Eve of Chag HaShavuos
1. The Gemara (in the passage concerning Matan Torah1) says: "בשני עלה משה וירד, בשלישי עלה וירד . . ברביעי עלה וירד, בחמישי בנה מזבח והקריב עליו קרבן" ("On the second [of Sivan] Moshe ascended and descended; on the third he ascended and descended . . . on the fourth he ascended and descended; on the fifth he built an altar (as it is written2, "ויבן מזבח תחת ההר" ("He built an altar beneath the mountain") — Rashi) and offered a korban upon it").
This needs to be understood: After "He built an altar, etc.," the Torah3 relates how Moshe brought the Jews into the covenant — the Jews accepted upon themselves the "ספר הברית" ("Book of the Covenant") with the declaration "נעשה ונשמע" ("We will do and we will hear"), and Moshe took of the blood (of the korbanos), "ויזרוק על העם ויאמר הנה דם הברית גו'" ("and sprinkled it on the people, and said: Behold the blood of the covenant, etc.").
This is difficult: Why do our Sages say only that "he built an altar and offered a korban upon it," and not the continuation — how Moshe brought the Jews into the covenant4?
On the contrary: When our Sages wish to express what occupied Moshe Rabbeinu5 on the fifth of Sivan, because of which Moshe Rabbeinu did not ascend the mountain (as on the preceding days), they should seemingly have mentioned first and foremost the matter of bringing the Jewish people into the covenant, since this is a most essential matter among the preparations for receiving the Torah, and one can understand how this sets aside Moshe's ascent of the mountain — in addition to the fact that it requires a great deal of time6;
whereas "he built an altar and offered a korban upon it"7 does not take a long time, and it is certainly not a novel matter connected specifically with Matan Torah — we find the building of an altar and the offering of korbanos with Adam, Noach, the Avos, etc. Why should this be so important as to set aside Moshe's ascent of the mountain?
Another difficulty: The plain wording of the Gemara, "and offered a korban upon it," implies that Moshe Rabbeinu himself offered a korban on the altar he built. But in the verse8 it says, "וישלח את נערי בני ישראל ויעלו עולות גו'" ("He sent the young men of the Children of Israel, and they offered burnt-offerings, etc."), meaning that the offering was made (not by Moshe himself — unlike the building of the altar, where the Torah says "He built an altar" — but) by "the young men of the Children of Israel"9.
This implies a (great) novelty: by "and offered a korban upon it," the Gemara10 means (not the korbanos explicitly stated in the verse, but) that Moshe himself offered a special korban (which is not stated in the verse)11.
[This is all the more understandable given that the Gemara says "korban" (singular), not "korbanos" in the plural (as in the verse: "burnt-offerings . . . peace-offerings . . . bulls").]
It follows that not only does the Gemara not bring the continuation of the account (of the fifth day) that is stated in the verse — but more than that: the Gemara introduces a new matter that is not stated in the verse!
From this itself it is implied that the accomplishment of the fifth of Sivan (in relation to the preparations for Matan Torah, and particularly Moshe's preparations) is expressed primarily in the matter of "he built an altar, etc."
2. This is also the explanation of why Moshe occupied himself personally with building the altar. For seemingly:
It is understandable that Moshe "offered a korban upon it," and did not suffice with the korbanos that "the young men of the Children of Israel" brought. For, as is known12, the thought and intent at the time of offering is an essential element in korbanos; therefore a korban that Moshe himself offered has a special importance and distinction compared with the korbanos offered by "the young men of the Children of Israel."
But the building of the altar — especially when not in the Mishkan or the Beis HaMikdash, and all the more so not as part of them — is seemingly no more than a preparation, which could have been done by others (especially by Moshe's attendants, the elders of Israel, and the like). Why did Moshe Rabbeinu need to occupy himself personally with building the altar?
According to the above, it is understood:
Since the building of this altar had a special significance in relation to Matan Torah (as will be explained below), it therefore had to be done specifically by Moshe Rabbeinu (just as all matters connected with receiving the Torah were carried out specifically by Moshe).
