This is an essay I wrote for Professor Astor in my first year in YU. It is laughably horrible. But I tried my darnedest to be innovative, and maybe there's a good diyuk or two there. My major point was that Rashi misread/rejected his purported source, Rabbi Akiva, so that's significant. Part of the assignment was to describe the various methodologies of the commentaries I used, where and when they were reading, etc, which I didn't really know and didn't really put much thought into. I like how I remember writing this essay and thinking it was completely perfect. When I got an 85, I was so upset I met with him, and he still didn't understand my essay. Reading it over now with a constant grimace on my face, I can understand why. Oy.
To
See a Voice
There is arguably no greater event in history to happen
to the Jews than the event that took place at Mount Sinai. They became “The
Jews” at that point in history. The Ten Commandments were given. There was lightening.
There was the blowing of a shofar, smoke on the mountain. It was a quite a
sight. In fact, the verse seems to say the Jewish people actually saw
sounds/voices, and the shofar blowing. Did they experience synesthesia, the
mixing of the senses? They actually heard with their eyes? Or is there another
explanation?
|
And
the entire nation saw the voices and the fire, and the sound of the shofar,
and the smoke of the mountain. The people saw and they trembled; and they
stood from a distance.
Shemos
20:15
|
וכל־העם ראים את־הקולת ואת הלפידם ואת קול השׁפר ואת ההר
עשׁן וירא העם וינעו ויעמדו מרחק׃
שמות כ:טו
|
The
Nation of Israel has just been told the 10 Commandments. The verse then says:
The
English translation follows Onkelos’s Aramaic translation of the verse. He
interpreted the verse at its literal meaning, that the people actually saw the voices
along with the smoke and fire. This is normal for Onkelos, who almost always
does a straight, word for word translation of a verse. The Talmud (Megillah 3a)
writes that Onkelos wrote the translation on the Bible according to the
instructions of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua. Presumably, the Rabbis of the
time approved of this translation, and it was so officially endorsed that we
even find the Rabbis including Targum Onkelos in an obligation to read the
weekly Bible portion (Berachot 8b). It was written around 110 C.E.
|
“They
saw that which is heard, which is impossible to see in a different place.”
Rashi,
Exodus 20:15
|
רואין את הנשמע, שאי אפשר לראות במקום אחר:
רש"י שמות כ:טו
|
Rashi
seems to agree with Onkelos. He comments on the words “"ראים את הקולת:
Rashi
wrote his commentary in France, in the 11th century. His methodology,
as laid out in his commentary to Genesis 3:8, is to arrive at a simple/literal
meaning that aids in putting a certain word or phrase in context. This is
primarily done using rabbinic writings, such as midrash, even though a given
word could have multiple other meanings as well. Here, he tries to jive “ראים” with “קולות”, while keeping in mind the flow of the
verses. He does this by saying that all the noises were seen as well as heard,
but no additional details happened. The question is, then, what rabbinic source
does he use as support?
Several
midrashim are very similar to Onkelos and Rashi’s view of the event at Sinai,
including Rabbi Akiva in the Mechilta of Rabbi Yishmael, Shemot Rabba, and
Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer. We shall discuss each one to determine where their
similarities end. They all seem to be
based solely on tradition from Sinai, but not from literal interpretation of
the verse.
There
are commentaries that do not interpret the verse to describe the people’s synesthesia,
and instead see “ראים”
as referring to something else. These are Rabbi Yishmael of the Mechilta of
Rabbi Yishmael, the Ibn Ezra, the Rashbam, and the Seforno. They all seem
approach the interpretation of the verse based on various meanings of words in
the verse. What does “ראים”
mean?
Come,
let us see.
The
Mechilta of Rabbi Yishmael was written during Tannaic times, and was certainly
known during the times of the Amoraim, according to Lauterbach. In Parshat
Yitro (Parsha 9), the midrash quotes an argument between Rabbi Yishmael and
Rabbi Akiva as to what the Jews saw at Mount Sinai.
Lauterbach
Edition:
|
And
All the People Saw the Thunderings: “They saw what was visible, and heard
what was audible.”-These are the words of R. Ishmael. R. Akiba says, “They
saw and heard that which was visible. They saw the fiery words of fire leave
the mouth of the Almighty as it was struck upon the tablets, as it is said,
‘The voice of the Lord hewed out flames of fire.’”
