YWN Coffee Room » Yom Tov » Shavuos

What exactly did we get on Shavuos?

(49 posts)

Tags:

No tags yet.

  1. Shticky Guy
    THE SHTICKIEST POSTER IN THE ©®

    Shavuos is on 6/7 Sivan. The first luchos were given on shivah asar b'tamuz. The second luchos on yom kippur. I don't know when and who wrote the first sefer torah as we have it today - moshe? yehoshua?

    So what does it mean that we "received the torah" on shavuos? What exactly did we receive?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  2. nitpicker
    Member

    we received the right and the obligation to observe the torah.
    and to become the AM SEGULA.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  3. dafyomi2711
    Member

    we received the aseres hadibros from hashem (the first 2 were from Him Himself and the other 8 from Moshes mouth)

    Posted 3 years ago #
  4. benignuman
    The Congenial Na Nach

    We heard Hashem say the Aseres Hadibros.

    Additionally, at least according the M"D megilla megilla nitna, we received the Torah from Bereishis until Mattan Torah.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  5. benignuman
    The Congenial Na Nach

    Dafyomi,

    We heard all 10 from Hashem.

    The Rashi, you are getting that from is talking about when the Aseres Hadibros were repeated one by one.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  6. jbaldy22
    Member

    shavous and matan torah have nothing to do with each other according to the Rivash (in teshuvos)

    Posted 3 years ago #
  7. dafyomi2711
    Member

    benignuman your right ty for pointing that out

    Posted 3 years ago #
  8. Sam2
    The Even-Keeled and Erudite Shmuely Wollenberger from Las Vegas

    jbaldy: We clearly don't hold that way. See our Nusach Hatefillah.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  9. benignuman
    The Congenial Na Nach

    Jbaldy22,

    Citation?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  10. Shticky Guy
    THE SHTICKIEST POSTER IN THE ©®

    As several posters have said, on Shavuos we received the VERBAL aseres hadibros!

    This is the point I was trying to bring out. Many people do not realize that this was all that what was received on shavuos. But there was no luchos sitting on the top of har sinai on shavuos as many pictures erroneously show.

    Another mistake is the school pictures of har sinai with a fence around it. There was no physical barrier around the mountain.

    shavous and matan torah have
    nothing to do with each other

    Well it is called zman matan torahseinu by chazal!

    Posted 3 years ago #
  11. jbaldy22
    Member

    @benignuman Its in teshuva 96. Hopefully the mods will let me post this link.
    http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19989&pgnum=45

    @Sam2 he asks that question look at the teshuva if you have a second.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  12. benignuman
    The Congenial Na Nach

    Jbaldy22,

    I think you are overstating the Rivash. The Rivash is saying that when we were still m'kadesh the Chodesh with witnesses it was possible that Shavuos would fall on the 5th of Sivan, and Chazal weren't makpid to make sure Shavuos fell on the same day as Matan Torah.

    He explains that now that our calendar is set they always coincide and therefore we can say "zman matan torahseinu."

    This doesn't mean that they have "nothing do with" each other. It just means that it is more important to be m'kadesh b'r'iyah than to make it work out.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  13. jbaldy22
    Member

    @benignuman - so shavous doesnt have to coincide with matan torah yet it is about matan torah - would love to hear you explain that one. Obviously there is some sort of connection that it is in the same time frame but according to the rivash it is clear that shavous is a separate inyan from matan torah.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  14. HaLeiVi
    Plays the aeolian harp by air

    Oh great. So then Atzeres doesn't need Lachem!

    Posted 3 years ago #
  15. Sam2
    The Even-Keeled and Erudite Shmuely Wollenberger from Las Vegas

    Baruch Hashem. This T'shuvah in the Rivash mentions a problem that I've had for a long time. As an aside, look at the Magen Avraham in Siman 494 who asks the same Kashya. However, I saw that his Nusach was "Yom Matan Toraseinu". I thought that maybe our Nusach erases the Kashya. It's still the Z'man Matan Torah, even if it's not always the precise day.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  16. benignuman
    The Congenial Na Nach

    jbaldy22: "shavous and matan torah have nothing to do with each other according to the Rivash"

    Benignuman: "I think you are overstating the Rivash. . . ."

    jbaldy22: "so shavous doesnt have to coincide with matan torah yet it is about matan torah - would love to hear you explain that one. Obviously there is some sort of connection that it is in the same time frame but according to the rivash it is clear that shavous is a separate inyan from matan torah."

    So they do have something to do with each other and you were overstating the case.

    I agree however that the Rivash's explanation implies that there are aspects of Shavuos other than Matan Torah. All 3 of the regalim have both a historical basis and an agricultural basis. What I think you can derive from the Rivash is that with respect to Shavuos the agricultural basis trumps the historical basis.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  17. HaLeiVi
    Plays the aeolian harp by air

    Rebbe Elazar, who still had Eidei Chodesh in his day, was careful to be Mekayem Lachem on Atzeres. Was this only when it worked out, or did he Pravve Isru Chag on those years? Why didn't he say Vav Sivan instead of Atzeres?

