Post: In parashat Mishpatim, the following pasuk {24:7}:
| 7. And he took the Book of the Covenant and read it within the hearing of the people, and they said, "All that the Lord spoke we will do and we will hear." | ז. וַיִּקַּח סֵפֶר הַבְּרִית וַיִּקְרָא בְּאָזְנֵי הָעָם וַיֹּאמְרוּ כֹּל אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְ־הֹוָ־ה נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע: |
The gemara in Shabbos 88a records the following regarding naaseh v'nishma:
Or, in the original Aramaic and Hebrew:R. Simla lectured: When the Israelites gave precedence to 'we will do' over 'we will hearken,'24 six hundred thousand ministering angels came and set two crowns upon each man of Israel, one as a reward for25 'we will do,' and the other as a reward for 'we will hearken'. But as soon as Israel sinned,26 one million two hundred thousand destroying angels descended and removed them, as it is said, And the children of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments from mount Horeb.27 R. Hama son of R. Hanina said: At Horeb they put them on and at Horeb they put them off. At Horeb the put them on, as we have stated. At Horeb they put them off, for it is written, And [the children of Israel] stripped themselves, etc. R. Johanan observed: And Moses was privileged and received them all, for in proximity thereto it is stated, And Moses took the tent.28 Resh Lakish said: [Yet] the Holy One, blessed be He, will return them to us in the future, for it is said, and the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come with singing unto Zion; and everlasting joy shall be upon their heads;29 the joy from of old30 shall be upon their heads.R. Eleazar said: When the Israelites gave precedence to 'we will do' over 'we will hearken,' a Heavenly Voice went forth and exclaimed to them, Who revealed to My children this secret, which is employed by the Ministering Angels, as it is written, Bless the Lord, ye angels of his. Ye mighty in strength, that fulfil his word, That hearken unto the voice of his word:31 first they fulfil and then they hearken?
דרש ר' סימאי בשעה שהקדימו ישראל נעשה לנשמע באו ששים ריבוא של מלאכי השרת לכל אחד ואחד מישראל קשרו לו שני כתרים אחד כנגד נעשה ואחד כנגד נשמע וכיון שחטאו ישראל ירדו מאה ועשרים ריבוא מלאכי חבלה ופירקום שנאמר (שמות לג, ו) ויתנצלו בני ישראל את עדים מהר חורב א"ר חמא בר' חנינא בחורב טענו בחורב פרקו בחורב טענו כדאמרן בחורב פרקו דכתיב ויתנצלו בני ישראל וגו' א"ר יוחנן וכולן זכה משה ונטלן דסמיך ליה ומשה יקח את האהל אמר ר"ל עתיד הקב"ה להחזירן לנו שנאמר (ישעיהו לה, י)ופדויי ה' ישובון ובאו ציון ברנה ושמחת עולם על ראשם שמחה שמעולם על ראשם אמר רבי אלעזר בשעה שהקדימו ישראל נעשה לנשמע יצתה בת קול ואמרה להן מי גילה לבני רז זה שמלאכי השרת משתמשין בו דכתיב (תהלים קג, כ) ברכו ה' מלאכיו גבורי כח עושי דברו לשמוע בקול דברו ברישא עושי והדר לשמועRashi explains this preceding naaseh to nishma as follows:
עושי דברו לשמוע - מוכנין לעשות קודם שישמעו ולא כדרך שאר עבדים ששומעים תחילה את הדבר לידע אם יכולין לקבלן עליהם אם לאו:"They are prepared to perform before they hear, and not in the manner of other servants, who first hear the matter to know if they are able to accept it upon themselves or not."
There is also a famous midrash regarding offering the Torah to all the nations and them refusing after first asking what is in it, while Israel simply says naaseh venishma -- that they are willing to do, even before hearing the contents.
