"And [Moshe] said, 'Hashem came from Sinai...'" (Devarim 33:2) When Hashem offered us the Torah, He did not offer it to the Jews alone, but to all of the nations. First He approached the children of Esav and asked them, "Do you wish to accept the Torah?" They replied, "What is written in it?" "Do not murder." They said, "...Our father [Esav] was assured [by his father, Yitzchak] that, 'By your sword will you live (Bereishit 27:40)!'" [In other words, "We cannot accept such constraining laws."]

Next Hashem went to the children of Ammon and Moav, and asked, "Do you wish to accept the Torah?" They asked, "What is written in it?" "Do not commit sexual immorality." They responded, "Master of the Universe, our very existence is based on an immoral act!" [These two nations are descended from the daughters of Lot, who were impregnated by their father (Bereishit 19:37-8). Thus they also refused the offer].

Hashem then went to the children of Yishmael, and asked them, "Do you wish to accept the Torah?" They asked, "What is written in it?" "Do not steal." They responded, "Master of the Universe, the essence of our father was to be a bandit, as it is written, 'And he will be a man of the wild; his hand will be in all...'" (Bereishit 16:12). [They also refused.]

...There was not a single nation on whose door Hashem did not knock to ask if they were willing to receive the Torah.

(Sifri, Ve'Zot HaBracha #343)

Why does the Torah only mention the two nations of Esav and Yishmael? Perhaps this is to allude to the concept discussed in Kabbalistic literature (see Kol Eliyahu, #100) that these two nations are the dominant powers in the world. All of the rest of the seventy nations come under the sway of one of these two. The verse mentions explicitly that Hashem came to Esav, in order to imply that He came to all of Esav's constituents as well. Likewise, it mentions that He came to Yishmael to imply that He came to all of Yishmael's constituents as well.

When the Jews were offered the Torah, they responded unanimously, "Everything that Hashem requests of us we will do [Na'aseh] and we will hear [Nishma]" (Shemot 24:7). The Vilna Gaon ("Aderet Eliyahu," Devarim 33:2) suggests a deeper meaning behind the words Na'aseh and Nishma based on the above Rashi. The word "Na'aseh" and the name "Esav" both come from the same root: "Aseh," or "Do." The Jews were telling Hashem, "We will take upon ourselves to *do* that which the children of *Esav*, whose very name hints at doing, refused to do." Similarly, "Nishma" and the name "Yishmael" both come from the root: "Shma," or "hear." The Bnai Yisrael agreed to *hear* that which the children of Yishmael, whose very name hints at hearing, refused to hear. In reply to Hashem's offer to give them the Torah, the Bnai Yisrael announced their willingness to take upon themselves that which the children of Esav and Yishmael had refused.

A similar question may be asked regarding a statement made by Rashi at the end of Parashat Mishpatim (Shemot 24:3). The Torah tells us that before the Bnai Yisrael received the Torah, Moshe listed for them a sampling of the Mitzvot. The Jews responded, "Everything which Hashem has spoken, we will do." Rashi (loc. cit.) informs us that this sampling included: the Seven Noachide Laws, observing the Shabbat, honoring one's parents, and the other laws that they had been commanded at Marah (see Shemot 15:25). The Mitzvot of Marah were given more than a month before the rest of the Torah. If so, Moshe's list only including Mitzvot with which the Bnai Yisrael were already familiar! We may ask here the same question that we asked earlier, on the Sifri. What was the point of mentioning to the Jews Mitzvot that they were *already* given, if they were deliberating whether they should accept new and *different* Mitzvot?

I once heard an answer to these questions from my father-in-law, Harav Gedalyah Rabinowitz (dean of Mosdot Oholei Yitzchak, in the old city of Jerusalem). Rav Rabinowitz suggested that the answer to our questions may lie in a passage from Gemara Bava Kama. The Gemara in Bava Kama 38a cites the verse that we quoted above: "Hashem came from Sinai, and shone from Se'ir; He appeared from the mountain of Paran." The Gemara derives from this verse that Hashem reviewed whether the nations of the world were keeping the seven Mitzvot which they had been commanded. When Hashem saw that the gentiles were *not* observing their Mitzvot, He punished them accordingly.

