Why name the recepients

B"H

Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers), Ch. 1:1 reads:
משה קיבל תורה מסיניי ומסרה ליהושוע ויהושוע לזקנים
וזקנים לנביאים ונביאים מסרוה לאנשי כנסת הגדולה

Loosely translated:
Moshe received the Torah from Sinai and gave it over to Joshua, and Joshua gave it over to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets gave it over to the sages of the great assembly.

Based on a drasha heard from the Rabbi at the pulpit, an interesting דיוק (=clarification) follows:
The obvious question here, which has already been addressed by many mishna commentators already, is: why does it say משה קיבל תורה מסיניי (=Moshe Moshe received the Torah from Sinai) where in fact it should have said משה קיבל תורה מהשם (=Moshe received the Torah from the Almighty) or perhaps משה קיבל תורה בסיניי (=Moshe Moshe received the Torah at Sinai).

However, we can compound it with a question from another angle: why does the mishna goes to such great length to list all the recipients after Moshe -- it could have just as easily stated:
משה קיבל תורה מסיניי, ומסרה לדורות הבאים (=Moshe received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to the following generations.) Why does the mishna find it necessary to list the recipients by name or title?

An explanation to both questions follows. But first, some background:
When Moshe was at the scene of the burning bush, Hashem tried to enlist Moshe to go on a rescue mission. Moshe retorted by giving a list of arguments why he's not suitable, and indeed Hashem should choose someone else. Hashem responded with His reasoning, and the whole thing repeated. The midrash and commentators teach us that these negotiations went on for a few days(!)

However, when Hashem tells Moshe to come up the mountain and receive the Torah, there were no such arguments. There was no negotiations. Moshe simply went up and did it. Why is that? Why the difference?

And explanation can be given as follows: according to the midrash one reason why mount Sinai has been chosen as the address to receive the Torah is because it doesn't stand out! As a matter of fact, it's the lowest mountain in the area. Sinai was chosen, in other words, because it represents humility.

So, when Moshe was asked to go up the mountain to receive the Torah he did not object, simply because he figured out: since it's mount Sinai that's chosen, the lowest of all mountains, I have no problem going up that mountain, just don't ask me to go up a taller mountain, because I'm really not worthy. However, mount Sinai is acceptable.

Back to the two questions posed at the top:
The wording מסיניי (=from Sinai) can be understood to mean ממדת סיניי (=from/through the character trait of Sinai.) What is the character trait of Sinai? Answer: humility.

How can a person receive the Torah? Only when he/she has humility. We see this in a number of cases, such as the siddur, end of amidah: "ונפשי כעפר לכל תהייה" (=my soul should be like dust before anyone else) humility and only then "ופתח ליבי בתורתך" (=and open my heart to your Torah._
Another case is the verse (G-d's words about an arrogant person): "אין אני והוא דרים תחת כפיפה אחת" (=I will not dwell with him under one roof.) Bottom line, in the context of transmission of Torah, the beginning needs to be מסיניי = through Humility.

Next the mishna continues to ומסרה ליהושוע (=and transmitted it to Joshua.) What is the meaning of Joshua in the context of Torah transmission? Joshua was not only a student of Moshe, but the commentators record that he has never left אוהל מועד (=the Tent of Meeting) while Moshe was there. Joshua represents astuteness and consistency.

So, a person might receive the Torah with humility and be very astute and consistent in learning it. However, there's just so much that he/she can achieve on their own. So, the mishna continues
לזקנים (=[Joshua transmitted it] to the elders.) What is the meaning of the Elders in the context of Torah transmission? Wisdom is associated with old age. (citation needed). A person needs to approach those who are wiser than him/her -- a great Torah scholar, or sage.

However, human wisdom is still limited regardless to whom one approaches. At this point in time, after receiving the Torah through humility and learning it with exemplary astutenesses and under the tutelage of a wise scholar, one hits the roof of what can be achieved through human effort. To continue to grow Jewishly what's needed at this point is לנביאים (=[the elders transmitted it] to the prophets.) Prophecy represents super-human, super-rational connection to the divine. Just as prophecy came down from High to a prophet after much preparation on the side of the prophet, so to transmission of Torah. After a person goes through the process of receiving the Torah through humility and learning it with exemplary astutenesses and under the tutelage of a wise sage, the next stage is that he/she is helped from High, because one can only rely on סיאתה דישמיה (=Heaven's help.)

Finally, when all is said and done, a person comes to the stage of לאנשי כנסת הגדולה (=[and the prophets transmitted it] to the sages of the great assembly.) The great assembly was responsible for laying-down the foundation upon which Halacha (=practical law) will later be based on. In other words, the sages of the great assembly represent the ability to take Torah learning and apply it in day-to-day living.


Thus both original questions are answered:
1. From Sinai means through humility, but it doesn't stop there, because:
2. The transmission of Torah is restricted to transmission through the generations, but also through one's own life -- one receives it with humility, learns it with astuteness and consistency, gets tutelage from a scholar which brings upon help from above (in order to advance above and beyond human ability) which finally culminates in a person applying his/her studies in daily life -- a Torah-true life.

