The Meaning of Life

As we know, each of the Shalosh Regalim carries with it a theme or motif, which we express in the Tefiflos of the Yom Tov. It is interesting to note, however, a distinction between Pesach and Sukkos on one hand, and Shavuos on the other. The terms “Zman Cheiruseinu” and “Zman Simchosenu”, refer to a mindset or emotion, while the name for Shavuos, “Zman Mattan Toraseinu”, refers to an event. This reveals an essential difference between the Yomim Tovim: the events we celebrate on Pesach and Sukkos are in the past, but we are affected by the Zman during which they occurred, bringing on a sense of Cheirus or Simcha. Mattan Torah, however, is not a mere historical event—each year, on Shavuos, there is a new Mattan Torah, and so the Yom Tov itself is “Zman Mattan Toraseinu”.

The fact that Yom Tov is defined as the Zman Mattan Toraseinu is particularly interesting if we consider a Machlokes found in Meseches Shabbos.

The Gemara, there, speaks about the date of Kabbalas Hatorah, telling us: “B’Shishi B’Chodesh Nitnu Aseres HaDibros R’ Yosi Amar B’Shiva”. While the Rabanan learn that Mattan Torah took place on the sixth day of Sivan, R’ Yosi holds that it took place on the seventh day. The Gemara continues, discussing this Machlokes at length, establishing how each side can explain various Pessukim. Through this discussion, we learn that the Shita of R’ Yosi is rooted in an interesting fact: although Hashem only intended for husbands to separate from their wives for two days before Kabbalas HaTorah, “Yom Echad Hosif Moshe M’Dayto”, an extra day was added at the behest of Moshe Rabbeinu, and HKBH agreed with him.

As the discussion continues, it becomes clear that, in order for their positions to be tenable, each side must make assumptions about several factors. The Gemara, however, does not deem any of these disqualifying, and there is no clear resolution: each question is answered in kind, and the Gemara eventually transitions to the next topic.

The truth is that even this discussion itself is out of the ordinary: the Gemara elsewhere demurs from speaking about the details of events that happened in the past, because “Mah D’Hava Hava”. This Machlokes, however, warrants discussion because is not merely theoretical—there are Halachic ramifications.

First, the Yom Tov of Shavuos, which is referred to in Teffilah as Zman Mattan Toraseinu, is celebrated on the sixth of Sivan, because that is the fiftieth day after Pesach. According to R’ Yosi, however, Mattan Torah only took place on the next day—why, then, is this the Nusach HaTeffilah? Indeed, the Mogen Avrohom points out that this Nusach would seem to indicate that we Pasken like the Rabanan and assume that Mattan Torah took place on the sixth of Sivan.

This assumption may be challenged, however, based on another Halacha. The Gemara in Shabbos begins speaking about the Machlokes between R’ Yosi and the Rabanan because there is a question about a Din in Tumah that arises from their opposing views. If we Pasken like the Rabanan, we would expect the Halacha to follow their view in this Din as well. In Yorah Deah, however, the Shulchan Orech brings the Psak in line with the Shita of R’ Yosi. There are ways to resolve this apparent conflict, but the fact remains that even within Halacha there is some ambiguity.

This leaves us with us with something of a quandary: Mattan Torah is the seminal event in our history, the moment at which we became the Am Hatorah, the point of origin of all that we live for. How is it possible that we cannot even identify the date on which it occurred? There is so much else that we know, either from the Pessukim themselves or Chazal, about various events discussed in the Torah—how can it be that the date of Mattan Torah is unclear?

One can only assume that in some way the Torah wished for this to be the case. The Torah could have said “B’Shishi BaChodesh” or “BaShevi’I BaChodesh”, and the omission therefore seems intentional. This notion of course leads to the next question: why did the Torah choose, so to speak, not to clearly identify the date of Mattan Torah? What can we learn from the way the Pessukim are in fact written that we would perhaps not understand if the date was made clear?

Adding to this question is the fact that the Torah does tell us when Mattan Torah occurred, but a relative day is used rather than an absolute date.