    As many Sefarim say, the Mattan Torah had more to do with Shaar Chamishim than it did with Vav Sivan. This is why it depends on the counting rather than the day. The Rivash didn't come to throw everything we know overboard, as seems to be the style these days. He is discussing the fact that we celebrate Atzeres not by the date but by the count.

    You can look in Tiferes Yisroel of the Maharal in Perek 25.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  18. writersoul
    not in a box

    "But there was no luchos sitting on the top of har sinai on shavuos as many pictures erroneously show."
    Yaakov Avinu and Moshe Rabbeinu didn't wear hats and jackets, either...

    Posted 3 years ago #
  19. jbaldy22
    Member

    @HaLeiVi look at the notes in the mchon yerushaliam edition of the Rivash

    Posted 3 years ago #
  20. 147
    -105

    33&1/4 centuries ago is a very long time ago, and memories are short, so I don't exactly recall what we received 33&1/4 centuries ago.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  21. Shticky Guy
    THE SHTICKIEST POSTER IN THE ©®

    Yaakov Avinu and Moshe Rabbeinu didn't wear hats and jackets, either...

    Of course they didnt. That could have led to machlokes, with future doros being medayek exactly what they wore: bent up or bent down hat, borsalino, brandalino, stetson or roche, black, grey or navy, wide or narrow brim, high or low ribbon, with or without the brand name on the bow, gekneitched, sameter, beaver, turban, fez, beret, sombrero, bowler hat, perhaps Moshe wore a bush hat?

    As to their suits, was it a langer rekel, a frak, with buttons on the back or not, a beketcher, a saville row suit, right over left, left over right, a robe etc. etc.

    So instead they left us in no doubt at all as to their true affiliation, and as my kids school picture precisely and accurately showed a couple of years ago, Moshe Rabbeinu proudly and decisively led us out of Mitzraim... wearing a Streimel!!

    Posted 3 years ago #
  22. 147
    -105

    Yaakov Avinu and Moshe Rabbeinu didn't wear hats and jackets, either...
    Let's talk constructively:- Which way did Yaakov Avinu & Moshe Rabbeinu wind their Tefiilin on their arm? & which Nussach did they pray in? &talking about Tefillin:- What was their Mesorah vis a vis Tefillin on Chold haMoed?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  23. gershon775
    Member

    Dear beingUman
    what does M''D ''megillah megillah nesinah'' mean ?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  24. BaalHabooze
    On the rocks

    Many seforim speak about this. Off the top of my head you can take a look at the Bais Haleivi on parshas Yisro where he explains beautifully what zman Matan toroseinu means.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  25. musser zoger
    Member

    & which Nussach did they pray in?

    Yaakov avinu and Moshe rabbeinu davened in their own words, no nusach necessary, until the anshei knesses hagedolah. They set down a formal nusach.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  26. benignuman
    The Congenial Na Nach

    Gershon,

    There is a machlokes in the Gemara whether the Torah was written bit by bit as things happened throughout the years in the desert, or whether it was written in full for the first time the day of Moshe's death.

    According to the opinion that it was bit by bit ("megillah, megillah nisnah") Moshe wrote down the Torah from Breishis until Matan Torah right then.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  27. BTGuy
    Member

    It was exceedingly crowded and it seems many here have a different recollection.

    I guess the ones who were up front are more credible than the well-meaning ones way in the back.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  28. gershon775
    Member

    dear beingUman
    Thank you for setting me right. But,still, what are the raishei Taivot M''D. I feel sauch an Am Ha-Arets.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  29. gershon775
    Member

    dear beingnUman
    Sorry,[being human] I forgot to put please.
    Ashreinu
    Gershon

    Posted 3 years ago #
  30. WIY
    Managed to post for 3 years without getting a subtitle

    We got cheesecake on Shavuos, duh.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  31. WIY
    Managed to post for 3 years without getting a subtitle

    Sorry for killing the thread.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  32. benignuman
    The Congenial Na Nach

    Gershon,

    No worries. I was using M"D as short for Man D'amar (lit. "the one who says.").

    Posted 3 years ago #
  33. SayIDidIt™
    One of the Nicest Peoplach™ in the CR™

    Pre-Shavous Bump™

    SiDi™

    Posted 2 years ago #
  34. kedushaskohen
    Member

    teyreh

    Posted 2 years ago #
  35. Logician
    Member

    Mishneh Brurah implies we received all mitzvos (reason for milchigs).
    Chazon Ish discusses at length (Orach chaim 128)
    Ramchal (Da'as Tevunos) explains that we did NOT receive the Torah (ilu korveinu lifnei Har Sinai vilo nusan lanu es haTorah), rather became mitzuveh v'oseh, which empowered us by giving our actions the power to affect the world on a cosmic level.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  36. MachaaMaker
    ThreadMacher

    We received cheesecake

    Posted 2 years ago #
  37. WolfishMusings
    The Wolf

    According to the opinion that it was bit by bit ("megillah, megillah nisnah") Moshe wrote down the Torah from Breishis until Matan Torah right then.