This is also the explanation of why the Gemara adds "and offered a korban upon it" — that Moshe Rabbeinu himself offered a korban on the altar. (In addition to the fact that an offering by Moshe has a special importance in general (as above), in our case this was also because of "he built an altar," since) the completeness of an altar is when one [OCR unclear] offers korbanos upon it
[which is the content of the concept of "קיץ המזבח" (the "kayitz" — the "dessert" — of the altar)13: that the altar is not left "idle" without korbanos, since the completeness of an altar is when one [OCR unclear] offers korbanos upon it],
and therefore, in order for "he built an altar" to be complete, it was bound up with "he (Moshe Rabbeinu himself) offered a korban upon it."
3. The above point — that the altar Moshe built had a special significance in relation to Matan Torah — is also found with regard to the korbanos that were offered on that altar:
On the verse14 "עולת תמיד העשויה בהר סיני" ("A continual burnt-offering, which was made at Mount Sinai"), the Gemara15 brings Rabbi Akiva's exposition, "קרבה ושוב לא פסקה" ("It was offered, and was never again discontinued") — that the tamid offering was already offered "at Mount Sinai," because "the burnt-offering16 that Israel offered in the wilderness (on the altar Moshe built) was a continual burnt-offering" (and from then on, "it was never again discontinued"). And as Tosafos17 brings the exposition of the Sifri18: "שנעשית בהר סיני קודם לתורה, והיינו בחמישי שבנה מזבח" ("that it was made at Mount Sinai before the Torah, that is, on the fifth, when he built an altar").
This is seemingly not understood*18: It is known19 that even the mitzvos given "לפני הדבור" ("before the Utterance")20 we fulfill (not because of the utterance and command before Matan Torah, but) "מפני שהקב"ה צוה אותנו ע"י משה רבינו" ("because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded us through Moshe Rabbeinu")19 (at Sinai21). How, then, does the Torah (and the Written Torah itself, no less) attribute the tamid offered throughout the generations to "the continual burnt-offering made at Mount Sinai" — "made at Mount Sinai before the Torah"22?
One can say, and it is logical to say, that although this was "before the Torah," nevertheless, since it was on the day of the fifth of Sivan, which is an (immediate) preparation for Matan Torah, it already had the status of (the continual burnt-offering of) after Matan Torah23 — so much so that the continual burnt-offering of all generations is said to be (the same offering) "made at Mount Sinai"24.
And this itself is the reason the Torah emphasizes "made at Mount Sinai": thereby the Torah teaches this very point, that the burnt-offering offered on the fifth of Sivan had the status of "Mount Sinai," of Matan Torah.
4. The fact that the continual burnt-offering of the fifth of Sivan had the status of "Mount Sinai" (Matan Torah) also has halachic ramifications:
Regarding "the burnt-offering that Israel offered in the wilderness," there is a dispute25 whether or not "טעונה הפשט וניתוח" ("it required flaying and cutting into pieces"), and the Gemara26 says that this depends on the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva. According to Rabbi Yishmael, who holds that "כללות נאמרו בסיני ופרטות באהל מועד" ("the general principles were stated at Sinai, and the details in the Tent of Meeting"), the laws ("details") of flaying and cutting had not yet been stated then; whereas according to Rabbi Akiva, who holds that "general principles and details were stated at Sinai," it "required flaying and cutting," since the "details" too (including the laws of flaying and cutting) had already been stated at Sinai.
This is seemingly puzzling27: According to both opinions, the burnt-offering was brought on the fifth of Sivan, before Matan Torah. What difference, then, does it make whether "the details were stated at Sinai" for the manner of offering a burnt-offering from before Matan Torah?
We must say that this is because the burnt-offering of the fifth of Sivan already had the status of "Mount Sinai" (Matan Torah)28. Therefore, according to Rabbi Akiva, who holds that "general principles and details were stated at Sinai," together with the command29 (and special directive) to bring a continual burnt-offering on the fifth of Sivan, "its details" (including the laws of flaying and cutting) were also stated30. For the commands of the fifth of Sivan, too, are included in "general principles and details were stated at Sinai."
