Shavuot’s Dual Identity

You shall bring out of your dwellings two wave-loaves of two tenth parts of an ephah.  They shall be of fine flour.  They shall be baked with leaven, for first-fruits unto Hashem. (Sefer VaYikra 23:17)

 And the Festival of the Harvest, the first-fruits of your labors, which you sow in the field; and the Festival of the Ingathering, at the end of the year, when you gather in your labors out of the field. (Sefer Shemot 23:16)

1.  Shavuot is described in the Torah as a harvest festival

According to tradition, the Torah was received by Bnai Yisrael on the sixth day of Sivan.  Shavuot is observed on the anniversary of the Sinai Revelation.  In the liturgy for Shavuot, it is described as “the time of the giving of the Torah”.  However, the Chumash never explicitly associates Shavuot with Revelation.  Instead, the Torah consistently describes Shavuot as a harvest festival.  The above passages provide two examples.  The first passage is found in the Torah’s most extensive discussion of Shavuot.  In these passages, Shavuot is described as the festival upon which “a new grain offering” is brought.  This is a reference to a unique sacrifice offered on Shavuot.  It is comprised of two loaves of leavened bread baked from fine wheat flour.  This flour was milled from the wheat of the new harvest.  This meal offering and the Omer meal offering of Pesach together express our acknowledgement that the life-sustaining bounty of the new harvest is a manifestation of Hashem’s chesed – kindness.  The characterization of Shavuot as a harvest festival is even more explicit in the second set of passages.  In these passages, Shavuot is referred to as the Festival of the Harvest.

The question raised by the Torah’s descriptions of Shavuot is obvious.  Why does the Torah not describe Shavuot as the celebration of Revelation?

And He said: Certainly I will be with you.  And this shall be the token unto you that I have sent you.  When you have brought forth the people out of Egypt, you shall serve G-d upon this mountain.  (Sefer Shemot 3:12)

 

2.  The strange order in which the narrative of Revelation is presented

Although the Torah provides a historical record of the development of Bnai Yisrael, its account does not follow a strict chronological order.  Sometimes the Torah departs from a chronological presentation of events in order to preserve the continuity of its narrative.  In other instances, strict chronology is abandoned in order to juxtapose events or themes and thereby, communicate a message.  In other words, the coherence, the continuity of the presentation, and other considerations take precedence over strict adherence to chronology.

Based upon this principle, the content of the chapters of the Torah’s narrative leading-up to the Sinai Revelation is surprising.  Hashem explained to Moshe at their first encounter at the seneh – the burning bush – that Bnai Yisrael would be redeemed from Egypt in order to be brought to Sinai and there receive the Torah.  Given that this was the stated objective of the nation’s redemption, it follows that after the Torah’s narrative of the exodus is completed, the narrative should proceed with a description of Revelation.  However, the Torah concludes its account of Bnai Yisrael’s escape from Egypt with its description of the destruction of Paroh and his legions at the Reed Sea and Bnai Yisrael’s song of praise to Hashem.  The narrative then describes a number of events that occurred during the interim between the nation’s redemption and Revelation.  The only apparent justification for the insertion at this point of these events into the narrative is the preservation of a proper chronology.  However, as explained above, this is a poor justification.

And the people murmured against Moshe, saying: What shall we drink?  (Sefer Shemot 15:24)

Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim.  (Sefer Shemot 17:8)                                                     

And Yitro, the priest of Midyan, Moshe's father-in-law, heard of all that G-d had done for Moshe, and for Israel His people, how Hashem had brought Israel out of Egypt. (Sefer Shemot 18:1)

3.  Bnai Yisrael’s complaints, Amalek, and Yitro – their place within the Torah’s narrative

The intervening material can be divided into three distinct sections.  The first section records a number of occasion upon which the people complained about their lack of adequate provisions.  This section culminates with a flock of quail descending upon the camp which provide the people with meat and the initiation of the falling of the mun – the manna.   The mun continued to fall and to sustain the people throughout their travels in the wilderness.

The next section describes Amalek’s unprovoked attack of Bnai Yisrael.  This section concludes by describing the defeat of Amalek and Hashem’s pledge to utterly destroy this wicked adversary.

The final section describes the arrival of Yitro – Moshe’s father-in-law.  Yitro has heard of the wonders that Bnai Yisrael has experienced.  He wishes to hear more about these wonders from those who experienced and witnessed them.  After hearing these accounts, Yitro recognizes and praises Hashem.  This section concludes with an account of the introduction of nation’s first judicial system.  This system was designed by Yitro and implemented by Moshe.  The placement of this final section in this point in the narrative is the most difficult to explain.  Rashi suggests that this section is not even in its proper chronological place.  He explains that a careful analysis of the text suggests that Yitro arrived after Revelation.[1]  The placement of this section in this point of the narrative certainly requires explanation.

Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik Zt”l suggests an important explanation for the insertion at this point in the narrative of these final two sections.  The following is based upon his explanation. However, it expands upon the insight of Rav Soloveitchik and is not intended as a precise record of his thoughts.

And Hashem said to Moshe:  I come unto you in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you, and may also believe you forever.  And Moses told the words of the people unto Hashem.  (Sefer Shemot 19:9)

4.  The Revolution of Revelation

Rav Soloveitchik suggests that these two incidents are intended as an introduction to the Torah’s account of Revelation.  The ideas presented in the Torah were not only revolutionary in their content.  They were also delivered in a novel manner.  Prior to Revelation, one’s choice of religion was completely subjective.  Humanity’s varied religions were the inventions of their worshipers.  This led to the plethora of idols and deities.  Of course, Avraham, his descendants, and followers had discovered truths that were not merely subjective products of the imagination.  However, for most of humanity, these “truths” that Avraham and his followers promoted seemed to be no more established than competing religious notions.

