a point we will shortly return to.)         

3) The description of the two tablets recalls the positioning of Aaron and Chur on either side of Moshe:

וַיִּפֶן וַיֵּרֶד מֹשֶׁה מִן־הָהָר וּשְׁנֵי לֻחֹת הָעֵדֻת בְּיָדוֹ לֻחֹת כְּתֻבִים מִשְּׁנֵי עֶבְרֵיהֶם מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה הֵם כְּתֻבִים׃ (שמות

ל״ב:ט״ו)

וִידֵי מֹשֶׁה כְּבֵדִים וַיִּקְחוּ־אֶבֶן וַיָּשִׂימוּ תַחְתָּיו וַיֵּשֶׁב עָלֶיהָ וְאַהֲרֹן וְחוּר תָּמְכוּ בְיָדָיו מִזֶּה אֶחָד וּמִזֶּה אֶחָד וַיְהִי יָדָיו אֱמוּנָה עַד־בֹּא הַשָּׁמֶשׁ׃ (שמות י״ז:י״ב)

4) In the battle with Amalek, God instructs Moshe to inscribe in a book the requirement to ‘erase’ the memory of Amalek. In complete inverse, at Mt Sinai Moshe asks that he be ‘erased’ from God’s book. 

וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה כְּתֹב זֹאת זִכָּרוֹן בַּסֵּפֶר וְשִׂים בְּאׇזְנֵי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כִּי־מָחֹה אֶמְחֶה אֶת־זֵכֶר עֲמָלֵק מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמָיִם׃ (שמות י״ז:י״ד)

וְעַתָּה אִם־תִּשָּׂא חַטָּאתָם וְאִם־אַיִן מְחֵנִי נָא מִסִּפְרְךָ אֲשֶׁר כָּתָבְתָּ׃ (שמות ל״ב:ל״ב)

5) A number of other commonalities, which may seem insignificant on their own, further sharpen the contrast when combined with the above: 

וַיִּקְחוּ־אֶבֶן וַיָּשִׂימוּ תַחְתָּיו (שמות י״ז:י״ב)

פְּסׇל־לְךָ שְׁנֵי־לֻחֹת אֲבָנִים (שמות ל״ד:א׳)

מָחָר אָנֹכִי נִצָּב עַל־רֹאשׁ הַגִּבְעָה (שמות י״ז:ט׳)

וֶהְיֵה נָכוֹן לַבֹּקֶר וְעָלִיתָ בַבֹּקֶר אֶל־הַר סִינַי וְנִצַּבְתָּ לִי שָׁם עַל־רֹאשׁ הָהָר׃ (שמות ל״ד:א׳)

וַיְהִי יָדָיו אֱמוּנָה (שמות י״ז:י״ב)

וְגַם־בְּךָ יַאֲמִינוּ לְעוֹלָם (שמות י״ט:ט׳)

The view of Yehoshua – rinse and repeat

It is not just the reader that hears echoes of the battle of Amalek. This is exactly what is going through Yehoshua’s mind when he declares to Moshe that he hears the sounds of battle:

וַיִּשְׁמַע יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת־קוֹל הָעָם בְּרֵעֹה וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל־מֹשֶׁה קוֹל מִלְחָמָה בַּמַּחֲנֶה׃ (שמות ל״ב:י״ז)

Yehoshua seems to think it is a repeat of the last time. He confidently informs Moshe that there is a battle in the camp suggesting that all Moshe needs to do is raise his hands and they will be victorious. 

Moshe immediately corrects him that this is not the case and he has completely misread the events:   

וַיֹּאמֶר אֵין קוֹל עֲנוֹת גְּבוּרָה וְאֵין קוֹל עֲנוֹת חֲלוּשָׁה קוֹל עַנּוֹת אָנֹכִי שֹׁמֵעַ׃ (שמות ל״ב:י״ז)

The allusion here to the previous battle of Amalek is unmistakable and is picked up in various Midrashim:[2]

וְהָיָה כַּאֲשֶׁר יָרִים מֹשֶׁה יָדוֹ וְגָבַר יִשְׂרָאֵל… וַיַּחֲלֹשׁ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת־עֲמָלֵק וְאֶת־עַמּוֹ לְפִי־חָרֶב׃ (שמות י״ז:י״א-י״ג)

Moshe reproaches Yehoshua for not correctly discerning the voices, a critical function for the future leader of the nation. 