5. If these words are correct, one can explain this, prefaced by the following:
Regarding Erev Shabbos and Erev Yom Tov (that on the day before Shabbos and Yom Tov the preparations for Shabbos and Yom Tov begin), we find that this is a matter not only from the perspective of the person —
— that in order for a person to be able to observe Shabbos and Yom Tov properly, a preparation is required on his part, that he be ready to receive the matters of Shabbos and Yom Tov, along the lines of our Sages' saying31, "מי שטרח בערב שבת יאכל בשבת, מי שלא טרח כו'" ("One who toiled on Erev Shabbos will eat on Shabbos; one who did not toil, etc.") —
but it is also a matter from the perspective of the object, from the perspective of Shabbos and Yom Tov themselves: on Erev Shabbos and Erev Yom Tov there is already a "semblance" (and consequently a status) of the holiness of Shabbos and the holiness of Yom Tov.
Within this itself (the holiness of Shabbos and Yom Tov that begins on Erev Shabbos and Yom Tov) there are several levels. For example:
In the time closest to Shabbos there is the matter of adding "מחול על הקודש" ("from the mundane onto the holy"); in the words of our Sages32, Shabbos is (like a "wolf" that) "טורף מלפניו ומלאחריו" ("seizes from before it and from after it"). As was discussed at length on another occasion33, this means that the addition to Shabbos (tosefes Shabbos) is not (only) a law concerning the person — that he must add from the mundane onto the holy (accepting upon himself the addition to Shabbos)34 — but that it comes from Shabbos and becomes an addition to Shabbos itself: Shabbos "seizes" from before it and from after it, because the holiness of Shabbos spreads into the time closest to it35.
Even earlier is the time of Erev Shabbos (and Yom Tov) after midday, when one may not say Tachanun. This is brought about (not by the person's preparation, but) because the holiness of Shabbos and Yom Tov already shines in that time in a manner that precludes the saying of Tachanun.
Similarly regarding the whole day of Erev Shabbos and Yom Tov: the fact that according to Torah it is called by the title "Erev Shabbos" is because on that day the matters of Shabbos and Yom Tov already begin36.
[In the style of the teachings of Chassidus: the "revelations" of Shabbos and Yom Tov — a "semblance" of them — already shine on Erev Shabbos and Yom Tov.]
6. From this it is also understood regarding every Yom Tov, and also as it was the first time — since every Yom Tov has its "מועד" (its appointed time in the year)37 — that the matters of the Yom Tov already began on its "Erev."
This is similar to what we find with the festival of Pesach: the time of offering the Pesach (of which it says, "ואמרתם זבח פסח הוא לה' אשר פסח גו'" ("You shall say: It is a Pesach offering to G‑d, Who passed over, etc.")38) is on the fourteenth of Nissan, even though "ופסח ה'" ("G‑d will pass over")39 took place only on the night of the fifteenth of Nissan (when the festival of Pesach begins40).
Similarly regarding Matan Torah41, on the sixth of Sivan42: already on the fifth of Sivan, Erev Matan Torah, the matters of Matan Torah began*42.
And this is the explanation of how the korbanos of the fifth of Sivan could have the status of korbanos after Matan Torah: because then the status, the revelation and the effect of Matan Torah had already begun.
According to this, it is also answered why the Gemara says "on the fifth he built an altar, etc.," and does not mention that Moshe brought the Jews into the covenant, etc.:
The actions that Moshe and the Jews performed to enter the covenant (such as saying "We will do and we will hear," the sprinkling of the blood, etc.) are only the preparation on the part of the Jews, making them fit to receive the Torah, but this is not a "part" of Matan Torah itself;
Matan Torah comes from Above, in the manner of a gift, from the side of the Giver.
Whereas in the altar that Moshe built (and the korban he offered upon it43) the (likeness of the) effect of Matan Torah itself was already seen; and therefore this is a principal novelty of the fifth of Sivan, Erev Matan Torah44.
7. But an explanation is needed: Why was the matter of Matan Torah (which was already present on Erev Matan Torah) expressed specifically in "he built an altar and offered a korban upon it," and not in some other matter?
From this it is understood that in this the essential point of Matan Torah finds expression.
