English translation — חה"ש ב

Conversation b<pg>26</pg>

A.

Regarding the making of the covenant at the time of the Giving of the Torah,

It is brought in the Gemara<sup>1</sup>

that our forefathers "did not enter the covenant except through circumcision and immersion and the presentation of blood

(offering)..

Circumcision, as it is written<sup>2</sup>

for circumcised were all the people who went out..

The presentation of blood, as it is written<sup>3</sup>

And he sent the youths of the children of Israel..

Immersion, from where do we derive? As it is written<sup>4</sup>

And Moses took the blood<sup>5</sup>

and sprinkled on the people, and there is no sprinkling without immersion."

And behold the verses "And he sent the youths of the children of Israel..

And Moses took the blood etc." were said in the portion of Mishpatim,

And Tannaim disagree in the Mechilta<sup>6</sup>

About the time of this portion: according to the Tanna Kamma it was the 27th of Iyar,

That then Moses built an altar and offered the sacrifices and sprinkled the blood etc.

(And so it is brought in the Talmud in tractate Shabbos<sup>7</sup>,

And so wrote Rashi in his commentary on the Torah<sup>8</sup>)

; But "Rabbi Yosi bar Rabbi Yehuda says: On that very day all the acts were done",

That simply "on that very day" means on the day of the Giving of the Torah.

[In the Ramban on the Torah<sup>9</sup>

He explains the words of Rabbi Yosi bar Rabbi Yehuda "On that very day all the acts were done" — "meaning on that very day after the Giving of the Torah",

That is on the seventh of Sivan

(And this is according to his approach

(And so wrote in other commentators<sup>10</sup>)

That the sections

(Of Yisro and Mishpatim)

Were said in order,

And the laws of the portion of Mishpatim were said on the day of the Giving of the Torah after the Ten Commandments,

And on that very day Israel said "All that the Lord has spoken we will do"<sup>11</sup>,

And on the next day

(On the seventh of Sivan)

— "And he rose early<sup>12</sup>

(Moses)

In the morning and built an altar etc. and they sacrificed etc. and he took the Book of the Covenant etc. and they said etc. We will do and we will hear and Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people etc.").

But in the Midrash Lekach Tov<sup>13</sup>

it is explicit that the knowledge of "all these deeds were done on that day",

namely in the morning of the day of the Giving of the Torah before the Ten Commandments<sup>14</sup>,

and so is the simple interpretation of the words of Rabbi Yosi "on that day they were done",

which implies<pg>27</pg>

on the known day

(and behold it is not mentioned in the entire continuation of the words of the Mechilta there — the day after the Giving of the Torah)].

And seemingly this opinion,

that the immersion of Bnei Yisrael

(and the sprinkling of blood)

was "on that day" of Mattan Torah<sup>15</sup>,

requires explanation — how were Israel permitted to immerse<sup>*15</sup>

for the sake of conversion on this day,

and behold Chazal said

(in tractate Shabbos<sup>16</sup>)

that "according to everyone, on Shabbos the Torah was given to Israel",

and the halacha is ruled in the Rambam<sup>17</sup>

and Shulchan Aruch<sup>18</sup>

that one does not immerse a convert on Shabbos<sup>19</sup>

(and they were already commanded about Shabbos at

Marah<sup>20</sup>

or at Alush<sup>21</sup>)?

[We find in the commentators of the Mechilta<sup>22</sup>

that they asked

(on the words of Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda)

how

(he built an altar and)

offered sacrifices on Shabbos?

And they answered that R' Yosi bar Yehuda holds that burnt offerings were continual and a continual [offering] overrides Shabbos<sup>23</sup>.

But it is puzzling regarding

(the building of the altar<sup>24</sup>

and)

the immersion for

(conversion)

of the children of Israel,

which is not a matter of a communal offering].

Simply, it can be said that Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda

(in the Mechilta)

follows the method of the Mechilta

(elsewhere<sup>25</sup>)

that the sixth of Sivan fell on the sixth day of the week (Friday)

(and so it is explained in Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer<sup>26</sup>

that the giving of the Torah was on Friday)

— and not according to the method of the Talmud

(that according to everyone the Torah was given on Shabbos).