How is shmita related to Mt. Sinai?

B"H

In Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) Ch. 5 it reads:
גלות באה לעולם על עבודה זרה, ועל גילוי עריות, ועל שפיכות דמים, ועל שמיטת הארץ.

Loosely translated:
Exile manifests in the world due to idol-worship, immoral relations, murder and not obeying shmita laws (=laws pertaining to the sabbatical year we must give the land on a 7-year cycle.)

What immediately jumps out are two questions. But first some background:
1) The prohibition of idol-worship is at the very foundation (and indeed fabric) of Jewish belief and practice.
2) Murder is a very serious crime which warrens an equivalently serious punishment. Practically every civilized society has laws pertaining to murder.
3) Immoral relations are also very serious crime in Judaism to the point that any product of such relations is forever branded a mamzer. These relations are also widely outlawed in most civilized societies.
Indeed all of the above three appear as prohibitions in the ten commandments as well as the 7 Noachide laws, outlawing them for all of humanity.

In light of this, we can see why the exile be brought-upon by transgressing these three prohibitions, as they are very serious indeed.

So, the first question here is: what does transgressing shmita have to do with exile and why does it appear at the same place and said with one breath along with idol-worship, murder and immoral relations? The question becomes even stronger when we consider that the first three are prohibited to all of humanity, whereas shmita only applies to the Jewish people. Not only that, but not even all Jews, just those living in the Land of Israel. And amongst those, even, it only applies to Jews who work the land.

The second question is: if the exile is a product, by divine decree, for transgressing the laws of shmita, then while the Jewish people are being punished in exile, they certainly cannot keep the laws of shmita (which only apply in the Land of Israel, as previously stated.) In other words, how does the punishment fit the crime, since by the very nature of the punishment (=exile) the laws of shmita cannot be kept? Indeed, during the time of the Babylonian exile, which lasted 70 years, the Jewish people have "missed" 10 potential shmitas that they could have kept, had they not been exiled for not keeping shmita. (See Rashi on Vayikra (Leviticus) Ch. 25:18)

A possible answer:
Rashi begins his commentary on the portion Behar with the following idea:
Why are the laws of shmita listed in great detail at the beginning of Behar? To teach us that just as the laws of shmita were given in detail and at great length, right there at mount Sinai, so too were all other Torah laws given in great detail on the same occasion.

On this very Rashi, a child might pose the question: Why specifically all the laws of shmita given? The Torah could have chosen any other law and listed its details at great length -- and Rashi could have had the very same commentary with a slight change of wording to account for the specific law chosen. We're forced to conclude, therefore, that there's a special connection between the laws of shmita and the revelation at mount Sinai during the giving of the Torah. In other words, somehow the laws of shmita, specifically, are representative of all other Torah laws, more so than any other law. But How?

To answer, we need to delve into some Jewish philosophy:
According to Jewish philosophy there is one level of emunah (=trust and belief in the Almighty) that a Jewish farmer may posses where he/she believes that the Almighty created nature and instilled in it everlasting laws. And because we trust the Almighty, we also trust that his laws are eternal. The farmer's emunah then is that if he/she plows, plants, waters and takes care of the field, and all the other conditions are just right (e.g., the temperature, humidity and wind are just right) then according to the laws of nature, which the Almighty himself created, there will be a good yield of crop.

Above that there's a higher level of emunah: the Jewish farmer believes that the Almighty is actively involved in the laws of nature. In other words, this emunah is at that the Almighty is pro-active in the development of the crop, not merely by orchestrating nature as a whole, via some laws, but rather in detail.

Both these levels of emunah are confined to nature, since they are solely within the framework of nature: either at the macro level (the first level of emunah) or at a micro level (the second level of emunah).

However, there's a higher level of emunah yet, as we can see in Vayikra Ch. 25:3-4 which read:
שש שנים תזרע שדך ושש שנים תזמר כרמך ואספת את תבואתה
ובשנה השביעת שבת שבתון יהיה לארץ שבת להשם שדך לא תזרע וכרמך לא תזמר

Loosely translated:
For six years you shall seed your wine and you shall harvest it, and the seventh year shall be a sabbatical to the land (i.e., shmita), a sabbatical to G-d, your field you shall not seed and your vine you shall not prune.

At this is the level of emunah that the farmer believes that really everything is in the hands of the Almighty. On the seventh year the Jewish farmer is not required to plow, plant, water or otherwise take care of the field. As a matter of fact, he/she is prohibited to do so. Yet the land will continue to produce. This teaches us that really, it's the Almighty in control -- not us, for if it was up to us, inaction of the seventh year would mean no food. See the article about Superrational Trust for further clarification on this point.

Whereas the first two levels of emunah are limited by the framework of nature, the third level is not. At the third and higher level of emunah the Jew (farmer or otherwise) believes that although the Almighty acts within nature (making the crop give good yield, for instance) however the flux of abundance comes from a level higher than nature. In other words, Hashem acts within nature but from beyond nature.