Mechilta
of Rabbi Yishmael, Yitro Parsha 9
|
וכל העם רואים את הקולות: רואין
הנראה ושומעין הנשמע דברי
רבי ישמעאל. רבי עקיבא אומר רואין ושומעין הנראה: רואין
דבר של אש יוצא מפי הגבורה ונחצב על הלוחות, שנאמר: קול ה' חוצב להבות אש:
'יתרו פרשה ט ,מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל
|
Typical
of midrash, omnisignificance plays a major role in the formulation of the
argument between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva. What exactly happened at
Sinai? Rabbi Yishmael believes that there was no synesthesia at the giving of
the Torah at Sinai. Therefore, he is willing to interpret the verse to reflect
this, by butchering its plain meaning and playing around with the structure of
the verse to make it fit. Rabbi Akiva is recognized by kabbalists as one of the
greatest Jewish mystics, the only one to make it out of Pardes safe and sound
(Chagiga 14b). Here, he seems to be expressing the view that there was some
kind of meditation-vision, seeing God’s voice, through the mixing of the
senses. He therefore is willing to take the verse at its literal level to
explain it according to the mystical nature of the giving of the Torah.
Typical
of midrash, as well, is the concept of interpretation of multiplicity of
meaning in the verse. Rabbi Akiva clearly holds that “ראים” in Hebrew can mean “seeing and hearing”. Rabbi
Yishmael disagrees. The Kav Hamida, a commentary on the Mechilta, explains that
Rabbi Yishmael is holding that “ראים” is only referring to the things in the
verse that can be seen. “שומעין”
is not written because the verse is, as he puts it, “מקרא קצר”- short, or economical with its words. Why
doesn’t Rabbi Yishmael hold of multiple meanings here? A possible answer for
this is that Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva do not disagree as to what happened
at Sinai. Israel saw God’s voice, that is our tradition. They are simply
arguing if this is indicated in this verse. According to Rabbi Akiva, it is if
we take into account multiple meanings of verbs. Rabbi Yishmael says that it is
too weak to say that here, as one can easily say that the verse is being
economical, and “ראים”
is only going on the things that could be seen.
Interestingly, Rabbi Akiva indicates
there was some kind of synesthesia, but the synesthesia they experienced was
that they were “רואין
ושומעין הנראה”,
unlike Rashi’s “רואין
את הנשמע”. Rabbi Akiva’s answer to the problem of
“seeing sounds” is that they heard the voice of God, as well as seeing the
words take the form of fire and engrave themselves onto the two tablets. It
seems to me that Rashi does not agree with this view because nowhere in the
verse does it say they heard. To say they saw that which is heard is fine,
because it does say “ראים”,
coupled with the fact that you can’t see thunder or the sound of a shofar
blowing. But to add in that they “heard that which is seen” is not found in the
simple reading of the verse, and is therefore unnecessary to “fix” the verse.
Although the language of Rashi and Rabbi Akiva are similar, Rashi clashes
conceptually with Rabbi Akiva in respect to what happened at Sinai. Therefore,
I do not think this is Rashi’s source.
Shemot Rabba was written during the
times of the Amoraim, and possibly in part earlier, during the times of the
Tanaim, according to WUJS. It describes the situation as follows:
|
When
God gave the Torah at Sinai, He showed Israel wondrous things through His
voice. How? God would speak and His voice would go out and return throughout
the world. Israel would hear the voice coming upon them from the south, and
they would run to the south to receive the voice, and from the south the
voice would switch to the north, and they would run to the north, and it
would switch to the east, and they would run to the east, and it would switch
to the west, and they would run to the west. And from the west it would
switch to the heavens, and they would suspend their eyes, and it would switch
to the land, and they would look to the land…
Shemot
Rabbah, 5:9
|
...כשנתן הקב"ה את התורה
בסיני הראה בקולו לישראל פלאי פלאים, כיצד? היה הקב"ה מדבר, והקול יוצא ומחזיר
בכל העולם. ישראל שומעין את הקול בא עליהם מן הדרום, והיו רצים לדרום לקבל את
הקול, ומדרום נהפך להם לצפון, והיו רצים לצפון, ומצפון נהפך למזרח, והיו רצים
למזרח, וממזרח נהפך להם למערב, והיו רצים למערב, ומן המערב נהפך להן מן השמים,
והיו תולין עיניהן, והיה נהפך בארץ, והיו מביטין לארץ...
