Yoma 8

ויכסהו הענן להר ויקרא אל משה [משה] וכל ישראל עומדין ולא בא הכתוב אלא לחלק כבוד למשה רבי נתן אומר לא בא הכתוב אלא למרק אכילה ושתיה שבמעיו לשומו כמלאכי השרת

then 'He called unto Moses on the seventh day'. Moses and all Israel were standing there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Moses did not ascend the mountain nor did he separate from his circle till after the Revelation.');">¹</span> but the purpose of Scripture was to honour Moses.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All Israel were present, why then does Scripture report that the word of God came to Moses alone? - The answer is: To show him special regard.');">²</span>

ר' מתיא בן חרש אומר לא בא הכתוב אלא לאיים עליו כדי שתהא תורה ניתנת באימה ברתת ובזיע שנאמר (תהלים ב, יא) עבדו את ה' ביראה וגילו ברעדה מאי וגילו ברעדה אמר רב אדא בר מתנה אמר רב במקום גילה שם תהא רעדה

R'Nathan says: The purpose of Scripture was that he [Moses] might be purged of all food and drink in his bowels so as to make him equal to the ministering angels.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Nathan is of the opinion of R. Jose the Galilean that the call to Moses referred to in the verses was for separation after the Revelation, yet this offers no basis for necessitating separation before entering into the Sanctuary, as the object of Moses' separation was that he might be like the ministering angels.');">³</span> R'Mattiah B'Heresh<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He too shares the opinion of R. Jose the Galilean.');">⁴</span> says, The purpose of Scripture here was to inspire him with awe, so that the Torah be given<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To Moses and through him to Israel.');">⁵</span>

במאי קא מיפלגי רבי יוסי הגלילי ור"ע בפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא בששה בחודש ניתנה תורה לישראל רבי יוסי אומר בשבעה בו מאן דאמר בששה בששה ניתנה ובשבעה עלה (דכתיב (שמות כד, טז) ויקרא אל משה ביום השביעי) מאן דאמר בשבעה בשבעה ניתנה ובשבעה עלה [דכתיב ויקרא אל משה ביום השביעי]

with awe, with dread, with trembling, as it is said: Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. II, 11.');">⁶</span> What is the meaning of 'And rejoice with trembling'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The terms seem contradictory.');">⁷</span> - R'Adda B'Mattena says in the name of Rab: Where there will be joy, there shall be trembling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Torah is a source of joy. The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart, Ps. XIX, 9, cited by Rashi. But there shall also be awe, reverence for the numen, the Lord, the Lawgiver. Tosaf. cites l Chron. XVI, 27 Strength and gladness are in His Place.');">⁸</span>

רבי יוסי הגלילי סבר לה כתנא קמא דאמר בששה בחודש ניתנה תורה הלכך זה היה מעשה אחר עשרת הדברות (שמות כד, טז) וישכון כבוד ה' על הר סיני ויכסהו הענן ששת ימים למשה ויקרא אל משה ביום השביעי לקבולי שאר תורה דאי סלקא דעתך וישכון כבוד ה' מר"ח ויכסהו הענן להר ויקרא אל משה ביום השביעי לקבולי עשרת הדברות הא קבילו להו מששה והא אסתלק ענן מששה

In what do R'Jose the Galilean and R'Akiba differ? - In the controversy of these Tannaim. For we have been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shah. 86b.');">⁹</span> On the sixth day of the month<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of Sivan, the first day of Shabuoth.');">¹⁰</span>

ורבי עקיבא סבר לה כרבי יוסי דאמר בשבעה בחדש ניתנה תורה לישראל בשלמא לר' עקיבא היינו דמשכחת לה בשבעה עשר בתמוז נשתברו הלוחות עשרין וארבעה דסיון ושיתסר דתמוז מלו להו ארבעין יומין דהוה בהר ובשבסר בתמוז נחית ואתא ותברינהו ללוחות

was the Torah given to Israel. R'Jose says on the seventh. He who says that the Torah was given on the sixth day holds that on the sixth it was given and on the seventh Moses ascended the mountain;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sinai.');">¹¹</span>