Perhaps this, then, is the intention of the Sifri. The dialogue the Sifri records as taking place between Hashem and the nations may not have been an actual conversation. Rather, the Sifri is telling us the reason that Hashem didn't give the Torah to the other nations of the world. The Sifri concludes that none of the other nations had kept the original seven Mitzvot. Obviously, it would be futile to offer them *more* Mitzvot if they weren't even observing the Mitzvot that they already had! The only nation who kept the seven laws in their entirety was the Bnai Yisrael. Because the Bnai Yisrael eagerly accepted upon themselves the Divine will, they showed that they were ready to receive the rest of the Mitzvot of the Torah.

Along the same lines, when Moshe wanted to give the Jews a preview of the Torah, he reviewed for them the Mitzvot that they had already received. He was asking them, "Did you keep all of these Mitzvot eagerly and with love? If so, you can receive the rest of the Torah!" The Jews replied, "Everything which Hashem has said, we will do." They were proudly keeping the Mitzvot that they already had, and were ready and waiting to hear the rest.

Rabbi Rabinowitz's explanation is actually alluded to in the words of the Sifri itself. As quoted above, the Sifri states that Hashem offered the Torah to every nation of the world, and they each refused in turn. The Sifri continues, "Even the Seven Mitzvot which were accepted by all of the children of Noach, the other nations could bear no longer. They unburdened themselves of them and gave them, too, to the Bnai Yisrael." The other nations were disloyal even to their original promise to keep the seven Noachide laws. They rejected them, saying, "Let the Jews keep them."

The concluding words of the Sifri explain the earlier dialogue. Since the nations rejected the Mitzvot that they had already been given, they were not fit to receive the new Torah. The Bnai Yisroel, on the other hand, who had kept the earlier Mitzvot, were proven fit to receive new ones.

Rebbi Chama son of Rebbi Chanina said: What is meant by the verse, "[He is] like an apple tree ("Tapuach") amongst the trees of the forest..." (Shir HaShirim 2:3)? Why were the Jews compared to an apple tree?

Just as an apple tree reverses the natural order and produces its fruit before its leaves, so too the Jews reversed the natural order [when they accepted the Torah on Mt. Sinai] by saying "We will do [what you request of us]" before saying "We will hear [what you request of us]". (Normally, one must first hear what to do, and only then can he do it -MK.)

(Gemara Shabbat 88a)

In order to solve this problem, Rabbenu Tam (one of the Tosafists; grandson of Rashi) suggests that the word "Tapuach" in this Gemara does not mean an apple tree, as it usually does. In some cases, he points out, the word Tapuach is used for the fruit of the Etrog [= citron] tree. (The literal meaning of the word Tapuach is "swollen," or "spherical.") Perhaps here, too, it refers to the Etrog. But still, the Etrog itself doesn't produce fruit before sprouting leaves! How does Rabbenu Tam's suggestion explain the Gemara's enigmatic statement?

Rabbenu Tam sends us to a Gemara in Sukkah. The Gemara (Sukkah 35a) tells us that the fruit of the Etrog remains on its tree from year to year. The Gemara in Shabbat means, Rabbenu Tam tells us, that *last* year's Tapuach (= Etrog) precedes *this* year's leaves!

This explanation sounds, at first, rather forced. The fruit that precedes the leaves of an Etrog is not at all a reversal of the natural order of things. When last year's fruit first began to grow, it indeed followed last year's leaves, just like the fruit of all other trees! How can this be compared to the Jews' saying "We will do [what you request]" before "We will hear [what you request]?"

Our discussion of the above Sifri may help us understand the deeper meaning hidden in Rabbeinu Tam's interpretation. As we explained, the Bnai Yisrael merited to receive the Torah because they had meticulously kept the seven Noachide Laws that preceded the Torah. This, perhaps, is why they said the words "We will do" before the words "We will hear". How can one "do" a request that he has not yet heard? Perhaps what the Bnai Yisrael meant to say was, "Hashem, see that we continue to *do* what You have commanded us in the past. This demonstrates that we are prepared to *hear* more Mitzvot!"

If this is true, we can understand why the Jews who reacted in such a manner are compared to the Etrog tree. The Etrog tree still has fruit from the previous year hanging on it when it sprouts the next year's leaves. So too, the Bnai Yisrael still were performing the old Mitzvot that they had already been given, when Hashem asked them to take on more Mitzvot. As the Etrog tree, they proudly showed their old "fruit" [= actions], when new "leaves" [= commandments] were forthcoming. This was what the Jews by declaring "We will do" the Mitzvot, before saying "We will hear" the Mitzvot. And this is what made them truly worthy of receiving the new Torah!