But in the Midrash Lekach Tov there<sup>13</sup>

it is explained "On Shabbos they received the Ten Commandments..

And Moshe arose early in the morning and built an altar etc. that Israel did not receive the Torah except through immersion and sprinkling..

And all these deeds were done on that same day",

behold it is explained that "all these deeds" were done on the day of Shabbos<sup>27</sup>.

<pg>28</pg>

2.

And behold, ostensibly one can answer,

for the prohibition of immersion of a convert on Shabbat is only a rabbinical shevut — because two reasons are stated for the prohibition of immersion for conversion on Shabbat: a)

In the Gemara<sup>28</sup>

it is stated because "we do not fix a person on Shabbat",

b)

In the Rambam<sup>29</sup>

he wrote that "since the matter

(immersion of a convert)

requires a court<sup>30</sup>

we do not immerse him on Shabbat" — and the two reasons

(fixing a person and the prohibition of judging on Shabbat)

are rabbinical shevut prohibitions<sup>31</sup>.

But still there is difficulty in the matter,

for it is not reasonable to say,

that the entry of Israel into the covenant should be through an act

(the opposite)<sup>32</sup>

that has a trace of prohibition,

whatever it is

(even a prohibition of shevut),

for this is like a thing and its opposite.

[And although the discussion is about a prohibition that is only a Rabbinic decree — behold, Chazal said<sup>33</sup>

"Avraham Avinu fulfilled the entire Torah..

even eiruvei tavshilin"

("which is not..

but a scribal enactment that future [scribes] would enact"<sup>34</sup>),

and in Rashi's commentary on the Torah<sup>35</sup>

that Avraham was careful also regarding "shevut on Shabbos" and from this it is understood,

that the essence of the act of shevut

(even before this decree,

before the Giving of the Torah)

has in it a disgrace

(a semblance of prohibition?)]<sup>*35</sup>.

And even more difficult according to what is explained in the commentaries<sup>36</sup>,

that according to the opinion<sup>37</sup>

that circumcision on Shabbos is forbidden because of the labor of "repairing a vessel"

(the final hammer blow<sup>38</sup>),

since through circumcision "the child becomes a complete Jew" — also immersion of a convert on Shabbos is forbidden by Torah law,

so according to this it is found,

that the immersion of Bnei Yisrael then for the sake of conversion<sup>39</sup>

involved a Torah-level labor<sup>40</sup>.

3.

And one may say regarding this,

with the preface of what there is<pg>29</pg>

to be precise in the statement of our Sages that entry into the covenant is "by circumcision and immersion and the presentation of blood",

that at first glance why did they not also include acceptance of the commandments,

which is a primary matter in conversion,

and on the contrary,

this is the essence of conversion,

as it is ruled in the Shulchan Aruch<sup>41</sup>

that if there was no acceptance of the commandments before three

(and by day)

it invalidates

(but not so the immersion,

which according to some opinions<sup>42</sup>

does not invalidate if it was not before three).

But the explanation of this — is simple: acceptance of the commandments is not

(only)

one of the things that bring a person into the covenant,

but it itself is

(a part of)

the covenant itself,

and precisely according to the wording of the Rambam<sup>43</sup>

"By three things did Israel enter into the covenant..

And so for generations, when a gentile wishes to enter the covenant and take shelter under the wings of the Shechinah and accepts upon himself the yoke of Torah, he requires circumcision, immersion, and the offering of a sacrifice."

Thus,

that the matter of "he accepts upon himself the yoke of Torah" is a part of the desire "to enter the covenant."

And from this it is understood simply why acceptance of the commandments is not counted among the conditions of conversion,

because when there is no acceptance of the commandments,

it is not a deficiency in the conditions of conversion,

but rather there is no conversion here<sup>44</sup>,

and only after he desires "to enter and take shelter under the wings of the Shechinah and accepts upon himself the yoke of Torah" does the reality of conversion take effect through circumcision and immersion<sup>45</sup>,

but if he did not precede [with] acceptance of the yoke of Torah and commandments,

there is here no act of conversion.