The explanation is: The purpose of Matan Torah is that through it the power was given to make out of things (objects) of the world a holy object45. In the well-known phrase: to carry out the intent of creation, "לעשות לו ית' דירה בתחתונים" ("to make for Him, may He be blessed, a dwelling place in the lower realms")46 — that one refine "the physicality of the body and the world" until it can receive "the revelation of G‑d's light that will shine to Israel through the Torah"47.
[With this the Alter Rebbe explains48 the reason one does not fulfill the mitzvah of Torah study through thought alone, but there must be speech in Torah: because the purpose of the mitzvah of Torah study is to draw down the "light of G‑d" upon the body and the animal soul, and this is accomplished specifically through the movement of the lips, which counts as an action.]
And this concept (refining the physicality of the world) is openly visible in the altar and the korbanos: one takes physical stones and makes of them an altar to G‑d; and similarly with korbanos, one takes a physical animal, and through its being offered on the altar it is brought near and elevated from the mundane until it becomes openly holy49.
Therefore the revelation of Matan Torah on Erev Matan Torah was expressed in "he built an altar and offered a korban upon it."
8. With this we will also understand why "he built an altar and offered a korban upon it" is a reason why Moshe "did not ascend" (the mountain), setting aside the ascent. For seemingly:
Moshe had to build an altar ("ושתים עשרה מצבה לשנים עשר שבטי ישראל" ("and twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel")50) with all the details51 connected with bringing the Jewish people into the covenant — yet he could still have found time on that same day to ascend the mountain (at least for a short time) before this52?
[Similar to the fourth day, when Moshe (after descending the mountain) had time to a) relate to the Jews "את כל דברי ה' ואת כל המשפטים" ("all the words of G‑d and all the ordinances")53 (the mitzvos of separation and setting boundaries, and the seven Noahide laws, Shabbos, etc., which were given to them at Marah54), and b) write "from Bereishis until Matan Torah" and "the mitzvos commanded at Marah"55 — and all this56 on the same day!]
The point is this: The "Erev" (and preparation) for Matan Torah is its novelty, and it consists (not in actions of "ascending" upward to the mountain, but the opposite) specifically in the "descent" and the effect upon the object of the world, as above — in the service within the "lower realms"57: building an altar (of physical stones) and offering a physical animal on the altar
— just as the general matter of Matan Torah was in the manner that "ירד הוי' על הר סיני ונתן את התורה . . על הארץ דוקא" ("G‑d descended upon Mount Sinai and gave the Torah . . . specifically upon the earth"), even though "He could have raised Israel up above to the heavens to give them the Torah in heaven," because "the intent in the giving of the Torah is that there be the service of refinement (birurim) below"58.
9. There is a known rule59 that "(לעולם) קורין (פרשת) במדבר סיני קודם עצרת" ("(always) we read (the portion of) Bamidbar Sinai before Atzeres"). The connection of "Bamidbar" ("in the wilderness") to "Atzeres"60 is an evident one61 — as our Sages62 give (on the verse63 "וממדבר מתנה" ("and from the wilderness, a gift")) several reasons why the "gift" of the Torah is connected specifically with the "wilderness."
And in this there is a special connection of Parshas Bamidbar to Erev Shavuos (the fifth of Sivan) — and it should be noted that this year (5745) Shabbos Parshas Bamidbar falls on the fifth of Sivan:
One of the aspects of "wilderness" that brings64 the "gift" of the Torah is, in the words of our Sages65, "אם אדם משים עצמו כמדבר זה שהכל דשין בו תורה ניתנה לו במתנה" ("If a person makes himself like this wilderness, upon which all tread, the Torah is given to him as a gift")66 — bittul (self-nullification).
Where do we find this openly and emphatically at Matan Torah? In putting "we will do" before "we will hear," which shows complete bittul to the Almighty67 ("makes himself like a wilderness"68) — and the saying of "We will do and we will hear" was (as above) on the fifth of Sivan.
But according to what was explained above, that the principal novelty of the fifth of Sivan (in relation to Matan Torah) is that "he built an altar and offered a korban upon it," we must say that this matter too is connected with the "wilderness."
