Having already warned (in the previous Pasuk) against touching the mountain, why does the Torah need to repeat it?
1.
Rashbam: The Torah is referring, (not to touching the mountain, but) to touching the sinner by killing him from close quarters.
1
Rather, the command was to be fulfilled by throwing stones or firing arrows at him, as the Pasuk goes on to explain.
2.
Targum Yonasan and Moshav Zekenim: What the Torah is saying is that one may not lay a hand on anyone who comes close to the Mountain, but that he will be stoned (by Hashem) with hailstones or with arrows of fire.
3.
Da'as Zekenim: This Pasuk teaches that he is put to death by stoning - and not by choking - even though Stam Misah (bi'Yedei Adam) is strangulation (Chenek).
Sanhedrin 45a: We learn from "O Yaroh" that the person must be pushed down; from "Ki Sakol" that he must be stoned; from "Sakol Yisakel O Yaroh Yiyareh" that he must be both pushed down and stoned;
2
from "O" that if he died after being pushed, he need not be stoned. And from the double Lashon "Sakol Yisakel," we learn that all this applies to all generations (and not just to Har Sinai).
3
5.
Yerushalmi Sanhedrin, 6:5: We learn from "O Yar'oh Yiyareh" that he needs to be 'pushed' twice - if he falls on his back, one must turn him on his side.
4
Ramban: Perhaps Hashem subsequently re-fashioned the Shofar from the ashes of the Korban. Ramban adds that there is a Sod hidden in this Agadah. For Gur Aryeh, see below, 19:13:3.2:3 .
Sifsei Chachamim: The Shechinah's presence on Har Sinai was accompanied by thunder, lightning and the sound of the Shofar.
8)
Bearing in mind the Pasuk regarding the second Luchos, "Gam ha'Tzon v'ha'Bakar Al Yir'u El Mul ha'Har ha'Hu" (34:3) which implies that the prohibition would be automatically lifted once the Shechinah departed from the mountain, why does the Torah need to add "bi'Meshoch ha'Yovel Heimah Ya'alu ba'Har"?
1.
Beitzah 5b: To teach us that 'A decree that one Beis-Din issues does not become nullified automatically, until another Beis-Din nullifies it.'
1
2.
Ta'anis 21b: To teach us that 'It is not the the location that honors the person, but the person who honors the location.' As long as the Shechinah was on Har Sinai, it was forbidden to ascend, and the moment it departed, to ascend it became permitted.
Even though the specified reason no longer applies. See Torah Temimah, notes 27 & 28.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
9)
Rashi writes: "'Yaroh Yiyareh' - From here, [it is derived] that those who are liable to death by stoning, are pushed down ... " (Sanhedrin 45a). But deriving the Halachos of Sekilah from our Pasuk, raises the following questions; a. How can this one-time Mitzvah be used as a source for the Halachah that would apply for all generations? b. Our Pasuk says, "he shall be surely be stoned or cast down," which implies an option; how do we derive that Sekilah entails both casting down and stoning? c. Why does our Pasuk mention stoning first, if in practice, casting down is done first?
1.
Rashi (to Sanhedrin 45a):a. We derive that it applies to all generations, from the future tense of the expression "Yisakel."
1b. The doubled expression ("Sakol Yisakel," etc.) teaches that both components must be performed.
2.
Gur Aryeh:a. The doubled expression is what teaches us that it applies to all generations. b. Had one of the two methods been sufficient, Beis Din should always administer only the more severe one of the two (see Sanhedrin 81a). It is improbable that both are equivalent in severity; and even if they are, Beis Din should opt for the less degrading method, due to "v'Ahavta l'Rei'acha Kamocha" (Sanhedrin 45a).
2
Rather, both are carried out. (The reason the word "or" is used, is to teach that if the culprit died from the initial casting down alone, the Mitzvah was fulfilled.
3
) c. Stoning is mentioned first, because that is the primary component of Sekilah. Therefore, the warning he must receive in order to be found liable, need only mention stoning, not casting down.
Gur Aryeh finds this difficult. The future tense is appropriate in context, to describe what would occur in the near future to someone who would ascend Har Sinai.
Rashi writes: "'The Yovel' - ... This was the Shofar of Yitzchak's ram." Why that particular Shofar?
1.
Gur Aryeh: Hashem did not use an ordinary ram's horn that a person would use; but rather that of Yitzchak's ram, which was Kadosh, sanctified as an Olah in Yitzchak's place.
2.
Maharal (Derush Al ha'Torah, p. 33): The purpose of the Shofar is to gather the people and connect them with Hashem.
1
This is the trait of Yitzchak, who offered his very self to Hashem completely. It was the merit of the Akeidah that brought about the Shofar of Matan Torah.
Maharal: As in the Pasuk, "Yitaka' b'Shofar Gadol, u'Va'u ha'Ovedim b'Eretz Ashur... v'Hishtachavu La'Shem..." (Yeshayah 27:13).
11)
Rashi writes: "'The Yovel' - ... This was the Shofar of Yitzchak's ram." But as a Korban Olah, that ram was completely burnt - including its horns?
1.