And based on this, it can be said,

that the conversion of the children of Israel at the time of the Giving of the Torah is distinct from conversions after the Giving of the Torah: After the Giving of the Torah,

when the three things come after the acceptance of the commandments,

they actually bring him into the covenant and make him a convert; but not so in the conversion of the children of Israel at the Giving of the Torah,

that before the Giving of the Torah

(the saying of "We will do and we will hear")

there was not yet with them an acceptance of the commandments

[For even though they said "Everything that the Lord has spoken we will do..

we will do and we will hear"<sup>46</sup>,

this saying is not considered as an act of acceptance of commandments regarding the commandments after the Giving of the Torah,

as will be explained below in section 4]

— behold, through their immersion and the sprinkling of the blood they had not yet actually entered the covenant,

and their conversion was not completed until the saying of "We will do and we will hear",

for then was their acceptance of the commandments

(as will be explained below in section 5).

[And what our Sages said that our forefathers "did not enter the covenant except through circumcision, immersion, and the sprinkling of blood",

the intention in this is not,

that immediately after the performance of these three things they entered the covenant,

but rather that for their entry into the covenant they needed these three things

(and without them their acceptance of the commandments would not avail to enter the covenant),

therefore we learn from this for all generations that "they shall not enter the covenant except through circumcision, immersion, and the sprinkling of blood"<sup>47</sup>

; but the conversion then and the actual entry into the covenant was done at the time of the Giving of the Torah itself].

And this is also the reason that there was not then a prohibition to immerse on the Sabbath day for the sake of conversion — for only in conversion after the Giving of the Torah,

when the immersion completes<pg>30</pg>

the conversion and through it they actually enter into the covenant,

it was prohibited because of "preparation of the person"<sup>48</sup>

; but not so in the immersion of a Jew before the Giving of the Torah,

where the conversion was not completed through it,

there is no reason to prohibit this immersion on the Sabbath because of "preparation of the person".

And also the reason of the Rambam

(the above section 2)

— that we do not immerse a convert on Shabbat because "the matter requires a court" — does not apply to the conversion of the Children of Israel at the time of the Giving of the Torah.

Because only in conversion after the Giving of the Torah,

when circumcision and immersion etc. come after acceptance of the commandments and they effect the conversion and complete it,

it is in the category of "judgment" that requires a court; but not so regarding the conversion of the Children of Israel at the Giving of the Torah,

since through the immersion

(and the sprinkling of blood)

the application of conversion had not yet taken effect,

the immersion is not

(and the sprinkling of blood)

in the category of "judgment" that requires a court⁴⁹.

4.

Explanation of the matter:

In the explanation of the verse⁵⁰

"And he told

(Moshe)

the people all the words of Hashem and all the judgments, and all the people answered with one voice and said, 'All the words that Hashem has spoken we will do,'"

Rashi wrote

(according to the Mechilta⁵¹)

that it refers to the commandment of separation and boundary,

the seven commandments that were commanded to the children of Noach,

and the commandments that were given in Marah

(Shabbos, honoring father and mother, the red heifer, and laws⁵²),

and likewise regarding the verse⁵³

"And he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the ears of the people, and they said, 'All that Hashem has spoken we will do and we will obey,'"

Rashi explained that "the Book of the Covenant" is "from Bereishis until the giving of the Torah and the commandments that were commanded in Marah."

And behold, the acceptance of the seven commandments of the children of Noach is certainly not in the category of acceptance of commandments of Israel

(the 613 commandments),

and even the acceptance of the commandments that were commanded in Marah requires examination whether it is sufficient to be considered acceptance of commandments.

For although one does not need to inform a convert of all 613 commandments

(it is sufficient to inform him of "the fundamentals⁵⁴

of the religion, which are the unity of the Name and the prohibition of idolatry...

some light commandments and some severe commandments")

— nevertheless, he must accept upon himself all the commandments of the Torah,

for if he accepted upon himself the entire Torah except for one matter, he is not a convert⁵⁵

— and accordingly, also in Marah, with the acceptance of the commandments that were commanded in Marah, there is no acceptance of the entire Torah.

And this requires examination.