שמות רבה ה:ט
|
According
to Shemot Rabbah, it was voice they heard from God that showed
them wondrous things. It would fly around the world, in all four directions,
and the Jewish people would chase after it. Rashi did not include this in his
explanation, because, as above, nowhere in the verse does it mention hearing,
as well as the fact that Rashi’s explanation extends to the “ראים” of the shofar blasts, but Shemot Rabbah
only explains the “קולות”.
Also, it is not so clear this piece from Shemot Rabbah is referring to our
verse, especially since our verse does not say anything about Israel running
around earth chasing God’s voice. If it is
referring to our verse, then it seems to be an idea similar to Rabbi Akiva’s,
that they literally saw God’s voice, as well as hearing it. Therefore, I do not
think this is Rashi’s source.
Another midrash similar to Rashi’s
interpretation is found in Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer:
|
Rabbi
Yehudah says, “When a person talks to his fellow, he sees him, but does not
see his voice. The Nation of Israel heard the Lord’s voice and saw it leave
from the mouth of the Almighty, and thunder and lightning, as it says, “And
all the people saw the voices and the lightning.”’
Pirkei
D’Rabbi Eliezer 49
|
רבי
יהודה אומר מדבר אדם עם חבירו, הוא נראה וקולו לא נראה, וישראל שמעו קולו של
הקב״ה וראו את הקול יוצא מפי הגבורה וברקים ורעמים, שנאמר וכל העם רואים את
הקולות ואת הלפידים
פרקי
דר״א פמ״א
|
This Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer is very
close to Rashi, and has all the same concepts, but if Rashi used this as a
source, he did not borrow any similar phrases from it. Another major difference
is that Rashi seems to extend his interpretation of “seeing and hearing” onto
the shofar blasts also, something not done by this midrash. Therefore, I do not
think this was Rashi’s source.
In the Mechilta D’Rabbi Shimon Bar
Yochai was written during the times of the Tannaim, and in part, during the
times of the Amoraim, according to W. David Nelson. In it, the midrash says:
|
It
is the way of the world that it is impossible to see voices. But here, “…they
saw the voices and the fire.” Just like they saw fire, so too they saw the
voices.
Mechilta
of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, Exodus 20:15
|
בנוהג שבעולם מה שאי
אפשר לראות את הקול אבל כאן ראו את הקולות ואת הלפידים כשם שראו את הלפידים כך
ראו את הקולות:
מכילתא דרבי שמעון בר
יוחאי שמות כ:טו
|
The
parallels to Rashi are numerous with this one. First, the concept of “seeing”
everything is here, not just God’s voice. One can easily extend the logic of
this midrash to the seeing of shofar blasts as well, like Rashi, something that
could not be done with the previous two midrashim. Also, phrases are similar; “שאי אפשר לראות” from this midrash sounds very much akin
to Rashi’s language of “שאי
אפשר לראות במקום אחר”. This is possibly why Rabbi Herzceg in
the Artscroll Rashi set cites this as the source for this concept. Meaning,
only at Sinai could this “miraculous” experience occur. Because of these
reasons, I think this is the full source for Rashi’s idea.
Other
commentators do not believe the verse is indicating synesthesia.
The
Ibn Ezra wrote a commentary to the Bible that was completed fully shortly
before his death in 1164, in Spain, according to Jewish Encyclopedia. On our
verse, he writes:
And
I have already explained previously
the reasoning for “seeing the sounds”. It is because all senses are connected
to each other to the same place, [the brain]. And behold the reasoning is
that they saw the sounds and the lightning, because the way of man is to become
afraid from such things and the sound of the shofar that was unlike anything
else in the world.
Ibn
Ezra, Exodus 20:15
|
וכבר פירשתי טעם רואים את הקולות. כי כל ההרגשות מתחברות
אל מקום אחד. והנה הטעם כאשר ראו הקולות והלפידים, כי מנהג האדם יתפחד מהם וקול
השופר שלא נשמע כזה לעולם
אבן עזרא שמות כ:טו
|
He
believes that the senses are all really one, so when the verse says “ראים”, it means “experienced”. In other words,
when the verse says “ראים”,
can be interpreted as one of the five
senses, whichever one fits the object. Therefore, they heard the shofar blasts,
and they saw the lightning. Unlike his using his usual methodology of picking
up on a philological point, Ibn Ezra is instead telling us that the word “ראים” is just an example of any other sense,
such as hearing or tasting, because they are all connected in the brain, and
can be replaced with one another. Is this a philological statement? It seems to
me not. This is not based on the root of the word “to see”, as the Ibn Ezra
would undoubtedly say the same thing if they “heard the lightning”. Ibn Ezra does not believe that it is the most
literal meaning of the word “ראים” to say “seeing and hearing”, but he does
believe that “ראים”
can mean “hearing”. This is not like Rabbi Akiva, who says they did both, but
it does seem like Rabbi Yishmael, who, according to my explanation of him
above, holds that “seeing” includes “hearing” as well. This is at odds with the
Ibn Ezra’s usual methodology, where he does not use midrash in formulating his
interpretation. A possible difference between them is that the Ibn Ezra is
willing to extend “ראים”
to all feeling, including fear, while Rabbi Yishmael relegates “ראים” only to seeing and hearing.