    Well, not entirely as we have it today, of course. Even that portion was clearly amended by Moshe at some point before his death.

    The Wolf

    Posted 2 years ago #
  38. Sam2
    The Even-Keeled and Erudite Shmuely Wollenberger from Las Vegas

    HaLeiVi: Someone in the back of the Gemara points out that R' Eliezer is only talking in theory about Lachem on Shavuos because he holds like R' Yose that the Torah was given on 7 Sivan.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  39. Logician
    Member

    Even that portion was clearly amended by Moshe at some point before his death.

    ?

    Posted 2 years ago #
  40. HaLeiVi
    Plays the aeolian harp by air

    Sam, I really don't see why that would be a Kasha. The Rivash might have had an issue calling it the Zman, but it is still all about Matan Torah. As Rav Yosef said, Ee Lav Hai Yoma. If Rebbe Eliezer held so strongly about Lachem then he would have kept it on Isru Chag on those years, if it would truly be independent.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  41. The original post said:
    This is the point I was trying to bring out. Many people do not realize that this was all that what was received on shavuos. But there was no luchos sitting on the top of har sinai on shavuos as many pictures erroneously show.

    This "kanous" agaist the norm was brought up this year by someone in one of the the frum Israeli newspapers, and after "going viral" finally some talmid chochom sent in a number of sources stating that THERE REALLY WERE LUCHOS ON HAR SINAI AT MATAN TORAH!!!
    They were not brought down to am yisrael until later.

    So calm down guys, just because someone thinks hes "shticky" by bashing something accepted by most of klal yisrael as true, doesn't mean it is so.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  42. WolfishMusings
    The Wolf

    Mods,

    Why was my response to Logician removed?

    The Wolf

    Posted 2 years ago #
  43. HaLeiVi
    Plays the aeolian harp by air

    One of the Chevra, you are not being very specific. Actually, he is not going against any Mesora. He is merely giong against the famous picture. Yes, the Luchos were at Har Sinai but not necessarily during Matan Torah.

    Who got to see the front and who got to see the back? Was that also a Ness that all the Jews got to read it or did nobody see it anyhow since it was covered with smoke? Doesn't the Pasuk describe the giving over of the Luchos on the last day that Moshe Rabbeinu was up there?

    If you have something to show or somewhere to look please, by all means, post it here.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  44. Sam2
    The Even-Keeled and Erudite Shmuely Wollenberger from Las Vegas

    Logician: If I had to guess, I would think Wolf is referring to the Passuk of eating the Man for 40 years in the Midbar. Pashtus is that Passuk was written after 40 years in the Midbar, not at Har Sinai.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  45. WolfishMusings
    The Wolf

    Yes, Sam, that's *exactly* what I was trying to say. Thank you.

    Although why it's acceptable when you say it and not when I say it is puzzling to me.

    The Wolf

    Posted 2 years ago #
  46. HALEIVI asked:
    Who got to see the front and who got to see the back? Was that also a Ness that all the Jews got to read?

    I'm not sure how the luchos were situated on har Sianai, all I said was that there ARE sources that clearly say that the luchos were on Har Sianai DURING MATAN TORAH. so as far as that point goes, the pictures are right!
    As far as the question of reading goes, there is a medrash which explains the possuk "meezeh umeezeh heim kesuvim" to mean that the words of the luchos could be read from every and any angle which you looked at them, and although the writing was engraved trough and through from one side to the other, they were able to be read IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION from all sides. and Yes, this was a ness.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  47. HaLeiVi
    Plays the aeolian harp by air

    The Gemara and Rashi don't explain it that way. (I think the Zohar Hakadosh does, though.)

    I am asking you to please let us in on any of the sources or at least which Gilyon. A claim of sources is as good as a claim without sources.

    Posted 2 years ago #
  48. Logician
    Member

    Very interesting.
    Your point has further implications: it is a question in the meforshim there if 'forty years' is meant as a precise figure. If it is, it ended after Moshe's death. So we have a passuk recording events after Moshe's death, similar to the last 8 pesukim in the Torah - and there its a machlokes if Moshe wrote it at all...

    Posted 2 years ago #
  49. Ash
    Member

    Rav Saadia Gaon (cited by Rashi parshas mishpotim and Mishna Berura regarding the minhag to eat milky) says that we knew all 613 mitzvos from these "verbal" (kaviyochal) aseres hadibros given on shvuos.

    Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.