And it appears to say,

that also according to the simple understanding of the Gemara's discussion⁵⁶

that the saying of "we will do and we will hear" was the acceptance of the entire Torah

(that they accepted it before they heard it,

the precedence of "we will do" to "we will hear")

— it is impossible to consider this saying that was before the Giving of the Torah as a definition of acceptance of commandments

(that is necessary for conversion).

And with the introduction of the reason for the order of acceptance of conversion for generations,

that they must inform him "some<pg>31</pg>

Severe commandments..

And we inform him of the punishment of the commandments"⁵⁷,

that the need for this notification is simply,

(also)

because if we do not inform him of some of the severe ones,

and likewise their punishment of the commandments,

it is lacking in his acceptance of the commandments^*57

(since it is possible that when he becomes aware of the severe commandments or their punishment he will regret etc.^**57).

And along these lines it can be said in our matter,

that as long as the Torah was not given at Sinai from the mouth of the Almighty,

it is impossible to have acceptance of the commandments after the Giving of the Torah.

Since the commandments before this are not in the category of the commandments after the Giving of the Torah,

and as understood,

that the severity of the commandments that the Patriarchs kept on their own is not at all comparable,

to the severity of the commandments after they were commanded on them,

and likewise the severity of the commands that Israel was commanded through Moses before the Giving of the Torah is not at all comparable,

to the severity of the commands after the Giving of the Torah,

for then they heard the Ten Commandments from the Almighty&lt;sup&gt;58&lt;/sup&gt;,

[As the words of the Rambam&lt;sup&gt;59&lt;/sup&gt;

"That everything we distance from or do today we do only by the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, through Moses our teacher, peace be upon him..

from Sinai" — and not because "the Holy One, blessed be He, said this to the prophets before him",

for even these were commands of the Holy One, blessed be He, to the prophets,

nevertheless,

it is not at all comparable to the commands of the Holy One, blessed be He, at Sinai],

Therefore,

any matter of acceptance of commandments before hearing the Ten Commandments from the mouth of the Almighty,

should not be considered as "acceptance of commandments" after the Giving of the Torah,

for before there was the force of the Torah and commandments after the Giving of the Torah

(which are "from the mouth of the Almighty")

in the world,

it is not applicable that there be upon this acceptance

(true),

for it is a thing that has not yet come into the world

(and they have no concept of such types of commands⁵⁸).

[And although the notification

(reward)

of the commandments and their punishment does not impede⁶⁰

— there is a distinction between the notification after the Torah and commandments have already been given to Israel and it is applicable that he knows them,

but the court did not notify the reward of commandments and their punishment to this convert who comes to convert

(and particularly in this one can say that since he comes to convert,

we rely that he investigated and inquired and knows on his own the nature of the commandments that he will be obligated in when he converts)

; but before the Torah was given,

when there is as yet no existence of Torah and commandments

(in the force after the Giving of the Torah)

in the world,

behold it is not applicable to this the category of "acceptance",

since it is a thing that has not yet come into the world,

as above].

And based on this, there will be additional explanation in the view of the commentators

(the above section 1),

that this entire portion

(of the end of Parshat Mishpatim)

after the Giving of the Torah was said — which is seemingly,

the time suitable for acceptance of commandments is before the giving of the Torah

(when they will agree to accept upon themselves the yoke of commandments, the Torah will be given to them)?

And according to the above, it is understood,

that on the contrary,

it is the giver: since the content of the portion is the sealing of a covenant on the fulfillment of Torah and commandments,

they hold that this matter is possible only after the Giving of the Torah and hearing the Ten Commandments from the mouth of the Almighty,

but before that a covenant on Torah and commandments is not possible,

since they are in the category of a thing that has not yet come into the world

(since all that they knew and were commanded&lt;pg&gt;32&lt;/pg&gt;

Before the Giving of the Torah,

is not at all in that category of the commandments after the Giving of the Torah).

5.

And therefore it is logical to say,

that the essential matter of acceptance of commandments

(through which Israel entered into the covenant)

was at the time of hearing the Ten Commandments,

for then the Holy One, blessed be He, announced the unity of the Name and the prohibition of idolatry — "I am" and "You shall not have"

[with their punishments — "a jealous God, etc."⁶¹]

and the prohibition of Shabbat and more of the severe ones

(which are punishable by death),

and also from the light ones.

