A. Matan Torah: The Torah was given to us by God. The Rabbis took this further and pointed out to God in the story of the Oven of Akhnai that "Lo b'shamayim hi!" The Torah is no longer in Heaven and is now in the hands of humans (namely, the Rabbis) to interpret.
B. L'kabeil Torah: We are receivers of Torah. God gave the Torah to us but it is up to us to receive it. Was this a matter of free will or was it a matter of coercion? This is what we will turn to in our discussion to today. According to the Rabbis, it was not until the time of Esther that the B'nai Yisrael were able to freely choose to receive the Torah.
C. The final and more modern way of thinking about the Torah is as Torat Chayim, or living Torah. The Torah is something that we engage with through our constant renewal of the Brit, or Covenant with God, that we choose freely.
(7) Then he took the record of the covenant and read it aloud to the people. And they said, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do and we will understand!”
Just as an aside, this is an interesting pedagogical statement. Often, the way we learn best is just to do and through doing seeking to understand rather than the other way around. We may approach a problem or a question without really understanding what we are doing but through action come to understand what the answer is that we are looking for or through practice come to understand some principle, theory, or language that we are trying to learn. In light of what Judaism became in the hands of the Rabbis this idea really foreshadows the halakhah of Talmud and the underlying principle of following halakhah. One must follow it in order to understand it and not the other way around. In fact, understanding is most often secondary to the practice or doing of halakhah.
The Gemara cites additional homiletic interpretations on the topic of the revelation at Sinai. The Torah says, “And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet God; and they stood at the lowermost part of the mount” (Exodus 19:17). Rabbi Avdimi bar Ḥama bar Ḥasa said: the Jewish people actually stood beneath the mountain, and the verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, overturned the mountain above the Jews like a tub, and said to them: If you accept the Torah, excellent, and if not, there will be your burial. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: From here there is a substantial caveat to the obligation to fulfill the Torah. The Jewish people can claim that they were coerced into accepting the Torah, and it is therefore not binding. Rava said: Even so, they again accepted it willingly in the time of Ahasuerus, as it is written: “The Jews ordained, and took upon them, and upon their seed, and upon all such as joined themselves unto them” (Esther 9:27), and he taught: The Jews ordained what they had already taken upon themselves through coercion at Sinai.
בתחתית ההר AT THE NETHER PART OF THE MOUNTAIN — According to its literal meaning this signifies “at the foot of the mountain”. But a Midrashic explanation is, that the mountain was plucked up from its place and was arched over them as a cask, so that they were standing בתחתית beneath (under) the mountain itself (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 19:17:2; Shabbat 88a).
- Here we have these wonderful images of Sinai being turned over and hanging over the Israelites until they agree to receive and accept God's Torah! I don't know about you but I would say a very loud "YES, I'LL TAKE IT, PLEASE!" rather than have Sinai fall on me and crush me, whether I believed what was in it or not. What are we to make of these stories? What do you think the Rabbis were trying to say by telling them? Rashi, too, repeats the story later in the 11th century.
- What do you make of the idea put forth that what was accepted originally at Sinai by coercion by the time of Esther was then accepted by choice? How does that work? Is it possible to accept something at the beginning under one set of circumstances that are coerced but then to later accept it freely by choice?
- The text from Midrash Tanchuma says that they accepted it quickly because the written law was "brief and required no striving and suffering," but they were eventually threatened because of the oral law. What do you make of this commentary on the difference between the written and oral law? And the acceptance of the oral law requiring a threat?
- Does this statement from Joshua disturb you in at all?
- Does it sound coercive or is it merely stating a fact?
- How could this verse be misinterpreted or used in a negative way?
- How does this verse relate to our discussion?