Another
opinion is that of the Rashbam. The Rashbam was the grandson of Rashi, and the
older brother of Rabeinu Tam, and the Rivam. He writes:
|
Hail and
stones, as it says “God’s sounds and hail”.
Rashbam,
Exodus 20:15
|
הברד והאבנים, כדכתיב
"קולות אלהים וברד"
רשב"ם שמות כ:טו
|
What
did they see at Sinai? Rashbam answers that they saw hail and stones, basing
his interpretation of “קולות”
from Exod. 9:28, where there is a connection of “קולות” with “וברד”. This approach is very common for the
Rashbam, to use other verses to figure out the translation of a problematic
one. The Rashbam sees no reason to use midrashim to explain verses of the
Bible. Instead of fantastical interpretations of God’s voice, the Rashbam uses
an explanation that does not involve the use of extra details. Instead, “קולות” means
hail and stones. Whose voices are they “ראים”? Do we have an indication of God talking?
The answer is that it is instead miraculous natural phenomena that they saw. This
is all the context in which the Rashbam is trying to fit this explanation in to.
He would not disagree that there are other levels of interpretation that can be
at play here, and literary devices and context influence the meaning, but he
thinks that there is only one valid literal interpretation.
The
last opinion is that of Rabbi Ovadiah Seforno, who wrote his commentary on the
Bible in the 1500’s, in Italy. He comments:
Just
like “My heart sees”,
they understood that they could not fathom the sounds, like they said, “Let
me not continue to hear the voice of the Lord, my God, and let me no longer
see this great fire, so that I will not die."
Seforno,
Exodus 20:15
|
כמו "ולבי ראה", התבוננו בענין הקולות שלא
יוכלו לסבלם, כאמרם "לא אוסיף עוד לשמוע את קול ה' אלהי, ואת האש הגדולה
הזאת לא אראה עוד, ולא אמות":
ספורנו שמות כ:טו
|
Seforno
focuses on changing our understanding of the word “ראים”, instead of “קולות”, and uses a verse to prove his point,
that “ראים”
can mean “understanding” or “perceiving”. It can be explained with a common
phrase nowadays: “ ‘I see,’ said the blind man.” He doesn’t literally see, he
understands. Therefore, they didn’t actually see the sounds, but rather
understood that they couldn’t wrap their minds around the sounds, and the
shofar blasts, and everything else, and they got very scared of them. This fits
into his overall methodology of keeping to literal interpretation, while
avoiding mystical connotations. He is also fond of pointing out moral insights
found in the Bible.
He does not appear to use midrashic interpretation here.
In conclusion, we’ve seen that
Rashi and Onkelos have many similarities to the interpretations of the Sages.
We’ve seen the Mechilta, and how Rabbi Yishmael wanted to add in a few words to
make the verse make sense, but Rashi didn’t seem to like that. We saw how he
seemed to agree with Rabbi Akiva about how they did experience synesthesia, but
he wrote it with a few modifications to work towards a better plain
reading. We’ve seen the Pirkei D’Rabbi
Eliezer, as well as the Shemot Rabbah, which adds a more “colorful” story to
what Israel actually saw, but Rashi did not want to limit his approach to the
word “קולות”,
striving to include the shofar blasts in the interpretation of the verse.