What better mitzvah (=commandment), from the set of 613, is there to demonstrate that the flux of abundance originates beyond nature? What better mitzvah is there to demonstrate that the Almighty's ways are incomparable to nature?

Even the mitzvah of the Red Heifer, which is the most irrational mitzvah (as testified by Shlomo HaMelech, King Salomon, the wisest of all people) lacks in this respect. Whereas the Red Heifer defies logic to demonstrate the Hashem is beyond logic and understanding, more so than any other mitzvah, by purifying the tainted while tainting the pure in the process, there is no visible difference to the human eye. An impure person looks no different than a perfectly pure one. We know that there's a difference, but we cannot perceive it. This is precisely where the laws of shmita excel: there is nothing more tangible to a person than food on the table. There's nothing that announces that "The Almighty manipulates nature from beyond the laws of nature" than when the Jewish farmer abstains from working the land on shmita years, and yet there's food in the field, on the table and in the tummy. The farmer made no effort on his-/herown behalf, and yet all his essential needs were taken care of by Hashem.

This is then the connection between Behar and shmita: Rashi's comment can now be understood to also mean that just as the laws of shmita were given in their entirety (that is, in a way that would announce loud and clear that Hashem works within nature but from beyond nature, i.e, just as the laws of shmita affect this lowly world, but are rooted in higher realms) so too all the other mitzvahs. This includes those that we can logically explain -- although there's a logical explanation, you should know that at their essence these mitzvahs are rooted in higher reals, they're all supernal and super-rational. To come to this realization, we specifically need the most tangible instance of such a mitzvah -- shmita laws.

We can now undertand better Pirkei Avot: The first question was asked why shmita was mentioned in the same breath as the prohibition of idol worship, murder and improper relation, in lieu of these three being fundamental laws. The explanation is, then, that shmita is most fundamental from a philosophical point of view as it reflect the supernal source of all Torah laws.

The second question was what's the connection between shmita and the exile, especially in lieu of the fact that shmita laws can certainly not be kept while in exile. The explanation to that is already given at length in the Superrational Trust article. See the part about Hashem defying logic due to the promise/blessing that on the sixth year the land gives the greatest yield.

Good shabbos with lots of emunah and yield both physically and spiritually.

Rabbi Yochanan

B"H

An interesting story about Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakay can be found in Tractate Brachot 28b:
וכשחלה רבי יוחנן בן זכאי נכנסו תלמידיו לבקרו כיון שראה אותם התחיל לבכות... שיש לפני שני דרכים אחת של גן עדן ואחת של גיהנם ואיני יודע באיזו מוליכים אותי ולא אבכה

Loosely translated:
When Rabbi Yochana ben Zakay became terminally ill, his students came to visit him. When he saw them he began to cry.... (They asked him: "Why are you crying?"... He answered:) There are two paths before me. One path leads to Gan Eden (="heaven") while the other path leads to Gehinnom (="purgatory"), and I do not know on which path I will placed (i.e. end up) on, and I shouldn't cry?

A bit odd that Rabbi Yochanan should be concerned that he may be going to the purgatory. After all, he was a holy Tana, a person who never ceased to toil in Torah. He was after all one of the great sages of the Gemara. Surely he would be placed on the path leading to heaven. So, why did he cry. (Surely this is not a case of misplaced humility.)

To get an idea of why this may have happen we can take a look at the Mishna. The Mishna in Pirkey Avot (Ethics of the Fathers), Chapter 2:9 reads:
הוא היה אומר: אם עשית תורה הרבה אל תחזיק טובה לעצמך כי לכך נוצרת

Loosely translated:
So he (Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakay) would say: if you toiled a lot in Torah, don't keep the benefit to yourself, for that what you've been created for.


Some commentary equates טובה (=benefit) with תורה (Torah). So, the verse can be rendered as:
If you toiled a lot in Torah, don't keep all the Torah to yourself, for that is what you were created for.

In other words, a person who's involved in learning Torah, should disseminate what he/she has learned to others. For all a person knows, this may be very reason he was created.

Since the Mishna uses the term הוא היה אומר (=So he would say) we learn that this Mishna is an intrinsic part of Rabbi Yochanan's essence. In other words, the very essence of Rabbi Yochana be Zakay is to learn Torah in order to teach it to others. With this he was occupied his entire life.

Now comes the time (as described in the Gemera above) that Rabbi Yochana is on his death-bed and his students come to visit him. He sees his students and realizes that he's in no position to teach (since he's very sick). The very reason for his existence can no longer be fulfilled. This is the first time in his life that he's not occupied with Torah, and now he avails himself to think about his own self: his own life, his own achievements, his own accomplishment and what he has not yet achieved. Sort of a soul-accounting (חשבון נפש).

He finds himself crying because he's sincerely concerned that he has not yet fulfilled his purpose and therefore may be placed on the path to the purgatory.

The lesson to be learned here is that no matter how great a person might be (even as great as Rabbi Yochana be Zakay), he/she should always be concerned, lest there is something that he/she are yet to achieve. Particularly in the field of helping others grow and develop to become menches.