The Torah of the Nation and the Individual
STUDENT SUMMARIES OF SICHOT OF THE ROSHEI YESHIVA
Parashat yitro
SICHA OF
HARAV
The Torah
of the Nation and the Individual
Translated by Kaeren Fish
Parashat Yitro is clearly divided into two parts: the story of Yitro, and the story of
the giving of the Torah. If we think
about the greater context – i.e., how these two narratives fit into Sefer
Shemot – the second part seems quite natural.
Am Yisrael has left
But in
the midst of this we are suddenly presented with the story of Yitro, which seems
entirely out of place. It is an
individual story which, at first glance, seems of little value. In addition, there is a disagreement
among the Tannaim in the Mekhilta – and, following their lead,
among the Rishonim – as to whether this episode took place prior to the
giving of the Torah or afterwards.
According to the first view (Ramban), the story is recorded where it is because
everything appears in its chronological order.
However, if we adopt Rashi’s view that Yitro only arrived after the
giving of the Torah, our problem is intensified: not only does the story appear
to have no connection with the historical continuity of Sefer Shemot; it
also appears in the wrong place in the timeline!
In fact,
even according to the view that Yitro arrived prior to the giving of the Torah,
the issue of chronology presents a problem.
We read, “And it was the next day that Moshe sat to judge the people…”
(18:13). Rashi, citing Chazal,
explains, “This was the day after Yom Kippur.” Moshe had not judged the people
prior to this time. This being so,
the giving of the Torah had already taken place, the Tablets had been broken,
Moshe had been atop the mountain twice for forty days, had come down on Yom
Kippur – and Yitro is still on the scene, handing out advice!
Upon
deeper consideration we understand why the story of Yitro had to be written, and
why it had to appear prior to the giving of the Torah, for otherwise a certain
aspect of the giving of the Torah would be missing.
The Torah
tells us, “Israel encamped (in the singular) there” (19:2). Chazal comment on the singular
form of the verb, explaining that here they encamped “like a single person with
a single heart, whereas all the other encampments were [characterized by]
grievances and strife” (Rashi). This
is not just an incidental, momentary transcendence of internal friction. An occasion and experience such as
the giving of the Torah cannot take place at all in the absence of that unity,
since the whole purpose of the Revelation was the creation and consolidation of
the national nucleus. Bnei
Yisrael were to undergo a process of mass conversion: “Sanctify them today
and tomorrow, and they shall wash their clothes” (19:10). This serves as the precedent from
which Chazal deduce that a convert to Judaism requires circumcision,
immersion, and the offering of a sacrifice.
A most
fundamental concept in Judaism, then, is that the Torah was given to the entire
nation, as a single entity.
Of
course, giving the Torah to the entire people involves a certain risk. The Revelation was a wondrous,
awe-inspiring event, involving “thunder and lightning and heavy cloud” (19:16). As the Sages put it, “[God] held the
mountain over them like a cask” (Shabbat 88a): the nation was subjected
to an experience that surrounded them on all sides. It was precisely this
all-encompassing nature of the experience that exposed them to the danger of
simply being carried along. God was
drawing them near, pulling them close, and all they had to do was to jump onto
the wagon, as it were, which was already in motion.
Here it
was necessary for Yitro to appear, of his own initiative, without any mountain
being held over him, to accept the Torah of his own free will. He had no obligation, nor anyone
urging him to act. Nevertheless, he
bursts the bounds of his present state and comes to receive the Torah. Just because his son-in-law is there,
is he forced to join too?
A mass
experience entails another danger as well.
The Revelation at Sinai is referred to as a “yom ha-kahal” – a
“day of gathering” (Devarim 9:10).
There is a danger that a person might say, “This whole affair wasn’t
directed towards me personally.” Here it must be clear that while the Torah was
given to Am Yisrael as a nation, at the same time it was also given to
each and every individual. All the
talk of “Knesset Yisrael” may come to blur the aspect of personal
commitment and to lead the individual to evade his responsibility towards the
Revelation as an event directed towards him, too.
It is
precisely for this reason that Yitro appears – so as to teach that the Torah was
given to the nation, but also to every individual.
This
message arises from the text itself.
The whole of Shemot chapter 19 is formulated in the plural: “You have
seen (atem re’item),” “You (atem) shall be,” etc. But in the Ten Commandments, the
Torah reverts to the singular: “I am the Lord your [singular] God”; “You
[singular] shall not take…”; “Remember [singular] the Shabbat day….”
Chazal (cited in Rashi, 20:2) teach that this transition was meant “to give an
opening to Moshe to defend [the nation] following the golden calf… ‘It was not
them whom You commanded, You shall have no other gods, but only me.’” However,
the simplest and most literal understanding of the transition to the singular
would seem to be, as Ramban explains: “All of the [Ten] Commandments were
uttered in the singular… for God was speaking to each individual, so that they
would not think that He would focus on the majority, such that the individual
would be saved along with them…”.
The Torah
was given to the nation as a whole, but no less so to every individual. “God spoke one thing; I heard two” (Tehillim
62:12).
(This sicha
was delivered on Shabbat parashat Yitro 5746 [1986].)