Now that the study of Chumash with Rashi is underway, here are
a few helpful comments by Rabbi Chaim Brovender.
Parashat Yitro
The Issue
"Hashem said to Moshe…You have seen that from the heavens I have spoken to you…" (20: 19).
Rashi directs us to an alternative and seemingly contradictory pasuk:
"And Hashem descended upon Sinai…" (19: 20).
The reference is, of course, to matan torah. In our verse, the Torah was spoken from heaven. Elsewhere, Hashem descended upon Sinai and the Torah was given from there.
This problem is relevant in a third verse:
"From the heavens he made His voice heard to you to rebuke you, and on the earth he showed you His great fire (Devarim, 4: 36).
In other words, His glory was in heavens, and His fire and might were on the earth.
From the resolution implied in the third verse, both verses tell part of the truth of the moment. We have not a contradiction but two vantage points. Hashem's voice in heaven spoke the rebuke, and the descent of Hashem on the mountain of Sinai refers to the "great fire". Apparently, there was a manifestation of the Divine from heaven and another manifestation on earth.
The Rashi
Rashi offers an alternate interpretation.
"He bent the heavens and the heavens of the heavens, and spread them over the mountain. This is similar to the verse in Tehillim, "And he bent the heavens and descended…" (18: 10).
The heavens and the earth had actually come closer. Heaven was indeed bent over the earth and both verses are precise: Hashem was in Heaven and also on the mountain because the mountain and Heaven became the same place.
The Meaning of G-d's Place
Rashi also addresses these pasukim in his comments on the verse we quoted above, "Hashem descended upon Mount Sinai…" (19: 20). Rashi asks, "Are we to think that Hashem actually descended on the mountain? To insure that we don't make this mistake the Torah teaches "For from heaven I spoke with you" (20: 19).
In other words, the verse that says that Hashem descended on the Mountain is certainly correct; however, it would be incorrect to interpret it as meaning that Hashem had moved from all places to that one place. So the other verse indicating that Hashem spoke from heaven maintains our equilibrium. Hashem was in fact on the mountain of Sinai, but this does not mean that had evacuated any other place and especially the "heavens".
Rashi continues with the following comment.
"How can the Torah say in one place that Hashem was on the mountain and another place that He was in heaven? We learn that He bent the upper and lower heavens and spread them over the mountain, like a sheet on the bed. The Throne of the Glory of Hashem descended upon them".
We can understand Rashi as follows.
Hashem has no defined place. He is everyplace. However, we know that there is also a notion connecting the presence of Hashem to a throne, and to the throne of Glory. We cannot imagine a throne without assuming that in fact the throne is limited and defines a place, as opposed to Hashem who is unlimited and fills every place. When Hashem sits on the Throne, so to speak, there is an aspect of His presence that is similar to a physical limit. The Torah does not speak of this aspect of matan torah in an obvious manner but alludes to it in these verses. Rashi explains that the heavens descended upon the mountain of Sinai in order to create a place that would be worthy of the Throne of Glory.
This is a necessary aspect of the giving of the Torah to the people of Yisrael. The contents of the Torah were commanded by the "King" to the people. In order to properly understand this idea, there had to be a sense of G-d's kingship. That sense came through combining of heaven and earth to create a new place in the world. The giving of the Torah demanded that the people understand the aspect of kingship and ongoing relationship. The power and might of Hashem clarified in the process of the Exodus was not sufficient.
Power and might are exercised from time to time, for specific purposes and do not make themselves known on an ongoing basis. However, kingship is the name of a permanent relationship, permanent demands and ongoing support. In order to accept the Torah properly, to know that this was not simply a response to power, the people had to learn of the kingship of Hashem.
There seems to be a contradiction between the two explanations. According to the first (above) Hashem was both in heaven and on the Mountains. According to the second, Hashem was on the Throne of Glory which was placed above the mountain of Sinai.
Rashi uses these two explanations in different verses in the parasha of Yitro, where both verses are referring to the same event. There is no doubt that Rashi wanted us to understand this matter assuming that the verses were referring to the same event and describing the same difficulty.
The second verse (the one we began with), is describing Hashem. We can perceive things only partially and it will seem to us that Hashem has a place. Sometimes in heaven and sometimes on earth and on very special times both in heaven and on earth at the same time. This was the purpose of the third verse. We see Hashem clearly, but not completely.
The other verse at the beginning of the parsha of matan torah teaches me about the special manifestation of Hashem that was necessary for the giving of the Torah itself. This was "kingship" and is proven by reading the same verses in a different order. In order that the Torah be given the notion that Hashem was King had to be communicated to the people.
Gut Shabbos,
Chaim Brovender
As usual, I will be happy to respond to and possibly to post questions or comments you have on the parasha.
Return to Yeshivat Hamivtar - Orot Lev