The explanation is as follows:
The reason the Torah was given specifically in a wilderness is, as our Sages say, [in addition to the "characteristics" of a wilderness that must be present in the person — the human being ("makes himself like this wilderness, etc.," and the like69) — also] in the object, the Torah itself: it is ownerless, open to all, like a wilderness70. And also in man's service, in the manner of the place of the wilderness:
The intent of Matan Torah is (as above) that in the Torah the power was given to make out of an object of the world a holy object — to make a dwelling place for Him, may He be blessed, in the lower realms. And "lower realms" means (as the Alter Rebbe explains71) "התחתון במדרגה שאין תחתון למטה ממנו בענין הסתר אורו ית' . . עד שהוא מלא קליפות וסטרא אחרא שהן נגד ה' ממש" ("the lowest in level, there being none lower than it in terms of the concealment of His light . . . to the point that it is full of kelipos and sitra achra, which are actually opposed to G‑d").
Therefore the Torah was given in a wilderness72, for a wilderness — "where no man (the Supernal Man) dwelt"73 — is the place of the kelipos and sitra achra74. And this is the purpose of the Torah: to transform the "wilderness" of this world into a dwelling place for Him, may He be blessed.
And this is the accomplishment of the fifth of Sivan: already on Erev Matan Torah, the work of "refining" the wilderness of this world began, by taking its stones and making of them an altar to G‑d75.76
10. And this is also the directive for each and every one:
When the day of the fifth of Sivan arrives each year — "הימים האלה נזכרים ונעשים" ("these days are remembered and enacted")77 — one must know that the preparation for Matan Torah must consist (not of an impulse to separate oneself from the world, but on the contrary) of making the physicality of the world into a dwelling place for Him, may He be blessed.
The strength for this is drawn from Moshe Rabbeinu (who built the altar and offered a korban upon it) — the aspect of Moshe Rabbeinu that is present in "כל נפש ונפש מבית ישראל" ("each and every soul of the house of Israel")78 — who grants the strength that even when one stands on the fifth of Sivan, still before Matan Torah
— at the level of Matan Torah of this year, a new giving, in the manner of "יהיו בעיניך חדשים" ("they shall be new in your eyes")79, a giving which is surely on the level of "מעלין בקודש" ("ascending in holiness") relative to last year —
there should be the "he built an altar and offered a korban upon it," through which one carries out the intent of creation: to make the world a dwelling place for Him, may He be blessed.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Bamidbar (Eve of Chag HaShavuos) 5731, and the night of the Eve of Chag HaShavuos 5743)
Notes
1) Shabbos 88a.
2) Mishpatim 24:4. — This follows the opinions that this portion was said before Matan Torah (the opinions in Chazal and the commentators [OCR unclear] are collected in Torah Shleimah there, on the verse, and in the Supplements there, §26).
3) Ibid., 6ff. (and Rashi there).
4) See also Mechilta, Yisro (19:10–11): "And what did Moshe do on the fifth? . . . He built an altar . . . he took of the blood of the burnt-offering, etc."
5) Cf. Maharsha, Chiddushei Aggados, Shabbos ibid.
6) Although one may say that since his ascents to the mountain were early in the morning (Shabbos 86a (and Rashi); Rashi, Yisro 19:3), once it was set aside (even by a brief activity), it was set aside.
7) So too in Rashbam, Mishpatim 24:1: "He built an altar and offered korbanos." See also Midrash Shocher Tov, Psalm 1: "Moshe built an altar, etc.; this one offered, etc." (although one may say that this refers to the korbanos of the days of inauguration).
8) Mishpatim ibid., 5.
9) See Rashi and others on the verse; Zevachim 115b (and Rashi and Tosafos there).
10) But in the Mechilta, Yisro ibid.: "He offered upon it a burnt-offering and peace-offerings; he took of the blood of the burnt-offering, etc., of the blood of the peace-offerings, etc." — which seemingly proves that according to the Mechilta Moshe offered the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings stated explicitly in the verse. Simply, one may say that "offered" means according to his command (or it may be explained along the lines of Rashi, s.v. Lishna Acharina — Zevachim ibid.).
