"Why are the laws of shmitta associated specifically
with [having been given from] Mt. Sinai? [To teach us that}
just as the laws of shmitta inclusive of their general
rules and particulars were transmitted at Sinai, so were all
the commandments taught at Sinai, inclusive of their general
rules and particular details" (Rashi).
Maran R' Moshe Feinstein zt'l illuminates the emphasis
on "taught at Sinai" from a different angle. There was a
major difference between those commandments that were taught
at Sinai and the others. The historically momentous occasion
of Giving the Torah at Sinai went beyond the actual
transmission of the 613 mitzvos. This occasion was an
initiation into a covenant and the nature of the commandments
was determined accordingly. These were not logical laws but
terms of servitude, of assuming the subordination to and the
obligations of the covenant. This is why the Torah stresses
that just as the laws of shmitta were taught in full
detail at Sinai, so were all of the remaining commandments
transmitted thus, in full detail and particulars.
There is a difference between the commandments to Moshe at
the giving of the Torah and the commandments imposed upon
Odom and Noach, the latter being more of a logical nature and
not laws forbidden as a prohibition per se, because this was
the King's arbitrary will. We see that of all the many
disciples which Shem and Ever produced, and these must have
been numerous, and all "the souls he [Avrohom] made in
Choron," not one produced generations of G-d-fearing people.
Only the patriarchs produced the Chosen People.
This is because any time obedience and fulfillment of laws is
only a result of one's concurring intellectually with their
good sense, it cannot be lasting. Not everyone will subscribe
to the rightness of the laws; they may eventually challenge
them. They will think that they know better than their
ancestors and will make allowances to satisfy their base
natures, as history has proven.
Contrariwise, the observance of commandments for the sole
reason that they are divine in origin and were taught at Mt.
Sinai, is a fact that cannot be challenged. We keep the
mitzvos because Hashem wills it, not because we embrace them
intellectually.
Dorash Moshe continues and explains why precisely the
commandment of shmitta was chosen as a prime example
from which all the others must follow. This is because it is
one of total conformity and submission. Who is capable of
seeing a field go to thorns and thistles for an entire year
and not lift a finger to pluck them? Those who observe
shmitta are duly labeled "Gibborei koach -- men
of valor," for without fortitude and emotional stamina one
could not withstand this trial.
The very essence and expression of this particular
commandment demonstrates that it was issued at Sinai. It is
the prime example from which we can derive a governing
principle for all other commandments, even those that may
appeal to us intellectually or which are pleasant to keep.
Each and every commandment shares the identical seal of
"Maamad Har Sinai," an initiation into a covenant-
contract of assuming upon ourselves the sovereignty of the
Master of the world.
*
In his commentary on Parshas Mishpotim, Maran R'
Yitzchok Zev Halevi zt'l elaborates upon this theme of
the Jewish People's assuming upon themselves Hashem's supreme
authority. He writes: There are two separate matters here.
First, the actual occasion, the event in time of the Giving
of the Torah at Sinai, and second, the entrance into, or
acceptance of, the Covenant. It is written in
Mechilta: "When Moshe saw that the people had accepted
[it] upon them, he took the blood and flung it upon the
people. He said to them: You are hereby bound, tied and
shackled. Come back tomorrow to receive upon you the
remainder of the mitzvos." We see here that the acceptance of
the Torah, the entry into the covenant, preceded the actual
lawgiving and bound them irrevocably forevermore. Only on the
following day did they receive the bulk of the mitzvos at the
Giving of the Torah at Sinai.
Thus, the thesis which R' Moshe puts forth assumes double
validity. "What does shmitta have to do [precisely]
with Har Sinai?"
The emphasis is on the fact that the entire bulk of the Torah
obligations, in all their minute detail, was transmitted
under the already sworn allegiance of the Jewish People. They
were already committed, bound, self-compelled. All the words
about the beauty of the mitzvos and their rich content are
fine and true, but have nothing to do with our initial
acceptance and observance of them. If we only kept Torah
because of the grandeur and splendor we saw in it, we would
be in grave danger of doing away with the fine details which
they encompass. These would quickly vanish.
Comprehension, enthusiasm, feelings of holiness and the
atmosphere of exaltation in which the mitzvos are carried out
are all vital, but they are not the reason we keep them. If
these were the cause for our love, this love would be a
dependent thing, conditional and not absolute, and liable to
disappear when the `cause' was removed.
*
A Jew is coerced; he is under an obligation to keep the
Torah. He is bound, tied, shackled to the Torah. Having
already entered the confines of the covenant, he is
forevermore restricted by its terms and has no way out. All
of the mitzvos, with all their particulars and details,
originated at Sinai, from the atmosphere of Sinai, from the
covenant made and accepted there.
Under such circumstances, the observance of the commandments
in every detail simply follows as an eternal obligation, a
truth and condition of being. To the nth degree -- to the
smallest lettercrown. The fine print on the contract.
It is very interesting to note that at the time of the
entering the covenant, the very mitzva of shmitta is
also mentioned as an example. The Mechilta already
quoted brings the verse, "And he took the Book of the
Covenant and he read it in the ears of the people." From
where did he read, ask the Sages. R' Yishmoel replies, "What
is mentioned at the beginning of this subject? `And the land
shall rest . . . Six years shall you sow . . . Shmittin
veyovlos. Blessings and curses.'"
Here, again, we find this particular example, this selfsame
mitzva used as a sampling of the covenant. Just as R' Moshe
explained above. This is the very commandment which demands
heroism and courage to fulfill. It is not a ceremonious
commandment with overtones of national tradition, which are
pleasant and inspiring to keep. Not at all. It is a
commandment that overtly demonstrates one's commitment,
obligation, coercion, if you will. A total subjugation to the
Master of all.
In the same measure did the blessings and curses serve as
initiation into the covenant. They proved that observance of
the mitzvos was not a free alternative, not a pick-and-
choose. It obligates totally, unequivocally and irrevocably.
Any insubordination results in "I will bring upon you an
avenging sword to avenge the covenant" while fulfillment
results in "And you shall retire without cause for fear."
Just like the terms of a signed contract.