Ramban: Perhaps Hashem subsequently re-fashioned the Shofar; see above 19:13:3:1* .
2.
Mizrachi: The horn of the ram became detached prior to burning. In such an event, the horn of a Korban Olah is not burnt up (Zevachim 85b).
1
3.
Gur Aryeh: Chazal
2
certainly do not mean that the sound was produced by a physical ram's horn! True, that it was burnt up in the physical sense; but this was not a mere natural animal! It was especially created at Bein ha'Shemashos of the sixth day of Creation,
3
which indicates that it superseded the natural - and that super-natural aspect was not in any way negated by being burnt on the Mizbe'ach.
4
As Chazal teach, "That particular ram, no part of it went to waste; ... its ten sinews were for the ten strings of David's harp; its skin is the belt to gird the loins of Eliyahu; its left Shofar was made heard by Hashem at Har Sinai; and its right and larger Shofar He will blow in the future at the ingathering of the exiles...." Maharal explains - in the merit of Avraham bringing this offering in place of Yitzchak, he merited Divine gifts for their descendants, from every part of that offering. It is called "the ram of Yitzchak," because it was given in Yitzchak's stead, to represent him,
5
as if it was Yitzchak's image
6
in his place.
Gur Aryeh: But if so, the Shofar would lack the symbolism of having been offered in place of Yitzchak! (Mizrachi might argue that despite not being offered, it was part of the ram that was consecrated.)
(Ibid.): The items created at that time are listed in Mishnah Avos (5:6); Maharal explains that these items are not within Teva (nature); refer to Shemos 4:20:1.2:2 . The Tana'im disagree as to whether the ram of the Akeidah should appear on that list; see Maharal (Derech Chayim p. 238 and on). For Maharal's approach to the twilight period of Bein ha'Shemashos, see 16:4:156:1** .
Gur Aryeh: Its physical aspect was consumed on the Mizbe'ach; whereas its Ru'ach returned to its source. Because it was above Teva (unlike a natural outcome of the six days of Creation which was made to come and go), it cannot be that its existence went l'Vatalah (for naught). Rather, its significance must remain in the world; as Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer now explains.
Gur Aryeh: As a parallel, when Yitzchak first brought Rivkah to his home, "she became a living example of his mother Sarah; as Rashi interprets 'Behold, she was Sarah!'" (Rashi to Bereishis 24:67).
Gur Aryeh: Not every potential benefit can be described this way, that it "stands in place of" the person who merited it. For example, if due to the Akeidah we would have merited wealth, we would not refer to that wealth as "Yitzchak's ram" - because they are not on the same plane. (See Rashi to Bereishis 22:13 - Upon every Avodah that he did with the ram, Avraham prayed and said 'Yehi Ratzon, that this should be, as if it was being done upon my son; as if my son was slaughtered, as if his blood was thrown (upon the Mizbe'ach), etc.' As Maharal explains (Chidushei Agados Vol. 1, p. 106, to Rosh Hashanah 16a) - Offering the ram, is what elevated the offering of Yitzchak, from potential to actualization; and in Avraham's intent, it was as if Yitzchak himself was offered. This explains how the ram 'was Yitzchak's image, to represent him' - as Gur Aryeh presents here.)
12)
Rashi writes that "O Yaroh Yiyareh" teaches us that one who is stoned is cast down. Maseches Sanhedrin (45a) outlines the procedure; first he is cast down, and then stoned. But the Torah writes "Sakol Yisakel" first - and within one context, the Torah retains its chronological order (Pesachim 6b)?
1.
Moshav Zekenim #1: The simple meaning
1
of the Pasuk is teaching us that, if someone stands on the mountain - he is killed by throwing stones at him from afar, and if that is not possible, by firing arrows at him.
2
2.
Tosfos (to Pesachim 6b DH 'Aval'), Moshav Zekenim #2 and Riva: The current Derashah is based on the Pasuk, "u'Sekaltam ba'Avanim va'Mesu" (Devarim 17:5), where the Pasuk juxtaposes 'Sekilah' to 'Misah,' implying that stoning occurs after casting down.
3.
Riva citing R. Meir Kochbi, Hadar Zekenim: The Torah needed to write "O Yaroh Yiyareh" last, to teach that if he died from the fall, they were Yotzei (without stoning him). There is no need to teach that if he died through stoning, they were Yotzei.
4.
The current Pasuk is not discussing Misas Beis Din. Refer to 19:13:152:4 .
This contradicts what the Moshav Zekenim himself wrote to Pasuk 12, that such a person is killed bi'Yedei Shamayim, and not bi'Yedei Adam (PF)
13)
Rashi writes that "O Yaroh Yiyareh" teaches us that someone who is stoned is cast down. Why does the Torah then write "O" (or), seeing as casting down is mandatory - only that if it does not kill him, they stone him?
1.
Riva: We find that "O" is sometimes synonymous with 'Asher' (that).
1
Riva: See for example in Parshas Mishpatim, "v'Higisho El ha'Deles, O El ha'Mezuzah" (21:6), and which Targum Yerushalmi translates as ' ... to the door that is attached to the door-post.'