11) Cf. Tosafos, s.v. Vayishlach — Kerisus 9a.
12) See Ramban, Vayikra 1:9, and elsewhere. See also Likkutei Sichos vol. 6, p. 12 (and the sources cited there), and elsewhere.
13) Shekalim 4:4 (and Bartenura and others there); Kesubos 106b, and elsewhere.
14) Pinchas 28:6.
15) Chagigah 6b. See also Sifri Zuta, Pinchas ibid.
16) The wording of the Talmud, Chagigah ibid., 6a. — This is also Rabbi Akiva's view, per the continuation of the Gemara there [and simply, what is said there (6b), "Rabbi Akiva — this too is what we said," refers to his above exposition, "it was offered and never again discontinued," which refers to the continual burnt-offering of the fifth of Sivan (as stated in Tosafos there). This requires further study in Chiddushei Rabbi Akiva Eiger (the compiled edition) there]. Cf. Ohr HaTorah, Pinchas (vol. 6), p. 1933.
17) Chagigah ibid., s.v. Rabbi Akiva (and seemingly this is also the intent at the beginning of that passage).
18) In our editions of the Sifri (Pinchas ibid.) this does not appear.
*18) Regarding what follows, see also Ohr HaTorah, Mishpatim (vol. 8), p. [OCR unclear].
19) Rambam, Commentary on the Mishnah, Chullin, end of ch. 7.
20) The wording of the Talmud, Chagigah ibid. (6a–b). In Yevamos (5b) it is also said regarding the tamid.
21) See Likkutei Sichos vol. 8, p. 49 and note 6 there (and Likkutei Sichos vol. 26, p. 116, note 27): that the Rambam's intent is to exclude also the commands given to Moshe before Matan Torah. See there. Cf. Gur Aryeh on Rashi, Shelach 15:32 (at the end).
22) Cf. what is stated (Va'eschanan 5:12; ibid., 16), "כאשר צוך" ("as He commanded you"), and Rashi (Shabbos 87b, beginning): "before Matan Torah, at Marah." However: a) there the place of the command is not stated explicitly (and according to several commentators — see Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, Rabbeinu Bechaye (see also Ramban), and others — it refers to the command of the First Commandments); b) in our case it says not only "as He commanded you," but "made at Mount Sinai," which is the same burnt-offering.
23) See Tosafos, s.v. Ha'olah — Yoma 34a: "and it was the first of all the communal offerings." Cf. what several commentators write (Turei Even, Chagigah (ibid., 6a); Mareh HaPanim on Yerushalmi, Megillah 1:1, and elsewhere; see also Ohr HaTorah, Mishpatim ibid.): that according to the Bavli there is no difficulty against the view (Zevachim 116a) that Noahides did not offer peace-offerings, from the verse "and they offered . . . peace-offerings" — for through these korbanos they entered the covenant and left the category of Noahides (unlike according to the Yerushalmi, Megillah ibid.; Bereishis Rabbah 22:5 and the sources cited there). See Torah Shleimah, Mishpatim ibid., Supplements §29.
24) It is obvious that this does not contradict the fact that the tamid was given "before the Utterance" (as above, note 20). For the distinction lies (not in its lacking the force of the "Utterance" of Matan Torah — that is not a distinction but a deficiency — but) in its existing before the rest of the mitzvos were given, even before "Anochi" (on the [OCR unclear] of Sivan).
25) Zevachim 115b. See also Chagigah ibid., 6b. See the Yerushalmi and Bereishis Rabbah ibid., and the commentators.
26) Zevachim ibid. See also Chagigah ibid.
27) The question of Rabbi Akiva Eiger, Chagigah ibid. — In the Meiri, Chagigah ibid. (6a): "The continual burnt-offering, etc. — they were commanded about it at Marah . . . general principles and details were stated in the first command, whether at Marah or at Sinai."
