then ‘He called unto Moses on the seventh day’. Moses and all Israel were standing there, but the purpose of Scripture was to honour Moses. R. Nathan says: The purpose of Scripture was that he [Moses] might be purged of all food and drink in his bowels so as to make him equal to the ministering angels. R. Mattiah b. Heresh says, The purpose of Scripture here was to inspire him with awe, so that the Torah be given with awe, with dread, with trembling, as it is said: Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. What is the meaning of ‘And rejoice with trembling’? — R. Adda b. Mattena says in the name of Rab: Where there will be joy, there shall be trembling. In what do R. Jose the Galilean and R. Akiba differ? — In the controversy of these Tannaim. For we have been taught: On the sixth day of the month was the Torah given to Israel. R. Jose says on the seventh. He who says that the Torah was given on the sixth day holds that on the sixth it was given and on the seventh Moses ascended the mountain; he who holds that the Torah was given on the seventh assumes that on the seventh both the Torah was given and Moses ascended, as it is written, And He called unto Moses on the seventh day. Now R. Jose the Galilean is of the same opinion as the first Tanna, who held that the Torah was given on the sixth of the month, therefore this happened after the giving of the Ten Commandments: ‘The glory of the Lord abode on mount Sinai and the cloud covered him six days’ ‘him’ meaning Moses- ‘And He called unto Moses on the seventh day’ to receive the remainder of the Torah. For if the thought should come to you that ‘And the glory of the Lord abode’ from the New Moon [of Sivan], so that ‘And the cloud covered him’ referred to the mountain, and ‘The Lord called unto Moses on the seventh day’ to receive the Ten Commandments, surely they had received the Torah on the sixth day already and also the cloud had departed on the sixth day! — R. Akiba, however, held with R. Jose that the Torah was given to Israel on the seventh. Quite in accord with R. Akiba's teaching is the statement that the Tablets were broken on the seventeenth of Tammuz, for the twenty-four days of Sivan and the sixteen of Tammuz make up the forty days he was on the mountain, and on the seventeenth of Tammuz he went down and came to break the Tablets. But according to R. Jose the Galilean who holds that there were six days of the separation in addition to forty days [spent] on the mountain, the Tablets could not have been broken before the twenty-third of Tammuz? — R. Jose the Galilean will answer you: The six days of the separation are included in the forty days on the mountain. The Master said: ‘"And He called Moses", whilst Moses and all Israel were standing’ there’. This interpretation supports the view of R. Eleazar, for R. Eleazar said: ‘And He called unto Moses’ whilst Moses and all Israel were standing there; the only purpose of Scripture is to do honour to Moses. They raised the following objection: [He heard the voice speaking] elaw [unto him] not lo [to him]; hence we know that Moses heard, but all Israel did not hear? - This is no difficulty. The one passage speaks of Sinai, the other of the tent of meeting. Or, you might say, the one statement refers to the call, the other to the speech. R. Zerika asked a question concerning the contradiction of scriptural passages in the presence of R. Eleazar, or, according to another version, he asked the question in the name of R. Eleazar. One passage reads: And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of meeting because the cloud abode thereon, whereas another verse says: And Moses entered into the midst of the cloud? It teaches us that the Holy One, blessed be He, took hold of Moses and brought him into the cloud. The school of R. Ishmael taught: Here the word be-thok [in the midst] appears and it also appears elsewhere: And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea, just as there [the word be-thok] implies a path, as it is written: And the waters were a wall unto them, so here too there was a path, [for Moses through the cloud]. And the Lord called unto Moses, and spoke unto him; why does Scripture mention the call before the speech? — The Torah teaches us good manners: a man should not address his neighbour without having first called him. This supports the view of R. Hanina, for R. Hanina said: No man shall speak to his neighbour unless he calls him first to speak to him. Rabbah said: Whence do we know that if a man had said something to his neighbour the latter must not spread the news without the informant's telling him ‘Go and say it’? From the scriptural text: The Lord spoke to him out of the tent of meeting, lemor [saying] . At any rate it is to be inferred that both hold that the omission of any detail mentioned in connection with the priest's Consecration renders the ceremony invalid, for it was said: With regard to the ceremony of Consecration R. Johanan and R. Hanina are disputing; one says: The omission of any form prescribed in connection with the ceremony renders it invalid, whilst the other holds only such matter as is indispensable on any future occasion is indispensable now, whereas such detail as is dispensable in future generations, is dispensable even the first time. One may conclude that it is R. Johanan who holds that the omission of any detail whatsoever that is mentioned in connection with the Consecration ceremony renders such ceremony invalid, because R. Simeon b. Lakish said to R. Johanan [in the course of the argument]: ‘And just as with the ceremony of Consecration the omission of any prescribed detail renders the ceremony invalid. And R. Johanan did not retort at all’. That proof is conclusive. What is the [practical] difference between the opinions?ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