Behar - Leviticus 25:1-26:2

There is a classic commentary on the word "Behar", or "At Mt. [Sinai]", which proceeds the Biblical laws of shmitta, or "a Sabbath rest for the land".

"Were not all the commandments given at Mt. Sinai?"

And that comment has a number of implications. The first is that "Mt. Sinai" only appears in the book of Leviticus 4 times. The first time is 7:38 at the end of the chapter when it talks about the offerings to bring before Yahweh. Then this verse (25:1) which mentions Shmitta, Then as a conclusion term in chapter 26 (26:46) to encompass all the laws there. Then at the very end of the book (27:34) to encompass all the laws of the book.

So in all other places in Leviticus, when "at Sinai" was used, it was an expression to say all that came before were given there.

But not here. In this case, it precedes the rules, and it is this difference that is worth noting because there is something else that is unique about the rules associated with this use of "at Mt. Sinai". The commentary continues:

But just as shmitta, it's general rules and its specifics were stated at Sinai, so too were all [of the others], their general rules and specifics were stated at Sinai, or so it was taught in [the Midrashic collection] Torat Kohanim. Abd it appears to me that this is its explanation: since we do not find shmitta of lands which was repeated at the Plains of Moab.

What does it mean by the "Plains of Moab"?

That is the Book of Deuteronomy.

That's right, the laws in this chapter only appear here and do not appear in the recap of the laws in the Book of Deuteronomy.

Furthermore, the law of releasing one from debt every seven years does not appear in the Book of Leviticus, but only in the Book of Deuteronomy.

It is as if the authors of this collection (Leviticus) were aware of a special releasing of obligation, but only knew of it relating to the land, while the Book of Deuteronomy was also aware of a special releasing obligation every seven years, but only knew of it relating to debts.

Given that Deuteronomy is a much later text, is it possible that shmitta was no longer being practiced by the time that book was compiled, and so the authors had not need to insert it, or was the idea of releasing one from his debt a foreign idea to the authors of Leviticus, and it was something added later?

There is also this term "halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai", the law of Moses [that he received] from/at Sinai. This is also called the "Oral Law", and in the Talmud, if there is a debate, if one of the Rabbis plays the "halaca l'Moshe m'Sinai" card, he automatically wins. There is no debating that.

Now if you look at the rules of shmitta, they are pretty simple and straight-forward. However, Rabbinical Judaism has added so may layers of rules on top of those rules, it has become a monstrosity, akin to the "don't cook a kid in his mother's milk" rule.

So, to summarize:

The term "at Mt. Sinai" is used different here, in that it is not expressing a summary of rules that were given at Sinai, but are being presented as though this entire text was being dictated at Mt. Sinai.

The rules that follow were unknown to the author(s) of Deuteronomy, just as some of the rules in Deuteronomy were unknown to the author(s) of Leviticus.

The simple rule "don't plant anything, but you can live off of what has grown" has been mired in rules by the micromanaging Sages of ancient times, as well as currently.