ייִדישער מחשבֿה אויף שמות 19:3

When the Midrash we quoted at the outset talked about prophets first having been tested in trivial matters, the trivial matters are the conduct of those people within the framework of natural law. The word imrah is to be understood as in "et hashem he-emarta hayom,"(Deut 26,18) you have let G-d be the one whose authority you have accepted. In colloquial terms "let Him have His say." Once this part of the man/G-d relationship has been established, a still closer G-d/man relationship can develop. Two great men were examined for their respective leadership qualities as shepherds, and when found trustworthy in their dealings with sheep, were elevated to greatness, became leaders of men. Proper care of sheep requires two dimensions of knowledge and concern. 1) Proper supervision, provision of the needs of the animals under one's care, individual attention to the needs of the strong and weak respectively; 2) knowledge of their ability to procreate and how to create the optimum conditions for such. We know about the latter point from Jacob. He, the expert, learned that the greatest amount of planning does not guarantee success unless the hand of G-d is on one's side. See his dream, Genesis chapter 31. Moses’s first encounter with the Divine follows closely on the heels of his pre-occupation with the needs of his father-in-law's sheep. (Exodus 3,1) This teaches that Moses had already graduated spiritually from being a leader of sheep, to becoming a leader of forms of life endowed with the power of speech, before he arrived at the mountain of G-d. The vision occurred prior to communication from G-d. Again, at a later stage of his development, we read first "and Moses went up to G-d," (Exodus 19,3) and later "G-d called to him." (Leviticus 1,1)

In our opening Midrash, Rabbi Meir takes the view that wine, -because it causes confusion of the mind-, is unwholesome. Rabbi Yehudah, on the other hand, holds that far from confusing the mind, wine confers blessings upon those who drink it; it improves the digestion, temperament etc. when consumed in moderation. The Bible is full of quotations attesting to the virtues of wine. As the wine cellar is open to all who wish to buy, so Sinai was open to all who wished to learn Torah, to help them control the urge to let the demands of the flesh dominate, a tendencey that has existed since the first sin in Eden. This is why the Talmud (Yevamot 103) claims that the Israelites who stood at Mount Sinai divested themselves of the impurities ingested by man in Eden, due to the serpent. For this reason too, our sages in Sanhedrin 90, say that all of Israel has a share in the world to come. If the Talmud in Sanhedrin 90, had meant that every Jew, whether religious or secular has eternal life, that would be unfair discrimination against the gentiles, and would make the life of the pious Jew unrewarding. The sinner could then look forward to the same destiny. Also, the second statement in that Mishnah, which lists a number of exclusions to the general rule, would contradict the first statement. Therefore, the correct understanding of the statement is that the term "Israelite" is not applied to someone who is merely of Jewish parentage, but to someone who lives up to the expectations of Judaism. It refers to Jews who live in accordance with the lessons learned at Sinai. Such a person is assured of eternal life. Therefore we understand the word "Israelite" as a righteous person, and conversely, "a righteous person" is an "Israelite." When the Mishnah goes on to adduce scriptural proof for its statement, the quotation "and your people who are all righteous will inherit the earth for all future times," makes perfect sense. We read in Tzefaniah 3,13, "the remnant of Israel will not commit iniquities." This seems to presuppose that it is possible to bear the name Israel, and yet commit all kinds of sins? When Tzefaniah talks about the "remnant" however, he refers to those who, though they share the Jewish tradition, are not necessarily aware of Torah. We see that Moses distinguishes between two sets of Jews. (Deut. 33,4) "Moses commanded us Torah, a hereditary tradition to the community of Jacob." The elite of the people are familiar with Torah and its details; the multitude treasures tradition handed down as such, but without deeper knowledge of same. Acquiring new habits is difficult, unless a satisfactory rationale is provided. Continuing a long established tradition does not make intellectual demands on those who practice them. The men of the great assembly may have been called such, because due to the cessation of activities by the prophets, it fell to their lot to make certain innovations to insure the continuance of Judaism as we know it. They established their claim to fame by three things. (Mishnah Avot 1) They advised moderation in the application of justice, searched for a concensus. 2) They tried to put Torah on a broad base, by enrolling many students in the academies; and once having done these two things, 3) they were able to construct "fences" around Torah, and have those "fences" respected by the people at large. If the interpretation of the Mishnah would be the standard one, i.e. that of "be circumspect before deciding legal matters," a later statement at the end of the chapter, that "justice is one of the pillars of the world," should have appeared before the statement in the name of Shimon Hatzaddik. The latter had been a member of the men of the great assembly, and was also the author of the opening statement of the first Mishnah. Having understood the function of the men of the great assembly, we can now understand the statement of the Talmud in Avodah Zarah 35, which interprets the verse "your friendship is dearer than wine" (Song of Songs 1,1) to mean that the Midrashic interpretations of Torah are dearer to Israel than the original text, even. The general order in which forbidden foods are listed, is such that the intake of animals that the Torah considers as only mildly damaging, is listed first, whereas those foods that the Torah considers as severely harmful to the development of the ideal Jewish personality, are listed later. The very fact that animals which are poisonous, or any plants that are poisonous are omitted in the list, clearly shows that the Torah's concern in this legislation is not our physical health.

The first explananation obviously refers to our parable of the cave and the sea. Moses became filled with the sea of wisdom. Combined with Moses’s own accomplishments, he emerges as a partner of the Lord. The second explanation reveals another aspect of the man/G-d partnership. It deals with the nature of the second set of tablets. Their composition consisted of three components, (a) the natural element, granite. (b) they acquired a finished appearance by means of work, polishing. (c) the Divine element, i.e. the inscription, as the Torah states "and the writing was the writing by the Lord." Each of the above items can be further subdivided into two, making the tablets have six facets. This is what the sages hinted at when they described the tablets as having the dimension of six tefachim. The word tefach is used in Isaiah 48, 13, as describing G-d’s workmanship. So we have the following: 1- A, a piece of granite, primeval matter. B, this primeval matter was condensed into a certain density. 2- A, the finished appearance, preceded by the tools needed to treat that raw material. B, correct size and shape. 3- A, writing material. B, the message, text. Moses, exclusively, provided the shaping of the tablets and the tools for the work. G-d, exclusively, contributed the writing material and the text. There remained therefore two tefachim that allowed for partnership. Those two tefachim became subject to combined influences. When Moses perceived the nature of the partnership with G-d, implied by the fact that both tablets had equal dimensions, he became happy, his face radiated his happiness that such is the nature of the partnership with the Creator. This is the meaning of the verse "and Moses went up to G-d," (Exodus 19,3) or the parallel statement in Psalms 68,19, "you went up to the heights." The author continues with an attack on Maimonides who restricts philosophic disagreements with Aristotele to the area of creation ex nihilo. Finally, the third view expressed in the Midrash, that of Rabbi Yehudah who ascribes the rays that emanated from Moses’s forehead as due to ink spilled inadvertently when G-d wrote on the tablets. This means that the leftover of the great mass of sea i.e. "ink" that entered the cave and receded, was to teach that once watered by G-d, irrigated so to speak, such inspiration does not evaporate but is reflected in the appearance of the recipient. All three Rabbis then comment on the interrelationship between man and G-d, and how same is illustrated by the rays of Divinity illuminating the face of Moses on his return from his summit meeting with G-d on Mount Sinai. The author questions the view of Maimonides that would have Moses pose two separate questions, and which if answered positively would have made a kind of deity out of Moses. He prefers to treat what appears as Moses’s two questions ( 33, 13 and 33, 18) as parts of a single question, meaning "let me know Your ways so that I will know more about You."