אלא לר' יוסי הגלילי דאמר ששה דפרישה וארבעין דהר עד עשרין ותלת בתמוז לא אתבור לוחות אמר לך ר' יוסי הגלילי ארבעין דהר בהדי ששה דפרישה

he who holds that the Torah was given on the seventh assumes that on the seventh both the Torah was given and Moses ascended, as it is written, And He called unto Moses on the seventh day.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIV, 16.');">¹²</span> Now R'Jose the Galilean is of the same opinion as the first Tanna,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The anonymous Tanna of the Baraitha');">¹³</span> who held that the Torah was given on the sixth of the month, therefore this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Moses' ascent on the mount.');">¹⁴</span>

אמר מר ויקרא אל משה משה וכל ישראל עומדין מסייע ליה לר"א דאמר רבי אלעזר ויקרא אל משה משה וכל ישראל עומדין ולא בא הכתוב אלא לחלק לו כבוד למשה

happened after the giving of the Ten Commandments: 'The glory of the Lord abode on mount Sinai and the cloud covered him six days' 'him' meaning Moses- 'And He called unto Moses on the seventh day' to receive the remainder of the Torah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The other laws (beside the Ten Commandments) and the Oral Law.');">¹⁵</span> For if the thought should come to you that 'And the glory of the Lord abode' from the New Moon [of Sivan], so that 'And the cloud covered him' referred to the mountain, and 'The Lord called unto Moses on the seventh day' to receive the Ten Commandments, surely they had received the Torah on the sixth day already and also the cloud had departed on the sixth day! - R'Akiba, however, held with R'Jose that the Torah was given to Israel on the seventh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the 'Seventh day' refers to the seventh day on which the Torah was given.');">¹⁶</span> Quite in accord with R'Akiba's teaching is the statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ta'an. 26a.');">¹⁷</span>

מיתיבי קול לו קול אליו משה שמע וכל ישראל לא שמעו לא קשיא הא בסיני הא באהל מועד ואי בעית אימא לא קשיא הא בקריאה הא בדבור

that the Tablets were broken on the seventeenth of Tammuz, for the twenty-four days of Sivan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the seventh to the thirtieth.');">¹⁸</span> and the sixteen of Tammuz make up the forty days he was on the mountain, and on the seventeenth of Tammuz he went down and came<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either 'came to the camp of Israel, saw the dances and broke' or paraphrastic for 'broke'.');">¹⁹</span> to break the Tablets.

ר' זריקא רמי קראי קמיה דר' אלעזר ואמרי לה אמר ר' זריקא ר' אלעזר רמי כתיב (שמות מ, לה) ולא יכול משה לבא אל אהל מועד כי שכן עליו הענן וכתיב (שמות כד, יח) ויבא משה בתוך הענן מלמד שתפסו הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה והביאו בענן

But according to R'Jose the Galilean who holds that there were six days of the separation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the Revelation.');">²⁰</span> in addition to forty days [spent] on the mountain, the Tablets could not have been broken before the twenty-third of Tammuz? - R'Jose the Galilean will answer you: The six days of the separation are included in the forty days on the mountain. The Master said: '"And He called Moses", whilst Moses and all Israel were standing' there'.

דבי ר' ישמעאל תנא נאמר כאן בתוך ונאמר להלן בתוך (שמות יד, טז) ויבואו בני ישראל בתוך הים מה להלן שביל דכתיב (שמות יד, כב) והמים להם חומה אף כאן שביל:

This interpretation supports the view of R'Eleazar, for R'Eleazar said: 'And He called unto Moses' whilst Moses and all Israel were standing there; the only purpose of Scripture is to do honour to Moses. They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The teachers (students) in the academy.');">²¹</span> raised the following objection: [He heard the voice speaking] elaw [unto him] not lo [to him];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The passage, Num. VII, 89 reads: Moses . . heard the voice speaking elaw (to him, which is the longer form, lo being the normal one) from above the ark-cover etc. The use, in this passage, of the longer form, seemed to suggest a closer or exclusive communication. According to Hayyug, quoted Otzar ha-Geonim VI, 1, n. 4, there is a difference of meaning derivable in accord with grammatical principles, in 'lo' and 'elaw' respectively.');">²²</span>

