Yoma 4b (ד:) — the Talmud in English

And as for what the verse says

“and the cloud covered it”

, its meaning is that the cloud covered

the mountain

, for during those six days Moses was ascending and descending to bring the words of the Lord to the people and to bring their words back to Him.

And as for what it concludes,

“and He called to Moses

on the seventh day,” this refers only to the Ten Commandments, when

Moses

and all Israel were standing

to hear them from the mouth of the Almighty.

And the verse did not come

to say that there was here a special summons for Moses to enter the camp of the Divine Presence,

but

in order

to accord honor to Moses

, the summons was directed to him alone.

Rabbi Natan says: The verse did not come

to say

anything

about Moses, who required separation in order

to purge the food and drink from his intestines

before he entered to be among the angels,

so as to make him like the ministering angels

.

. He agrees with the view of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili concerning the basic meaning of the verse: This took place after the Ten Commandments, and Moses indeed underwent separation. However, he maintains that one cannot derive from this that everyone who enters the camp of the Divine Presence in later generations requires separation.

And similarly,

Rabbi Matya ben Ḥaresh

explains and

says

: There is no law here requiring separation for others who enter. For

the verse came only

to separate Moses in order

to inspire awe

in him

, so that he would turn his heart to come before the Holy One, blessed be He, with fear,

so that the Torah would be given through him

with

awe, trembling, and perspiration!

As it is stated: “Serve the Lord with awe, and rejoice with trembling

”

. And we interpret this verse:

What is the meaning of “and rejoice with trembling

”?

Rav Adda bar Matana said that Rav said: In the place of rejoicing

at the giving of the Torah—as it is stated concerning it, “The precepts of the Lord are upright, rejoicing the heart”—

there shall be

found

trembling

.

. Now the Gemara brings support for the opinion of Reish Lakish from the words of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who derived the requirement of separation for later generations from the separation at Sinai.

And we inquire concerning this beraita:

On what

does this dispute depend, as

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva disagree

about it, one expounding the verse as referring to before the giving of the Torah and the other to after the giving of the Torah? What is the basis of their interpretation? We explain: They disagree

in the dispute between these tanna’im

, who disagreed concerning another matter.

As it was taught: On the sixth of the month

of Sivan

the Torah was given to Israel

.

Rabbi Yosei says: On the seventh of that month

it was given. [Consult Rashi’s version, which includes an explanation within the words of the Gemara that is not relevant to the Gemara at this point.] From this point onward,

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,

who explained the verse concerning the cloud’s covering as referring to the six days after the Ten Commandments,

agrees with the first tanna, who says

that

the Torah was given on the sixth of the month

.

Therefore,

it is necessary to explain that

this event took place after the Ten Commandments

. And he explains the verse,

“And the glory of the Lord rested upon Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it for six days

” —

Moses

, who separated during these days in preparation for entering and remaining with the Lord for forty days. And then it says:

“And He called to Moses on the seventh day

”—

to receive the rest of the Torah.

For the first tanna cannot explain the verse according to Rabbi Akiva, that the cloud covered the mountain and that the event took place before the Ten Commandments.

For if it enters your mind

to explain it according to Rabbi Akiva, that

“and the glory of the Lord rested”

means

from the beginning of the month

, then necessarily, when it is written

“and the cloud covered it”

, this does not refer to Moses, who was ascending and descending, but

to the mountain

of Sinai. And afterward,

“and He called to Moses on the seventh day

”—

to receive the Ten Commandments

is its meaning.

But

he maintains that Israel

received them

the Ten Commandments

on the sixth

of the month,

and

also,

but

by then

the cloud had already departed

from

the

mountain immediately after the giving of the Ten Commandments, on

the sixth

.

.

And if

Rabbi Akiva,

who explained that the cloud covered the mountain before the Ten Commandments,

agrees with Rabbi Yosei,

who says that

the Torah was given to Israel on the seventh of the month

.

, the verses are understood according to their plain meaning: After the mountain was covered with cloud for six days from the beginning of the month, the Holy One, blessed be He, called Moses on the seventh day of the month in order to give the Ten Commandments. We raise an objection: It is explicitly stated in the Torah that Moses was on the mountain for forty days, and when he descended at their conclusion, he broke the tablets that were in his hands. And if so,

there is no difficulty according

to

the calculation of

Rabbi Akiva; this is how you can account for

what we learned in tractate Ta’anit:

“On the seventeenth of Tammuz the tablets were broken

.

. For the beginning of the count of the forty days that he spent on high was the seventh day of Sivan, after the giving of the Ten Commandments. Accordingly, there remained

twenty-four

days

of

the month of

Sivan, and

another

sixteen

days

of

the month of

Tammuz

. With this,

they completed

the

forty days during which

Moses was

on the mountain

.

And

the next day,

on the seventeenth of Tammuz, he descended

from the mountain,

and came

to the camp of Israel.

And when he saw the calf, he

when he saw the calf—

broke them—

the tablets

of the covenant.

However, according to

the calculation of

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says

that after the Ten Commandments there were

six

days

of separation

,

and when you add to these six days another

forty

days

during which

Moses remained

on the mountain

, you find that

until the twenty-third of

the month of

Tammuz

Moses did not descend, and

the tablets had not yet been broken

.