This leads us to what is perhaps the most significant difference of all. In the battle with Amalek, the position of Moshe’s hands determines the fate of the battle below. At Mt Sinai, the fate of Moshe’s hands (and by extension the covenant represented by the Luchot) is determined by the actions of the people. 

This is the key point Yehoshua misses. Whilst he has set up base at the foot of the mountain focussing on what is happening at the top of the mountain, the real story is happening in the main camp. If Yehoshua had stayed or returned to the camp, similar to the battle against Amalek, perhaps they would have been in with a fighting chance.[3] Aaron and Chur on their own clearly could not contain them. As future leader, Yehoshua’s will need to lead from within the camp with his finger constantly on the pulse, and not from the ivory tower of Mt Sinai.

Though it is apparent that Yehosua’s appointment as Moshe’s successor is due to his attachment to his master, he must come to realise that his leadership role will be very different. A similar criticism is conveyed in the next story in which Yehoshua appears. When Eldad and Meidad are prophesying from within the camp, Yehoshua leaps up in protest:

וַיָּרׇץ הַנַּעַר וַיַּגֵּד לְמֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמַר אֶלְדָּד וּמֵידָד מִתְנַבְּאִים בַּמַּחֲנֶה׃ וַיַּעַן יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן־נוּן מְשָׁרֵת מֹשֶׁה מִבְּחֻרָיו וַיֹּאמַר אֲדֹנִי מֹשֶׁה כְּלָאֵם׃ (במדבר י״א:כ״ט)

Yehoshua seems to believe that prophecy does not belong inside the camp, only outside the camp among the chosen few (in this case the 70 elders). As before, Moshe corrects him that this is not the case:[4]

וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ מֹשֶׁה הַמְקַנֵּא אַתָּה לִי וּמִי יִתֵּן כׇּל־עַם ה׳ נְבִיאִים כִּי־יִתֵּן ה׳ אֶת־רוּחוֹ עֲלֵיהֶם׃ (במדבר י״א:כ״ט)

The goal is not that holiness and prophesy remains confined to the top of the mountain, or the Mishkan for that matter. Holiness is meant to diffuse through the entire camp and enable prophecy to emerge from within. For this reason, Yehoshua’s place is in the camp and not on the top of the mountain like Moshe. 

The appointment of Yehoshua

This shift in leadership responsibility from Moshe to Yehosua is discernible in the passage in which Yehoshua is appointed. When Moshe requests that God appoint a leader, he describes the role as that of a shepherd who comes and goes in front of the people.

אֲשֶׁר־יֵצֵא לִפְנֵיהֶם וַאֲשֶׁר יָבֹא לִפְנֵיהֶם וַאֲשֶׁר יוֹצִיאֵם וַאֲשֶׁר יְבִיאֵם וְלֹא תִהְיֶה עֲדַת ה׳ כַּצֹּאן אֲשֶׁר אֵין־לָהֶם רֹעֶה׃ (במדבר כ״ז:י״ז)

When God responds, however, the emphasis changes subtly:

וְלִפְנֵי אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן יַעֲמֹד וְשָׁאַל לוֹ בְּמִשְׁפַּט הָאוּרִים לִפְנֵי ה׳ עַל־פִּיו יֵצְאוּ וְעַל־פִּיו יָבֹאוּ הוּא וְכׇל־בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אִתּוֹ וְכׇל־הָעֵדָה׃ (במדבר כ״ז:כ״א)

According to the revised version, the people will not follow behind Yehoshua but move alongside him. The new leader will not be set apart from the people, but stand with them shoulder to shoulder in front of God.   

[1] The separation of Moshe and Yehoshua from everyone else is further highlighted when we take account of the parallel to the Akeidah where Avraham and Yitzchak part ways with their attendants to continue their ascent of Mt Moriah in private:

וְאֶל־הַזְּקֵנִים אָמַר שְׁבוּ־לָנוּ בָזֶה עַד אֲשֶׁר־נָשׁוּב אֲלֵיכֶם (שמות כ״ד:י״ד)וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם אֶל־נְעָרָיו שְׁבוּ־לָכֶם פֹּה עִם־הַחֲמוֹר וַאֲנִי וְהַנַּעַר נֵלְכָה עַד־כֹּה וְנִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה וְנָשׁוּבָה אֲלֵיכֶם׃ (בראשית כ״ב:ה׳)

[2] Not just the echoes of the battle of Amalek, but also the underlying criticism of Yehoshua and the question around his leadership ability is addressed the Midrash:

אמר רבי אחוה בריה דרבי זירא שני דברים דבר יהושע בפני משה ולא נגמל חן בעיניו, ואלו הן, אחד במנוי הזקנים, ואחד במעשה העגל. במנוי הזקנים, דכתיב (במדבר יא, כח): אדני משה כלאם, אמר לו כלם והעבירם מן העולם (במדבר יא, כח): ויאמר לו משה המקנא אתה לי, אמר לו יהושע בך אני מתקנא, הלואי בני כיוצא בך, הלואי כל ישראל כיוצא בך (במדבר יא, כח): ומי יתן כל עם ה' נביאים וגו'. ואחד בעגל, שנאמר (שמות לב, יז): וישמע יהושע את קול העם ברעה, אמר לו משה, יהושע, אדם שעתיד להנהיג שררה על ששים רבוא אינו יודע להבחין בין קול לקול. אין קול ענות גבורה, האיך מה דאת אמר (שמות יז, יא): וגבר ישראל. ואין קול ענות חלושה, האיך מה דאת אמר: ויחלש יהושע. (קוהלת רבה, ט׳:י״א)

[3] It is notable that in the battle with Amalek, God commanded Yehoshua to fight the battle with the people. In the other passages Yehoshua acts of his own volition (he was in fact never even instructed to accompany Moshe up to Mt Sinai).

[4] The connection between these two episodes Yehoshua is noted in the previously cited Midrash:

שני דברים אמר יהושע לפני משה ושניהם לא יישרו בעיניו. זה הראשון. והאחר אדוני משה כלאם.

     

  

  

 

      

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). 

סוכות

The Two Aspects of the Sukkah

There is a famous dispute as to what the Sukkah represents. Setting out the purpose of the Mitzvah, the verse states as follows: 

לְמַעַן יֵדְעוּ דֹרֹתֵיכֶם כִּי בַסֻּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתִּי אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּהוֹצִיאִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם (ויקרא כ"ג, מ"ג)

According to R’ Akivah the Sukkot in the above verse refer to literal structures built by the people, whereas according to R’ Eliezer the reference is to the ‘clouds of glory’.[1] 

In the view of R’ Akivah the Mitzvah seeks to recall the actions of the people who were prepared to dwell in primitive booths during the wilderness sojourn. Following God into a precarious and hostile environment was a tremendous display of faith and exercise in religious endurance. This aspect is eloquently expressed by the prophet:  

כֹּה אָמַר ה' זָכַרְתִּי לָךְ חֶסֶד נְעוּרַיִךְ אַהֲבַת כְּלוּלֹתָיִךְ לֶכְתֵּךְ אַחֲרַי בַּמִּדְבָּר בְּאֶרֶץ לֹא זְרוּעָה (ירמיהו ב', ב) 

R’ Eliezer on the other hand focuses the point of reflection on God’s providence which protected the people during this period. 

Indeed, the word Sukkah has a literal connotation which accords with the view of R’ Akivah, but it is also used in a metaphysical sense consistent with the view of R Eliezer (see for example Isiah 4:6).[2] Furthermore, the fact that the active party in the verse is God (‘I caused you to dwell in Sukkot’), implies that the commemoration of the verse also recalls God’s role and not simply the human act. 

The debate originates from the fact that the event being described – the dwelling in Sukkot – is not explicitly mentioned outside the verse in question. This is itself surprising since as a general rule, the Torah prepares us with the context required to understand laws conditioned on earlier events.[3] It is therefore plausible that the verse intends to convey a double meaning which encompasses both positions. The significance lies in the fact that the two views are essentially two sides of the same coin. The act of faith of man and the corresponding action of God. 

The human and divine cloud

Interestingly, this debate regarding the fundamental character of the Sukkah mirrors a similar ambiguity with respect to the focal service of Yom Kippur. 

The introductory verse to the Yom Kippur service reads as follows: 

וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל־מֹשֶׁה דַּבֵּר אֶל־אַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ וְאַל־יָבֹא בְכׇל־עֵת אֶל־הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת אֶל־פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת אֲשֶׁר עַל־הָאָרֹן וְלֹא יָמוּת כִּי בֶּעָנָן אֵרָאֶה עַל־הַכַּפֹּרֶת (ויקרא ט"ז, ב) 