(ויקרא א, א) ויקרא אל משה וידבר למה הקדים קריאה לדיבור לימדה תורה דרך ארץ שלא יאמר אדם דבר לחבירו אלא א"כ קורהו מסייע ליה לרבי חנינא דאמר רבי חנינא לא יאמר אדם דבר לחבירו אלא אם כן קורהו לאמר אמר ר' (מוסיא בר בריה דרבי מסיא משמיה דר' מוסיא) רבה מניין לאומר דבר לחבירו שהוא בבל יאמר עד שיאמר לו לך אמור שנאמר (ויקרא א, א) וידבר ה' אליו מאהל מועד לאמר

hence we know that Moses heard, but all Israel did not hear?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that all Israel, indeed, did not hear God's message. If so, then the only purpose of the statement '. . Scripture is to honour Moses' is unjustified. For Scripture does not change the fact. It was Moses alone whom the message reached.');">²³</span> - This is no difficulty. The one passage speaks of Sinai, the other of the tent of meeting.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the tent of meeting only Moses could hear the voice. On Mount Sinai all Israel heard it, but to honour Moses, Scripture mentions him only as having done so.');">²⁴</span>

מכלל דתרווייהו סבירא להו מלואים כל הכתוב בהן מעכב בהן דאיתמר מלואים ר' יוחנן ורבי חנינא חד אמר כל הכתוב בהן מעכב בהן וחד אמר דבר המעכב לדורות מעכב בהן שאין מעכב לדורות אין מעכב בהן

Or, you might say, the one statement refers to the call, the other to the speech.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The call proper, the honour of the individual call, was vouchsafed to Moses alone, the speech following was heard by all.');">²⁵</span> R'Zerika asked a question concerning the contradiction of scriptural passages in the presence of R'Eleazar, or, according to another version, he asked the question in the name of R'Eleazar. One passage reads: And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of meeting because the cloud abode thereon,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XL, 35.');">²⁶</span>

תסתיים דר' יוחנן הוא דאמר כל הכתוב בהן מעכב בהן מדקאמר ליה ר' שמעון בן לקיש לר' יוחנן אי מה מלואים כל הכתוב בהן מעכב בהן ולא קא מהדר ליה ולא מידי תסתיים

whereas another verse says: And Moses entered into the midst of the cloud?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXIV, 18.');">²⁷</span> It teaches us that the Holy One, blessed be He, took hold of Moses and brought him into the cloud. The school of R'Ishmael taught: Here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The apparent contradiction is removed by the suggestion that he entered the cloud on this occasion with divine help.');">²⁸</span>

מאי בינייהו

the word be-thok [in the midst] appears and it also appears elsewhere: And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XIV, 22.');">²⁹</span> just as there [the word be-thok] implies a path, as it is written: And the waters were a wall<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The water being piled up like a wall, Israel walked along a path. The inference is from similarity of expression.');">³⁰</span> unto them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XIV, 22.');">²⁹</span> so here too there was a path, [for Moses through the cloud]. And the Lord called unto Moses, and spoke unto him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I,1.');">³¹</span> why does Scripture mention the call before the speech? - The Torah teaches us good manners: a man should not address his neighbour without having first called him. This supports the view of R'Hanina, for R'Hanina said: No man shall speak to his neighbour unless he calls him first to speak to him. Rabbah said: Whence do we know that if a man had said something to his neighbour the latter must not spread the news without the informant's telling him 'Go and say it'? From the scriptural text: The Lord spoke to him out of the tent of meeting, lemor [saying].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lemor here is taken to mean 'to say it (to others) ', or else the next few words are illustratively, not logically implied: Speak (unto the children of Israel) .');">³²</span> At any rate it is to be inferred<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Resh Lakish's question to R. Johanan: '... just as with the Consecration service the omission of any prescribed form would render the service invalid' and R. Johanan's tacit acceptance of this view, supra 3b.');">³³</span> that both hold that the omission of any detail mentioned in connection with the priest's Consecration renders the ceremony invalid, for it was said: With regard to the ceremony of Consecration R'Johanan and R'Hanina are disputing; one says: The omission of any form prescribed in connection with the ceremony renders it invalid, whilst the other holds only such matter as is indispensable on any future occasion is indispensable now, whereas such detail as is dispensable in future generations, is dispensable even the first time. One may conclude that it is R'Johanan who holds that the omission of any detail whatsoever that is mentioned in connection with the Consecration ceremony renders such ceremony invalid, because R'Simeon B'Lakish said to R'Johanan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 3b.');">³⁴</span> [in the course of the argument]: 'And just as with the ceremony of Consecration the omission of any prescribed detail renders the ceremony invalid. And R'Johanan did not retort at all'. That proof is conclusive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had he held a different view, he would surely not have permitted his opponent's statement to go unchallenged.');">³⁵</span> What is the [practical] difference between the opinions?