Therefore, he chose the Mechilta D’Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, which has many
similarities in language and in concepts. Some later commentators do not
interpret this verse to be referring to synesthesia at all. Rabbi Yishmael, as
we’ve said, believes that they saw the visible and heard the audible, and the
reason the Bible did not write it like that is because it is very economical
with its words. The Ibn Ezra says that seeing is just a reference to the
senses. So they saw the visible and heard the audible, whichever one fits for
each phrase in the verse. Although this seems the same as Rabbi Yishmael, we
said that a difference between them is how far “ראים” can be extended in terms of the senses,
Ibn Ezra saying all the way, while Rabbi Yishmael limits it to seeing and
hearing. We saw the Rashbam offers an original answer that “קולות” does not refer to voices or noise, but
rather to a visible object, hail and stones. According to him, “ראים” means “ראים”. And lastly, the Seforno interprets “ראים” as “understanding” or “perceiving”.
Therefore, they were “ראים”
that they couldn’t fathom the “קולות” and everything else in the verse, and
then complain to Moses lest they die.
As
always in Judaism, there is an argument. Did they see sounds or not? The Sages
were predominantly of the opinion that they did, but the Rishonim who came
later have no trouble finding biblical sources that allow them an easier, less
mystic way of understanding the Bible. The later commentators were just going
for literal understanding of the text. But, in my mind, the reason the Sages
were so hung up on this can be understood by reading the Rambam, Hilchos
Yesodei HaTorah, 8:1.
|
The
Children of Israel did not believe in Moses because of the signs he presented,
for someone who believes because of the signs he presents is tainted, for it
could be that his signs are performed by means of spells and witchcraft. All
the signs that Moses performed in the wilderness were done so according to
the needs of the moment, and not to bring proof to his prophecies. There was
a need to sink the Egyptians, so Moses split the sea and drowned them in it;
the Children of Israel needed food, so Moses brought down the manna for them;
they needed water, so Moses split the rock for them; Korah and his followers
rebelled, so Moses opened up the ground and they were swallowed up. The same
principle applies with all the other signs. It was the assembly at Mount
Sinai that made them believe in Moses, when our eyes, and no-one else's, saw,
and our ears, and no-one else's heard, the fire and the voices and the
lightning, and Moses drew near to the darkness, and the voice spoke to him,
and we heard it saying to Moses, "Moses, Moses, go tell them
such-and-such".
Rambam,
Laws of the Foundations of the Torah, 8:1
|
משה רבינו לא האמינו בו
ישראל מפני האותות שעשה. שהמאמין על פי האותות יש בלבו דופי שאפשר שיעשה האות
בלט וכשוף. אלא כל האותות שעשה משה במדבר לפי הצורך עשאם. לא להביא ראיה על
הנבואה. היה צריך להשקיע את המצריים קרע את הים והצלילן בתוכו. צרכנו למזון
הוריד לנו את המן. צמאו בקע להן את האבן. כפרו בו עדת קרח בלעה אותן הארץ. וכן
שאר כל האותות. ובמה האמינו בו במעמד הר סיני שעינינו ראו ולא זר ואזנינו שמעו
ולא אחר האש והקולות והלפידים והוא נגש אל הערפל והקול מדבר אליו ואנו שומעים
משה משה לך אמור להן כך וכך..
רמב"ם הלכות יסודי
התורה ח:א.
|
So
we see, the only reason the Jews believe in Moses as their ultimate prophet,
who was a messenger of God and who transmitted his word onto paper, was because
they were made witnesses by God
himself to those facts. Not only did they hear it, but they saw with their own
eyes. That kind of testimony, passed down from generation to generation, is the
sole basis for the truth of the Bible and its main prophet, and is what
distinguishes itself from Islam and Christianity. Indeed, this event is the
only reason to believe in Moses, and therefore the religion of the Jews.
Perhaps this is what it means in the Passover Haggadah: “If He had brought us before Mount Sinai and had not given us the
Torah, it would have been enough!” The obvious, commonly asked question is,
what would have been the point of bringing the Jews to the mountain without
giving them the Torah? The answer, based on what we’ve said, is that the
hearing and seeing of God’s voice would have been enough for them. They would
have been God-fearing people regardless of the Torah. Yet, the Torah is a
testimony to morals, ethics, and intellectuality, and there is much more to it
than simple faith alone.
Hagaos HaGra adds the word “
והנשמע”. Indeed, one must say this to make any
sense out of the following phrase about how the
קול"“ of the verse refers to God’s voice
(something heard) turning into fire, as well as the fact that Rabbi Akiva is
supposed to be explaining how they “saw” the shofar blasts as well.
Nevertheless, this is not exactly the same as Rashi’s very limited
“רואין את הנשמע“,
meaning that what they saw was seen normally, but what they
heard was abnormally experienced, in the
form of sight.