And based on this, the difficulty of the Tosafot is simply resolved&lt;sup&gt;62&lt;/sup&gt;

in the Chazal&lt;sup&gt;63&lt;/sup&gt;

that "He overturned the mountain upon them like a tub"

(And therefore "from here a great protest against the Torah"&lt;sup&gt;63&lt;/sup&gt;,

that Israel has an answer regarding this that they did not fulfill the Torah,

"because they received it under duress"&lt;sup&gt;64&lt;/sup&gt;),

and behold "they already preceded 'we will do' to 'we will hear'"&lt;sup&gt;65&lt;/sup&gt;

— and according to the above it can be said,

that the saying of "we will do and we will hear" does not have in it the status of "acceptance of commandments",

and the acceptance of the commandments of Israel was at the time of the Giving of the Torah,

and then it was in a manner of "He overturned the mountain upon them like a tub".

And this is also the explanation according to the view of Rebbe Yishmael above,

that their immersion for the sake of conversion was on the Sabbath day — because this act of immersion of the Children of Israel did not have in it the effect of entering into the covenant,

since there was not yet acceptance of commandments,

and the actual entry into the covenant and the effect of conversion was brought about afterwards by the act of the Holy One, blessed be He&lt;sup&gt;66&lt;/sup&gt;

(in the saying of the Giving of the Torah as above),

for then there was acceptance of Torah and commandments by Israel.

6.

And one should add a source for the matter mentioned

(that the giving of the Torah was activated only at the time of the Giving of the Torah)

in the words of the Midrash&lt;sup&gt;67&lt;/sup&gt;,

that "when the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world He decreed and said&lt;sup&gt;68&lt;/sup&gt;

The heavens are heavens for the Lord and the earth He gave to the children of man,

when He wanted to give the Torah He nullified the first decree and said the lower ones shall ascend to the upper ones and the upper ones shall descend to the lower ones and I begin as it is said&lt;sup&gt;69&lt;/sup&gt;

And the Lord descended upon Mount Sinai."

From the words of the Midrash it is understood,

that even though we find revelation of the Lord to righteous ones and to prophets before the Giving of the Torah,

nevertheless,

since it was before the nullification of the "first decree",

this is considered that still the "upper ones"

(the Divine Presence)

had not descended below.

And as is explained in several places,

that before the Giving of the Torah there was no completeness in the revelation of the Holy One, blessed be He,

and only at the time of the Giving of the Torah was the revelation of "I am the Lord your God",

and therefore only then was the decree nullified that upper ones shall not descend to lower ones.

And from this it is understood also regarding Moshe Rabbeinu himself,

that although the Holy One, blessed be He, revealed Himself to him in the [burning] bush and more,

nevertheless,

this is not at all in that category of "revelation of G-d" as it was at the time of the descent of G-d on Mount Sinai and the saying of the Ten Commandments.

And with this one can explain that which Matan Torah is considered as

the conversion of the Jewish people,

that the matter of conversion

is that the convert becomes a new reality,

as-

A minor who was born, of the [70]

And seemingly, behold already in the Exodus from Egypt it is said [71]

"To take for Him a nation from within a nation" [72]

And more difficult according to the first [pg. 33]

im [73]

who hold that the Patriarchs already departed from the category of Bnei Noach and they had the law of Israel,

And one cannot say that at the Giving of the Torah was the conversion of the people of Israel [74].

And according to the above it is explained,

that although they were already bound to G-d before the Giving of the Torah,

behold the manner of the revelation of the Holy One, blessed be He, to all of Israel at the time of the Giving of the Torah caused in them a complete renewal,

until they became like a completely new existence,

like a newborn infant they are considered.

And this is also the difference between the commandments before the Giving of the Torah and the commandments of the Torah that were given to us at Sinai,

because this revelation of the Holy One, blessed be He, is "given" in the Torah and commandments⁷⁵,

in such a manner,

that through a Jewish person learning Torah and fulfilling commandments,

he becomes bound and connected with the Essence of the Holy One, blessed be He,

and in the language of our Sages,

that through Torah "Me you are taking"⁷⁶.

(From the talks of the second day of Shavuos and Shabbos Parshas Nasso 5739)