28) Even according to Rabbi Yishmael it is possible to say that the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings they offered then had the same status as the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings after Matan Torah ("וזבחת עליו גו'" ("You shall slaughter upon it, etc.") — Yisro 20:21 — cited in Rashi, Chagigah (end of 6a) and Zevachim (end of 115b) ibid.), only that since the "details" had not yet been stated, it did not require flaying and cutting (see the conclusion of the Gemara, Chagigah ibid., 6b: "for flaying and cutting apply only from the Tent of Meeting onward — remove Rabbi Yishmael from here").
29) See Rashi, Chagigah ibid., s.v. Ve'i Salka Daatach: "and the obligation of the generations from the mouth of the Almighty" (and see the following passage: "an olas re'iyah . . . and they established it of their own accord"). See also the Turei Even cited in the next note.
30) See Turei Even (Avnei Milu'im), Chagigah ibid. (s.v. Mi Ika, near the end). According to what is explained in the text (that "made at Mount Sinai" teaches that the tamid of the fifth of Sivan had the status of Matan Torah), what the Turei Even writes there is all the more understandable: that one cannot say regarding the offering of the tamid that it was a temporary directive. See there.
31) Avodah Zarah 3a.
32) Mechilta, Yisro 20:8. See Likkutei Sichos vol. 16 (p. 231, note *8) for several versions of the wording of the Mechilta.
33) Likkutei Sichos ibid., p. 233ff.
34) See Likkutei Sichos ibid. — two approaches within this itself.
35) See also Likkutei Sichos vol. 19, p. 58.
36) See Abudraham, Order of the Shabbos Prayers, at the beginning: "For on the eves of festivals . . . it is customary not to fall on their faces, not even at Shacharis [OCR unclear], and the reason . . . on their eves the people have already separated from work and the day has been sanctified, and they are forbidden to eulogize and to fast, etc." See there, that on the eves of Shabbos too it should have been so, only that "if we did so for Shabbosos, then for half the year we would not be supplicating." See there.
37) Cf. the maamarim beginning Tik'u 5661 and 5691 (Sefer HaMaamarim Kuntreisim vol. 1, 122a–b).
38) Bo 12:27.
39) Ibid., 23.
40) As it is called in the language of the Sages (and also in the language of the Torah — see Tisa 34:25; see also the Haggadah with Likkutei Taamim, Minhagim U'Biurim (Kehos, 5746–5747), p. 668, in the note).
41) On the contrary: regarding Matan Torah this applies even more than to other festivals, for Matan Torah is connected with the fiftieth day of the Omer, the drawing down of the Fiftieth Gate (Likkutei Torah, our parsha, 10d; Shir HaShirim 35c; see Likkutei Sichos vol. 3, p. 996ff.) — which was on the fifth of Sivan (for Matan Torah was on the fifty-first day of the Omer — the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 494, end of par. 1).
42) Even according to Rabbi Yosi, that it was on the [OCR unclear] of Sivan (Shabbos 86b), this is because Moshe added one day on his own (ibid., 87a); but from the perspective of the Holy One, blessed be He, "it was fit to be given on the sixth" (Tosafos, s.v. Yom HaShishi — Avodah Zarah 3a). See Likkutei Sichos vol. 4, p. 1029, note 24: one can say that even according to Rabbi Yosi, from the perspective of the drawing down from Above, the Torah was fit to be given on the fiftieth day of the Omer (the sixth of Sivan), since that is when the Fiftieth Gate is drawn down (as in the previous note).
*42) In Ohr HaTorah, Mishpatim (cited in note *18), this is connected with the putting of "we will do" before "we will hear" on the fifth of Sivan. See also Tzelach, Pesachim 68b.
*) See Ohr HaTorah (cited in note *18): "close to Matan Torah, two days."
43) One can say that Moshe's korban, according to all opinions, had the significance of Matan Torah (unlike that of the young men of the Children of Israel, which depends on the opinions (Chagigah ibid., 6a–b) whether it was an olas re'iyah or an olas tamid, and other points. This is not the place to elaborate).
44) Cf. the order of matters in the Mechilta (cited in note 4): "This is the sixth day, on which the Torah was given. And what did Moshe do on the fifth? He rose early in the morning and built an altar, etc."
45) See at length Likkutei Sichos vol. 16, p. 212ff.