While this is poetic, and there is certainly nothing wrong with it on the level of derash, it might not be the peshat of this pasuk. I'll provide Ibn Caspi's take on this:
That is, we do not need to be confounded that hearing must precede action, since who says that the order in the phrase is the order they need to be carried out? (I would suggest that perhaps we can even claim it is a hendiadys.) Furthermore, Ibn Caspi understands nishma in a different manner, namely that both are means of fulfillment of the preceding.
What do some other meforshim do to explain this pasuk? Well, we have Rashbam:
נעשה ונשמע - נעשה מה שדיבר וגם נשמע מה שיצונו עוד מכאן ולהבא ונקיים.I think he can readily take nishma as accept, but he takes pains to put these in order. Moshe, in the beginning of the pasuk, had informed them of the contents of some of the mitzvos: וַיִּקַּח סֵפֶר הַבְּרִית וַיִּקְרָא בְּאָזְנֵי הָעָם. Thus, the naaseh is agreement to what they have heard, while nishma is what Hashem will further command them. And they are accepting this even before hearing those particular details.
Seforno, as I understand him, is saying that the latter is the reason for the former:
נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע. נַעֲשֶׂה לְתַכְלִית שֶׁנִּשְׁמַע בְּקולו, כַּעֲבָדִים הַמְשַׁמְּשִׁים אֶת הָרַב שֶׁלּא עַל מְנָת לְקַבֵּל פְּרָס (ע"פ אבות א, ג), כְּעִנְיַן "עשֵׂי דְבָרו לִשְׁמעַ בְּקול דְּבָרו" (תהלים קג, כ).The naaseh is for the purpose of the nishma {heeding} his words. Like servants who serve the master not to receive reward {but for the purpose of serving the master}.
Enough of this for now. There is another important point at play, I think. Consider that the people already said naaseh more than once, and that this appears at the end of Mishpatim, where the trumpets and clouds, and the full glory of Matan Torah was back in Yitro. Before this instance of naaseh veNishmah, which followed hearing the details of the sefer habris, a few pesukim back we had:
| 3. So Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances, and all the people answered in unison and said, "All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do." | ג. וַיָּבֹא מֹשֶׁה וַיְסַפֵּר לָעָם אֵת כָּל דִּבְרֵי יְ־הֹוָ־ה וְאֵת כָּל הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים וַיַּעַן כָּל הָעָם קוֹל אֶחָד וַיֹּאמְרוּ כָּל הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְ־הֹוָ־ה נַעֲשֶׂה: |
This is just a naaseh, but is does follow hearing details. But then, back to parashat Yitro, in perek 19 -- read until pasuk 8:
This was the covenant that Hashem was offering them, but they had not yet heard all the details of this covenant. They did not yet receive the aseres hadibros, or the content of the sefer that Moshe later read to them. They accepted to do before actually hearing.
Therefore, I would say that the pasuk in Mishpatim, about naaseh venishma, is just Chazal seizing on a particularly fortuitous turn of phrase in a pasuk. The actual naaseh venishma as they intend it is back in Yisro, in Shemos 19:8. But throughout, the refrain of the Bnei Yisrael is that everything Hashem says they accept to do. Thematically, then, this naaseh veNishma is not bad as peshat.
4 comments:
R' Moshe Einstadter points out in his book Yesodos that the gemara actually sees value in the nishma as well. If the value of naase is simply that it is not conditional on nishma, and nishma serves merely to show that naase is unconditional, why did the Jews receive two crowns - one for naase and one for nishma? The only thing of value they said was naase, and nishma only served to prove what naase meant. He also raises your point, namely that the gemara skips over the earlier pasuk from Yisro. I think that he makes a strong observation, and that the gemara clearly is emphasizing the chronological placement of nishma in its own right; the gemara intentionally skipped the pasuk from Yisro because it did not express the same idea (contrary to your conclusion).