After arriving in Midbar Sinai, Moshe Rabbeinu was given a set of instructions to pass on to Klal Yisroel in preparation for Ma’amad Har Sinai. These directives include the words “V’Hayu Nechonim L’Yom HaShelishi…” HKBH told Moshe that Klal Yisroel should be prepared for “Yom HaShelishi” because on that day “Yered Hashem L’Einei HaAm”. Later, Moshe Rabbeinun indeed instructs Bnei Yisroel to be prepared using the words “Heye Nechonim L’Shloshes HaYamim”.

Now, one might assume that these instructions were incidental, meant only to let Bnei Yisroel know how many days remained until Mattan Torah. Later, however, when the Torah begins to speak about Mattan Torah itself, the Passuk says: “Vayehi Bayom HaShelishi”. This is the point where we would expect the Passuk to tell us what day of the month it was, as is the case in other events that are recorded, but instead the relative date, “Yom HaShlishi” is used. Why? What is the significance of the Yom HaShelishi such that it is the day identified by the Passuk in relation to Mattan Torah?

There is a Medrash is found in a collection of uncovered Maamarei Chazal known as Medrash Chadash Al HaTorah that seems to address just this point.

The Medrash asks: “V’Lama BaYom HaShelishi”, why is the date of Mattan Torah referred to as “Yom HaShlishi?”. The Medrash answers: “SheB’Yom HaShlishi Nivra’u Ilanos U’Deshaim.” It was on the third day of Brias HaOlam that trees and vegetation was created, “Amar HKBH B’Yom HaShlishi Barasi Tzarchei Chaim V’Af Torah Nikres Etz Chaim…”

Taken at face value, the Medrash tells us that since trees and other sources of sustenance were created on Yom HaShlishi, it was appropriate to give the Torah, which is referred to in Mishlei as “Etz Chaim Hi L’Machazikim Bo,” on Yom HaShlishi.

This Medrash seems to offer a compelling explanation for the words “Vayehi Bayom HaShelishi”, teaching us that the Torah was given on Yom HaShelishi because it is referred to as an Etz. There is, however, a glaring question that must be asked on the Medrash.

As part of the discussion of the Machlokes between R’ Yosi and the Rabanan, the Gemara in Shabbos tells us that there are certain points on which both sides agree, among them: “D’Kuli Alma B’Shabbos Nitna Torah L’Yisroel”. While the exact date of Mattan Torah is debated, the day of the week is agreed upon by all: Shabbos Kodesh. No one says that the Torah was given on Tuesday—the words “V’Hayu Nechonim L’Yom HaShelishi…” and “Vayehi Bayom HaShelishi”, are referential, indicating the number of days between the intial instructions given to Moshe and Mattan Torah itself. Why, then, does the Medrash connect Mattan Torah with that which was created on the Yom HaShlishi—the Yom Hashlishi of Har Sinai was in fact Shabbos?

Perhaps, however, we can suggest that the Medrash is really asking our original question: why does the Torah identify the day of Mattan Torah as “Bayom HaShelishi” rather than using an absolute date? The Medrash therefore assumes that these words were chosen to hint at the connection between the Torah, and its definition as Etz Chaim, and the “Ilanos U’Deshaim” that were created on the third day of Brias HaOlam.

If so, we must understand this connection: what is the aspect of Torah that is communicated by the words “Etz Chaim Hi”? What aspect of the Torah is highlighted by using the phrase “Vayehi Bayom HaShelishi” in relation to Ma’amad Har Sinai?

In establishing the connection between the “Ilanos U’Deshaim” and the Torah, the Medrash uses the words “Amar HKBH B’Yom HaShlishi Barasi Tzarchei Chaim”, which seems to indicate that the words “Etz Chaim Hi” are not to be understood metaphorically—the Torah is itself “Tzarchei Chaim”, providing life much the way the Ilanos U’Deshaim do. How can we understand this? How does the Torah provide Chaim? To put it another way: what is “Chaim”? What is the “life” described by the words “Etz Chaim Hi L’Machazikim Bo ” that the Torah provides, as the Medrash tells us?

To answer this question, we can look to a moment described in the Torah, which is somewhat difficult to understand.

As we know, Yaakov Avinu called his sons to gather around him before his Petirah, with the intention of revealing to them the Keitz. He was, however, prevented from doing so and instead gave them the Brachos. What does this mean? Why did Yaakov intend to be Migaleh Es HaKetz? What would have been the purpose of revealing this secret? It is also notable that Yaakov tells his sons to gather twice in those Pesuskim, using different terms: first he used the words “He’asfu V’Agidah Lachem...”, and then when he was unable to be Migaleh Es HaKeitz he said “Hikabtzu U’Shema”. Why did he have to tell them to gather again, and why did he use different words?