The question which has challenged commentators from time immemorial relates to the nature of the cloud referred to in the last phrase. Some have understood the cloud as referring to the divine presence which poses a threat against unauthorised entry. According to this interpretation, ki translates as because. The overall meaning is that the priest may not enter the inner sanctum because the divine presence is manifest in the cloud above the Kapporet. In the same way that the cloud which suffused the Mishkan (and similarly resided upon Mt. Sinai) initially prevented Moshe’s entry until called to approach by God, so too the high priest is unable to enter except as once a year under the prescribed conditions.[4] 

Others have understood the phrase as introducing the strict conditions under which the priest may enter and encounter the divine presence. According to this approach, ki translates as 'only' and the cloud refers to the incense cloud. The thrust of the verse is that the divine presence residing in the Kodesh HaKodashim may only be encountered by the priest when it is clouded over by the incense to prevent direct exposure.[5]   

Though the more immediate connotation is the human action to produce the incense cloud, the active party in the verse is God (‘I shall appear in a cloud’) which is suggestive of His act of revelation through the cloud. One can elaborate on this dispute and bring proofs in either direction, but a full appreciation of the verse must again acknowledge the duality.  

The point runs deeper. There is a debate between the sages and the Sadducees as to precisely when the incense cloud was formed. According to the sages, the incense was ignited by the Kohen Gadol once he was already inside the Kodesh HaKodashim, whereas according to the Sadducees it was ignited just before he entered.[6] What seems like a technical detail has far reaching theological implications. If God’s presence was fixed and static in the Kodesh HaKodashim then the smokescreen produced by the incense should indeed be formed prior to entry as the Sadducees held. Clearly, the sages perceived the human and divine interaction as much more dynamic and integrated. The concealment of the incense serves not only to protect the Kohen Gadol, but also to facilitate and enable the revelation itself. In other words, God’s revelation is contingent on the human anticipation (in the form of the Ketoret).  

To summarise the correspondence between the Sukkah and the Yom Kippur incense service. In the building of Sukkot, the human act of faith precipitates the clouds of glory. Similarly, on Yom Kippur, the protection of the incense cloud creates the conditions for the divine cloud to manifest.

The roof of the Sukkah (the S’chach) itself alludes to this duality. The roof must be dense enough to ensure there is sufficient shade but should not be entirely opaque so that the sun’s rays can still penetrate. In mystical terms, one might say this reflects the way the primal light only becomes communicable when transmitted and dulled through a darkened lens or vessel.[7] This is the counterpart to the function of the incense cloud which simultaneously conceals and reveals. 

Given the correspondence between the S’chach and the cloud which manifests ‘upon the Kapporet’, it is understandable that the sages derived the minimum height of the S’chach from the height of the Kapporet.[8] This crossover is further strengthened when we consider that the word S’chach (derived from the same root as Sukkah) is used explicitly in reference to the Kapporet: 

וְהָיוּ הַכְּרֻבִים פֹּרְשֵׂי כְנָפַיִם לְמַעְלָה סֹכְכִים בְּכַנְפֵיהֶם עַל־הַכַּפֹּרֶת וּפְנֵיהֶם אִישׁ אֶל־אָחִיו אֶל־הַכַּפֹּרֶת יִהְיוּ פְּנֵי הַכְּרֻבִים (שמות כ"ה, כ) 

In a more general sense, the Mitzvah of Sukkah contains several allusions to the Mishkan. Most strikingly, some of the key requirements for dwelling in the Sukkah are derived from a parallel to the seven-day inauguration of the Mishkan (the Milluim) where the Kohanim were required to ‘dwell’ in the Mishkan courtyard throughout the seven-days.[9] The seven-eight day pattern, each with their unique dwelling requirement, hardly seems coincidental and invites the comparison. 

Between Sukkot and Yom Kippur

If we are to compare the key experience of Sukkot and Yom Kippur, a stark contrast must be noted. The entry of the Kohen Gadol into the Kodesh HaKodashim on Yom Kippur was an entirely exclusive event involving only the Kohen Gadol. Everyone else was a passive bystander. Whilst the Kohen Gadol was inside no one was could remain within the vicinity of the Mishkan (see Vayikra 16:17). This of course reenacts the relative positions at the time when Moshe went up to Mt. Sinai to receive the tablets and the rest of the people were barred from approaching. The gap was even more pronounced with the second set, which according to tradition took place on Yom Kippur: 

וְאִישׁ לֹא־יַעֲלֶה עִמָּךְ וְגַם־אִישׁ אַל־יֵרָא בְּכָל־הָהָר גַּם־הַצֹּאן וְהַבָּקָר אַל־יִרְעוּ אֶל־מוּל הָהָר הַהוּא (שמות ל"ד, ג) 