Anyway, I think ibn Caspi's points are moot. First, his application of ein mukdam even within two phrases joined with the conjunctive vav, implying some type of sequence, is questionable. Furthermore, the gemara here is quite likely of the opinion that this entire passage ocurred before matan torah, and there had not yet been any law-giving to which they could say naase.
thanks. an interesting idea, though i am not sure it is peshat in the midrash. (i'm not so much in favor of maharsha-esque analysis of midrash. and it might be that the phrase was so chaviv that they got rewarded for each word of it, just as Yaakov lost a year for every word of his response to Pharaoh.) i'll try to see it inside and mull it over.
in terms of point #2, about this being before matan torah, i don't see how it could be simple peshat in the pasuk, if it states וַיִּקַּח סֵפֶר הַבְּרִית וַיִּקְרָא בְּאָזְנֵי הָעָם וַיֹּאמְרוּ כֹּל אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר ה נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע: What is the sefer habris mentioned in the first three words of the pasuk? the only way to say that this is prior to receiving some sort of law if is it being used as a melitza, a convenient expression. but the pasuk itself, in peshat, *must* be in response to Moshe Rabbenu reading them from a sefer habris. and there is always the mitzvah of Shabbos they could have accepted.
(in terms of a phrase needing to be in order, i would point out vayishkav osa vayaaneha, which is describing the same action, on a peshat level. the idea is that both words work together to express aspects of one idea, a hendiadys of sorts.)
kt,
josh
Sorry for taking so long to respond :-)
1. I forgot to add one other point which R' Einstadter makes. He notes that, when the crowns were given, the gemara says one angel gave both crowns (=600,00 angels), whereas when the crowns were taken away, each crown was removed individually by a separate angel (=1.2mil angels). He interprets this to mean that the original acceptance of naase vnishma subordinated the nishma to the naase, making nishma only an intensification of the primary naase. The crowns were therefore granted by one angel. However, after the cheit haegel, when the Jews demonstrated a lack of unconditional observance, they broke nishma away from naase, making it once again an independent clause. The crowns were therefore removed by two separate angels. Regardless of the exact interpretation, there is a very clear emphasis on both naase and nishma, not just an unqualified naase. I understand that these points (the two crowns, the varying number of angels) are not conclusive, and ultimately it just comes down to a judgment call, but I personally think it is unreasonable to gloss over them.
2. In regards to ibn Caspi's application of "ein mukdam" - I concede the point from vayishkav osah vayeaneha. Still, a hendiadys only makes sense when the two clauses are different aspects of the same thing. The separation of one phrase into two separate clauses joined by a conjunction serve as emphasis. Hence: "he slept with her and he pained her". But here, naase and nishma are not two aspects of the same action. They are separate activities, with one activity the logical consequence of the other. Naase vnishma is like saying, "I will do the shopping and I will drive to the store." That is a very awkward, illogical way of phrasing the sentence.
3. I didn't carefully read your post. I agree that the pashut pshat of these psukim indicates they occurred after Matan Torah, and that pashut pshat is not like the gemara. So in that sense, ibn Caspi's point is a valid one. At the same time, it is clear that the gemara is dealing with the pasuk at the level of drash. I therefore see no benefit in claiming, as you do in your conclusion, that even the gemara agrees with your pshat and simply seized on this "fortuitous" pasuk as an eloquent way of expressing their idea. Once the gemara is dealing at the level of drash, I would think it is more reasonable to assume that the gemara holds like the opinion in the Mechilta that these psukim occurred before Matan Torah.
nice. i don't have so much time to respond today, so i'm going to only be able to respond briefly.
in terms of naaseh and nishma, who says that they "are separate activities, with one activity the logical consequence of the other". nishma does not refer to the physical act of hearing, on a peshat level. it is more like Shema in Shema Yisrael. Hearken. Accept. If so, saying they will accept and committing to fulfilling action are indeed two sides of the same activity, and appropriate for a hendiadys. Indeed, similarly, Ibn Caspi takes one as accepting those aspects which are for the heart, and doing as those aspects which are actionable.
kt,
josh
Post a Comment