46) Tanchuma, Naso 16, and elsewhere; Tanya, beginning of ch. 36.
47) The wording of Tanya, ibid., at the end of the chapter.
48) Ibid., beginning of ch. 36 (47a). See also ibid., end of ch. 49.
49) See also Likkutei Sichos vol. 16, p. 479ff., and elsewhere.
50) Mishpatim 24:4 — especially according to the view of the Sages (Mechilta, Yisro, cited in note 4): "twelve pillars for each and every tribe, etc."
51) Especially since in the Gemara there only "he built an altar and offered, etc." is mentioned, and nothing more.
52) See above, note 6.
53) Mishpatim ibid., 3.
54) Rashi there.
55) Rashi ibid., 4.
56) According to the Mechilta, Yisro ibid., after building the altar and offering the burnt-offering, etc., he read (on that same day) "from Bereishis, etc." See there.
57) See also Likkutei Sichos vol. 4, p. 1026ff.
58) Sefer HaMaamarim 5710, §224, and in many other places.
59) Rambam, Laws of Prayer, ch. [OCR unclear], halachah 2 ("the widespread custom"); Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman [OCR unclear], par. 4.
60) See Likkutei Sichos vol. 8, p. 1, note 1, and elsewhere.
61) See also Likkutei Sichos ibid., end of p. 236ff.
62) Eruvin 54a; Bamidbar Rabbah 19:26; Tanchuma, Chukas 21.
63) Chukas 21:18.
64) This does not mean that it draws down Matan Torah — for a "gift" comes from the side of the Giver (as above, section 6; see also Likkutei Torah, our parsha, end of 5a, and elsewhere) — but that after the preceding bittul, "it comes of its own accord, as a gift" (Likkutei Torah ibid., and elsewhere).
65) Eruvin ibid.
66) In the Tanchuma there the wording is "מפנה עצמו מן הכל" ("clears himself of everything") (and similarly in Bamidbar Rabbah there).
67) Especially according to what is explained in Chassidus (Likkutei Torah, our parsha, 17a; Shir HaShirim 22a (see also Likkutei Torah, Berachah 99c), and elsewhere) that this is bittul to the Master of the Will.
68) See also Likkutei Sichos ibid., p. 237ff.
69) See Bamidbar Rabbah, our parsha, 1:7.
70) See Bamidbar Rabbah and Tanchuma cited in note 62; Bamidbar Rabbah, our parsha, ibid.
71) Tanya, ch. 36.
72) See similarly Likkutei Sichos vol. 21 (p. 154ff.) on the advantage of the Mishkan over the Beis HaMikdash in Jerusalem — because it was specifically in the wilderness.
73) Yirmeyahu 2:6. Likkutei Torah, our parsha, 4c (see also ibid., end of 2b); Naso 20c; Re'eh 32b, and elsewhere.
74) Likkutei Torah ibid.
75) Cf. the discussion concerning lishmah (for its own sake) in building an altar (see Mechilta, Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, and Rashi, Yisro 20:21; Tzafnas Pa'neach on the Torah there (and the sources cited there); Likkutei Sichos vol. 21, p. 255, note 38).
76) It should be noted that in those days Moshe did not turn to his own affairs (Mechilta and Rashi, Yisro 19:14) — not even to the affairs of Moshe — but was the intermediary that connects "between G‑d and you" (Va'eschanan 5:5; see the maamar beginning Panim BePanim 5659, and elsewhere), "from the mountain (G‑d) to the people" (Yisro ibid.).
77) Esther 9:28, according to the interpretation of the Arizal — see Rabbi Moshe Zacuto in Tikkun Shovavim, cited and explained in Lev David (by the Chida), ch. 29.
78) Tanya, beginning of ch. 42.
79) All the more so, since every day they should be new.
Key Lesson
The preparation for receiving the Torah is not withdrawal from the world but making its physicality holy, as Moshe did on the fifth of Sivan by building an altar from physical stones and offering a korban upon it. Each year on Erev Shavuos, drawing on the aspect of Moshe within every soul, one can begin transforming the "wilderness" of this world into a dwelling place for G‑d.