“They journeyed from Rephidim, and they arrived in the desert of Sinai, vayachanu, they encamped, in the desert, and Israel vayichan, encamped there opposite the mountain” (Shemot 18:2).
Twice in the same verse the Torah tells us that the Jewish people encamped, first in the Sinai desert and then next to Mount Sinai. Yet there is an anomaly in the verse, one that cannot be seen in the English translation but is very clear in the Hebrew. When the Jewish people arrived at Mount Sinai, the Torah uses the plural vayachanu. Yet when describing this same group of people and their proximity to Mount Sinai the Torah uses the singular, vayichan as in he (and not they) encamped next to the mountain. This missing vav carries much significance. The unity of the people was so great that our Sages note they were “with one heart, like one person” as they prepared to accept the Torah.
That the Jewish people were united at this point is rather amazing. That they would be united when they left Egypt is to be pretty much expected. Throwing off a dictator and gaining freedom has a way to paper over dissension. All are united in the overarching goal – it is only after the “revolution” that differences of opinion tend to arise. In the few weeks since they had left Egypt the Jewish people (and the mixed multitude that came along) faced the Egyptian army staring down on them with nothing but a mighty sea in front of them. They faced food shortages, water shortages and an unprovoked attack by Amalek. Many were already yearning to go back to Egypt.
Clearly there were many disputes amongst the people. Just before we read of the arrival of the people to Mount Sinai the Torah tells us the Moshe “sat to judge the people as the people stood about Moses from morning until evening...so that when they have a dispute, it comes before me, and I decide between one party and another” (Shemot 18:13,16). Much had happened in the six weeks since they had left Egypt and surely the unity of the nation was fraying. Yet the Torah tells us, or at least hints to us, that the Jewish people came together as one at Sinai. Apparently, receiving the Torah is only possible if the Jewish people are united.
Why?
“’Zeh Eli ve’anveihu’ (Shemot 15:2), this is my G-d and I will glorify Him: Abba Shaul says ve’anveihu[1] Be similar to Him, Just as He is compassionate and merciful, so too should you be compassionate and merciful” (Shabbat 133b).
We have to both be like G-d and we must act like G-d. “Rabbi Chama, son of Rabbi Chanina, says: What is the meaning of that which is written: ‘After the Lord your God shall you walk’ (Devarim 13:5)… one should follow the attributes of the Holy One, Blessed be He.. Just as He clothes the naked… so too you must clothe the naked. Just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, visits the sick…so too, should you visit the sick. Just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, consoles mourners, …so too, should you console mourners. Just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, buried the dead…so too, should you bury the dead” (Sotah 14a).
If we must act and be like G-d – as heretical as it may sound – we must be as one. To be divided would run the risk of violating the second of the Rambam’s 13 principles of faith, that being the unity of G-d. As he writes in the very first chapter of his legal (not his philosophical) code, the Mishneh Torah, “This God is one. He is not two or more, but one, unified in a manner which [surpasses] any unity that is found in the world”. If G-d is one then the Jewish people must be one. This idea is pithily expressed in the Zohar where it is taught that, “The Jewish people, Torah, and the Holy One blessed be He, are one”. We and G-d are one. What joins us as one is the Torah. A divided people means that k’veyachol, G-d, G-d forbid, is divided.
Our tradition teaches that there are 248 positive mitzvot corresponding to the 248 limbs and bones in the body. The limbs in the body are intertwined with one another and it is only when all are working properly that we can properly function. Tear or break one and the entire body is impacted, at times most severely. Broken bones and limbs can lead to infection and even death.
In addition to the 248 positive mitzvoth there are 365 negative mitzvoth corresponding to the earth’s revolution around the sun. The positive mitzvot emphasize the unity of man, whereas the negative mitzvoth emphasize the unity of G-d, the Creator of nature.
Keeping these 613 mitzvot in the Torah requires the coming together of the Jewish people. It is impossible for any one Jew to observe all of them. Some apply to men some to women, some to farmers some to shepherd’s, some to those who are married some to those who are divorced, some to employers some to employees. Some apply to those living in Israel some to those living in a city of refuge, some to kings, to priests, to Levites, some to slave owners and many, many apply only when there is a Temple. We even have mitzvot that apply to thieves and other sinners. It takes all types of Jews to fulfil the Torah, to bring the divine to the world.
To properly accept Torah means to accept all Jews – to ensure that we are one.
Tellingly, our rabbis teach that we joined together at Sinai “as one person with one heart”. It does not say we were of one mind. That is not something to strive for. Judaism loves diversity of thought and insists on intellectual honesty[2]. “He who sees multitudes [of Jews] says: Praise to Him Who is wise in secrets! Just as their faces are not similar one to the other, so the opinions of one are not similar to another’s” (Jerusalem Talmud 9:1.33).
We live in a much too divided Jewish (and general) world. It behooves us to work together with those who seek the betterment of the Jewish people and the world at large even, or shall we say especially, with those who views differ from our own. We, the Jewish people and world at large will be better off for it.
[1] The Hebrew word ve’anveihu can be read as ani vehu, me and Him.
[2] A zaken mamreh, a member of the Sanhedrin who defies and instructs others to defy the ruling of the high court is to be put to death (in theory). However, he is allowed, perhaps obligated, to voice his opposition to the ruling of the majority. He must however state that eventhough he thinks the court is mistaken we must follow the ruling of the majority.