In this historical context, Revelation was revolutionary.  It was the climax of Hashem’s revelation of Himself before the entire nation.  This process began with the demonstrations of His omnipotence in Egypt.  It continued with the rescue of Bnai Yisrael from their pursuers at the Reed Sea and the drowning of Paroh and his army.  The events of Sinai were the final and most awe-inspiring expression of Hashem’s revelation.  Bnai Yisrael’s conviction in Hashem’s existence and the authenticity of Torah was based upon their first-hand experience.

However, this revelation that began in Egypt and achieved its climax at Sinai was not relevant to only Bnai Yisrael.  For the first time, humanity had been presented with a revealed religious doctrine authenticated by the testimony of an entire nation present at its revelation.  The evidence of an omnipotent Creator Who interacts with humanity and the authentication of the Torah as a revealed truth was directed and relevant to all of humanity.  Every human being who heard of the wonders that Hashem preformed in Egypt and His revelation at Sinai was challenged to respond to these authenticated truths.

5.  Two responses to Revelation                                                                                   

Rav Soloveitchik explains that the account of Amalek’s attack upon Bnai Yisrael and Yitro’s acceptance of Hashem are inserted at this point into the narrative in order to demonstrate the two universal responses to the message of the Egypt redemption and Revelation.  These responses are rejection and denial or acceptance and embrasure.  Amalek exemplifies the first response.  Rather than consider the message communicated by Bnai Yisrael’s miraculous redemption from Egypt and the utter destruction of their oppressors, Amalek fled into denial.  Amalek could not tolerate the message communicated by redemption.  It responded by seeking out Bnai Yisrael and acting out its fantasy of denial.  It attacked Bnai Yisrael – bent upon undermining the message of redemption through destroying the newly redeemed nation.

Yitro exemplifies the alternative response.  Yitro understood the significance of redemption and Revelation.  He understood the evidence these provided of an omnipotent Creator and a revealed Torah.  With this realization, he came to the camp of Bnai Yisrael in order to learn more of a truth he now sought to embrace and make his own.[2]

6. Recalling Revelation – a doctrine or a commandment?

Rav Soloveitchik’s comments provide insight into a dispute between two great Sages.  Nachmanides maintains that we are required by a commandment of the Torah to not forget – even for a moment – the episode of Revelation.  We are to remain continuously aware and cognizant of the events of Sinai.[3]  Maimonides demurs.  He agrees that our conviction in the authenticity of Revelation is a fundamental element of our religion.[4]  Yet, he does agree that this doctrine is the material of a specific Torah commandment.  Why does Maimonides reject Nachmanides’ seemingly reasonable contention that a fundamental element of our religion should be the subject of one of the Torah’s commandments?

Based upon Rav Soloveitchik’s comments, Revelation emerges as not merely an important or even pivotal historical event. It is the distinguishing characteristic of the Torah.  It is the foundation of the authenticity of the Torah and it differentiates Torah from other subjective religious doctrines.  Perhaps, for this reason, Maimonides contends that conviction in the authenticity of Revelation cannot be the subject of a commandment.  It is the foundation of every single commandment.  Every commandment is performed as an expression of our conviction in the authenticity of Revelation.  In other words, our conviction in the authenticity of Revelation is implicit in the performance of each and every commandment.

7.  The relationship between Shavuot and Revelation

Aruch HaShulcan suggests that for this reason the Torah does not refer to Shavuot as the celebration of Revelation.  With every commandment that we perform, we confirm Revelation.  No day is needed to remind us of Revelation or to memorialize the event.[5]  It is true that our liturgy refers to Shavuot as the time of Revelation.  However, the intent is not to suggest that Shavuot memorializes or moves us to recall Revelation.  Instead, we are merely declaring that the anniversary of Revelation is worthy of celebration as a day of thanksgiving.

An analogy will help communicate Aruch HaShulchan’s perspective.  A husband and wife should appreciate each other and love one another every day of the year.  It would be ridiculous to have just a single day of the year devoted to appreciating one’s wife or husband. This appreciation should be present and expressed every day. Nonetheless, the date of a married couple’s anniversary should be special to the husband and wife.  This day is the anniversary of one of the most important events in their lives.  Even though the husband and wife appreciate and cherish one another every day, this day deserves special acknowledgment.  Similarly, we express our conviction in Revelation with every mitzvah we perform.  However, Shavuot – the anniversary of Revelation – deserves special acknowledgment as a day of awesome significance.

According to Aruch HaShulchan, the Torah does not explicitly refer to Shavuot as a celebration of Revelation.  Such a characterization could be easily misunderstood to suggest that some commemorative celebration of Revelation is required rather than its commemoration through observance of the Torah’s commandments.  Only in the liturgy is Shavuot referred to as the time of Revelation.  However, the intention in this reference is not to suggest that our commemoration of Revelation can be relegated to a calendar date.  The intention is to proclaim the day that is the anniversary of Revelation as a day worthy of celebration and thanksgiving.

 

[1] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 18:13.

[2] These comments are based upon a recorded lecture of Rav Soloveitchik Zt”l.

[3] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Critique on Maimonides’ Sefer HaMitzvot -- Negative Commands that Maimonides Neglected to Include.

[4] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Commentary on the Mishne, Mesechet Sanherin 10:1.

[5] Rav Aharon HaLeyve Epstein, Aruch HaShulchan, Orech Chayim 494:2.