Yet this cannot be the end of the story. In the outlook of the Torah the entire nation is to become a ‘kingdom of priests and a holy nation’. Moshe ascending on his own can be the departure point but not the end point. There must come a time when everyone is afforded the opportunity to ascend God’s mountain. What appears to be a marginal verse within the prelude to Moshe’s ascent, contains this all-important message: 

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

Classically this is understood to refer to the time when the divine presence has departed from the mountain and therefore it becomes permitted to ascend. I will not delve into the many problems with this explanation on this occasion. To my mind, the shofar-led ascent must allude to a time when everyone is invited, and even required, to ascend God’s mountain - in His presence, not in his absence. Far from being marginal, it sets the objective of the entire enterprise.  

I would suggest this mass ascent takes physical form in the pilgrimage festivals where everyone is instructed to ascend God’s mountain (which in the Tanakh is synonymous with Jerusalem), to encounter His presence. The pilgrimage festivals are so essential that the instruction appears no less than four times in the Torah. Perhaps the most intriguing appearance is immediately following the most intimate dialogue between Moshe and God. When Moshe experiences the highest level of revelation whilst sheltered in the 'cleft of the rock', God tells Moshe that you ‘will see my back but you will not see my face’:

וַהֲסִרֹתִי אֶת־כַּפִּי וְרָאִיתָ אֶת־אֲחֹרָי וּפָנַי לֹא יֵרָאוּ (שמות ל"ג, כ"ג) 

Despite the limits set by God, it is remarkable that in the next chapter we read about the three pilgrimage festivals and the pilgrims encountering the ‘face’ of God.  

שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים בַּשָּׁנָה יֵרָאֶה כָּל־זְכוּרְךָ אֶת־פְּנֵי הָאָדֹן ה' אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל (שמות ל"ד, כ"ג) 

In a proverbial sense the astounding implication is that the pilgrims are privy to a revelation which even Moshe could not attain. 

But of all the festivals it is Sukkot, the climax of all the other festivals, where this theme stands out. The inclusive and universal nature of the holiday expresses itself in various ways which go beyond the scope of our discussion.[10] The aspect which I wish to highlight is the dialogue between the Sukkah and the Mishkan mentioned above. If on Yom Kippur the Kohen Gadol enters the Kodesh HaKadoshim to encounter the Sinaitic cloud anew, it is on Sukkot when the cloud diffuses to envelope the entire nation dwelling within their mini sanctuaries. The intensely personal is now all-inclusive and everyone is enabled to ascend the mountain of God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] See T.B Sukkot 11b: Sifra 17:11. 

[2] See also Amos 9:11, although the commentators debate whether the Sukkah referred to in the verse is the Beit Hamikdash or the Davidic monarchy.

[3] The Rashbam in his commentary applies this principle on many occasions to explain the imposition of seemingly superfluous details. 

[4] See Rashi’s first explanation which he refers to as the peshat. See also Rashbam and Bechor Shor. Seforno has a slight variation but agrees the cloud refers to God’s presence.

[5] See Rashi’s second explanation, Ibn Ezra and Ramban. 

[6] T.B. Yoma 53a 

[7] T.B. Sukkah 4b 

[8] See introduction to Peninei Halakhah - Sukkot, R' Eliezer Melamed.

[9] T.B. Sukkah 43a. It is also worth mentioning the view of the Gra (commentary to Shiur HaShirim) that on Sukkot the people commenced building the Mishkan and the clouds of glory returned to the camp. 

[10] For example the Hakhel ceremony is emphasised to take place before the 'men, women, children and strangers in your communities’ (Deut. 31:12). The gentile participation in the festival presumably also relates to its universal character. The sages considered the 70 bull sacrifices as representative of the 70 nations of the world. Furthermore, the inauguration of the Beit HaMikdash  – dubbed to be a ‘house of prayer for all nations’  – takes place on Sukkot (see Kings I, 8:2). Most significantly, a universal call to ascend the mountain of God at the end of sefer Zechariah, is specifically tied to Sukkot: 

 וְהָיָה כׇּל־הַנּוֹתָר מִכׇּל־הַגּוֹיִם הַבָּאִים עַל־יְרוּשָׁלָ͏ִם וְעָלוּ מִדֵּי שָׁנָה בְשָׁנָה לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֺת לְמֶלֶךְ ה' צְבָאוֹת וְלָחֹג אֶת־חַג הַסֻּכּוֹת )זכריה י"ד, ט"ז)