. And we answer:

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili could say: The forty

days mentioned in the Torah

during which

Moses was on

the mountain

are counted

together with

the

six

days

of separation

. And they were completed on the seventeenth of Tammuz.

The Master said: “And He called to Moses

”—

Moses and all Israel were standing

, the words of Rabbi Akiva. And the Gemara says:

This supports

Rabbi Elazar

.

for Rabbi Elazar said: “And He called to Moses

”—

Moses and all Israel were standing

. Since all Israel heard together with Moses,

the verse did not come

to make the summons specifically for Moses,

but

only in order

to accord honor to Moses

.

The following objection was raised

: It is stated in the verse, “And he heard the voice speaking to him.” Since it does not say, “the

voice speaking

to him,” but

a voice speaking

to him

, we expound that the voice extended only to

Moses

. And only he

heard, whereas all Israel

did not hear!

And how can you say that all Israel heard? And we answer:

It is not difficult

.

This

statement that all Israel heard

the

voice of

Sinai

refers to the voice at Sinai.

And that

which we derive—that all Israel did not hear—refers only

to the

speech that was addressed to Moses

from the Tent of Meeting

.

And if you wish, say

that it can be answered in another way:

It is not difficult

.

This

statement that all Israel heard together with Moses refers only to a speech that was stated

in the

language of

calling

.

.

And this

baraita, which teaches that all Israel did not hear, is speaking where the verse is written

in the

language of

speech. [According to the Maharsha.]

. [According to Maharsha.]

Rabbi Zerika posed

two

verses

below

before Rabbi Elazar. And

some

say that

it was

Rav Zerika who said

that

Rabbi Elazar

himself

posed

this difficulty:

It is written

in the portion of Pekudei [Exodus 40],

“And Moses could not enter the Tent of Meeting, because the cloud rested upon it

”.

And whereas in the portion of Mishpatim [Exodus 24]

it is written, “And Moses entered into the cloud

”. And we answer:

This teaches

that even there Moses could not enter on his own. Rather,

the Holy One, blessed be He, took hold of Moses and brought him into the cloud

.

And

the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught

the verse differently:

It is stated here, “And Moses entered

within

the cloud.” And it is stated elsewhere,

“And the children of Israel entered within the sea

.

Just as there, at the splitting of the Red Sea, they did not enter into the sea itself, for

a path was made for them

within the sea,

as

it is written

there,

“and the waters were a wall for them,” so too here

, a

path

was made for Moses within the cloud, and Moses entered only by that path.

The Torah states:

“And He called to Moses and spoke

the Lord to him.” And we explain:

Why did

the Holy One, blessed be He, precede

calling with speech?

It taught

here

proper conduct

to a person:

A person should not say something to another person unless he calls him

—he should call him first. And this exposition

supports Rabbi Ḥanina

for Rabbi Ḥanina said: A person should not say something to another person unless he calls him

. They further learned from this verse, in which it is stated,

“And the Lord spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting, saying

”;

Rabbi said

[Musiya bar Beri, son of Rabbi Musiya, in the name of Rabbi Musiya]

the Great

:

From where is it derived that one who tells something to another person

in confidence

is subject to

the prohibition

“He shall not say

to others” what was told to him

until he is told

explicitly by the speaker:

“Go, say it!”

From

that which is stated: “And the Lord spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting, saying

”. The Gemara now returns to the matter in which Reish Lakish challenged Rabbi Yoḥanan: According to his statement that he derived the requirement of separation from the inauguration, separation should also be indispensable on Yom Kippur. And we prove:

By implication

of their words,

both of them

[Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish] clearly

maintain that

everything written in the portion of

the inauguration—

everything written in it is indispensable for it

.

For

it was stated

: The laws of

the inauguration

were the subject of a dispute between

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Ḥanina

.

.

One

of them said:

Everything

that is

written

as being practiced

in them—

is indispensable for them

.

And one said

that only

a matter whose absence renders

the corresponding service invalid

in later generations

is indispensable for them; but a matter

that

is like it

does not render it invalid

in the other offerings

in later generations is not indispensable

even

for them

.

. That is, even in the inauguration, no greater disqualification was introduced than exists in offerings of later generations. Below, we will explain the matters concerning which they disagree. And now we explain:

Conclude

and prove

that it is Rabbi Yoḥanan who said: Everything written in it is indispensable for it

, while Rabbi Ḥanina is the one who disagrees. For from the fact that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish challenged Rabbi Yoḥanan and said to him:

If

the requirement of separation is derived from the inauguration, we should also derive that it is indispensable, because

just as everything written concerning the inauguration is indispensable for it

, so too with regard to Yom Kippur, let us say that separation should be indispensable. Rabbi Yoḥanan conceded to him, as he remained silent

and did not respond to him anything at all

.

. This indicates that he did not disagree with his premise that in the inauguration separation is indispensable. Yet for later generations it is not indispensable, as Reish Lakish proved from what we learned: They prepare another koen for him, but it is not mentioned that he must be separated. And we conclude: Indeed,

conclude

that this is what is proven! And we inquire concerning this dispute:

What is the practical difference between them

—in what matter do they disagree with regard to the actual halakha?