The Sfas Emes, in Parshas Vayechi, explains that these two Lashonos are Keneged Na’aseh V’Nishma. When Yaakov said “He’asfu V’Agidah Lachem” he referred to the Mesiras Nefesh that Klal Yisroel exhibited in placing Na’aseh before Nishma: they were so committed to upholding the Dvar Hashem, that they would do so to their own detriment. This was an existence of L’Mayla Min HaTeva, living as Malachim might, placing the Ratzon HaBorei above all.

Yaakov Avinu wished to pass to his sons an important message: if you accomplish the spirit of Na’aseh V’Nishma, and live with true Mesiras Nefesh, as indicated by the words “He’asfu V’Agidah Lachem, the the Keitz will arrive immediately. Galus, that which delays the Keitz, is only necessary in a world of Teva, not in a world of “He’asfu V’Agidah Lachem” in which Na’aseh is placed before Nishma.

When it became clear that the Shevatim could not attain a Madreigah of “He’asfu V’Agidah Lachem” and that they were not able at that moment to achieve an existence of “Na’aseh V’Nishma,” Yaakov said, “Hikabtzu U’Shema,” alluding to Nishma. This also sent an important message: even when we are not on the level of placing Na’aseh first, the opportunity for Nishma exists, and we can be Mekayem the Dvar Hashem on our level.

The Sfas Emes explains that this is what happened at the time of Kabalas HaTorah. When we said “Na’aseh V’Nishma” we existed in a world without Teva, and as Chazal tell us, reached a level of “Cheirus M’Malach HaMaves”. Misa, death, is part of Teva, and so long as we lived in a world of Na’aseh V’Nishma we were impervious to the Malach HaMaves. After the Chet HaEgel, when we displayed a preference for Nishma before Na’aseh, there was a return to Teva and therefore to Misa.

Concludes the Sfas Emes: even in Galus, which is defined by Teva, we can access the world of L’Mayla Min HaTeva by grasping on to Chaim itself as the Passuk tells us, “Etz Chaim Hi L’Machazikim Bo”.

Perhaps this is why the Torah does not identify the day of the month on which Mattan Torah occurred: to emphasize the aspect of the Torah related to the Ilanos U’Deshaim created on the “Yom HaShlishi”.

By repeatedly using the words “Yom HaShlishi”, not only in the instructions given to Klal Yisroel but also in relation to Ma’amad Har Sinai itself, we are reminded that the Torah is the Etz Chaim L’Machazikim Bo and is itself the source of true Chaim.

Lest we assume that Kabbalas HaTorah, defined by the words Na’aseh V’Nishma, was a singular occurance, a historic event never to be repeated, the Torah tells us that it took place on the Yom HaShelishi so that we understand that one of the central purposes of the Torah Hakedosha is to serve as an Etz Chaim. Anyone, at any time, in any place, can grasp on the Torah and be immediately transported to Har Sinai. If we understand and appreciate the true purpose of the Etz Chaim, then we can achieve a level of “L’Mayla Min HaTeva” akin to that of our forefathers who stood at Mattan Torah.

Shavuos is Zman Mattan Toraseinu, a day in which we relive the experience of the Yom HaShelishi and have an opportunity to take stock of our accomplishments and aspirations in the realm of Ruchnias. Rather than assume that there are things we are and are not capable of, that we have limitations, we can look to the Torah as the Etz Chaim, the source of a life unbound by the confines of Teva, and free ourselves of such notions.

The Torah does not tell us which date on which Mattan Torah occurred, to the point of ambiguity as is seen in the Gemara, because it is more important for us to focus on the message conveyed by the words “Vayehi Bayom HaShelishi”. If we see the Torah as, “Tzarchei Chaim”, the key to living “L’Mayla Min HaTeva”, then the Yom Tov of Shavuos is not about the past but about our future, as we look forward to the ultimate day of “He’asfu V’Agidah Lachem” with the elimination of Teva and the advent of the Yom Shekulo Shabbos.