Fundamental Issues in the Study of Tanakh

Fundamental Issues in the Study of TanakhBy Rav Amnon Bazak ********************************************************* This week’s shiurim are dedicated by Joseph and Phyllis Eisenman in honor of Judah L. Eisenman ********************************************************* Shiur #01: Introduction Over the last few generations we have witnessed a heartening phenomenon: a renaissance of Tanakh(Bible) study amongst Jewry in general, and in the batteimidrash of the Religious-Zionist public in particular. After hundreds of years during which Tanakh study occupied no place of any significance in the curricula of yeshivotand other educational institutions, it has now become an integral component of every stream within the Israeli educational system. The return to Tanakh study has also included a return to engagement with the "peshat" – the plain or literal meaning of the text – and has led to the exploration of profound and fascinating new layers of the text. This process is, of course, related to the process of the return of the Jewish people to its land, which has led to a broadening of the interest in the concrete and material aspects of the Bible, with hikes through different parts of the country and familiarity with the archaeological remains of the past. However, the return to in-depth study of the plain text has also brought in its wake new challenges: the response to complex questions raised by Tanakh study – both in its own right, and in relation to various discoveries that have been made in the last few centuries. For the past approximately two hundred years, academic Bible scholarship has proposed views that are inconsistent with traditional Jewish belief. Biblical scholars, who were not committed to any religious world-view, concluded that the Tanakh is a human document with no Divine or prophetic source. This perception was grounded in several different areas, including literary analysis of the text, archaeological discoveries, and the growing body of knowledge on the Ancient Near East. Although these academic views have been closely bound up with the secular – at some stages, even anti- Semitic – beliefs of the scholars themselves, the questions and problems that served as their raw materials nevertheless demand renewed attention. In the past, such questions did not occupy most of the religious world, whether because religious circles were not exposed to them or because they did not regard them with any seriousness. However, in the last generation significant changes have taken place. The indepth study of the plain text brought these questions to the fore and demanded answers that were more deeply thought-out than those which might have sufficed in the past. The academic scene has changed as well, with many scholars in Israel and around the world addressing biblical literature in a serious and professional manner, more concerned with scholarship and objectivity than with personal agendas. There has also been increased exposure to the world of biblical research – both in professional terms, within various academic frameworks, and through the communications revolution which has made a tremendous volume of knowledge, in every relevant field, instantly accessible. This exposure demands a more in-depth examination of the basic assumptions of the academic world, and rabbis and Jewish philosophers have taken up this challenge. The pioneers who first addressed biblical criticism in nineteenth century Germany, such as Rabbi David Tzvi Hoffmann and Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, had their work continued in the early twentieth century by scholars such as Prof. Umberto Cassuto, and in the last generation in Israel by renowned scholars such as Rabbi Mordekhai Breuer and Rabbi Yoel bin Nun. As part of this process it became clear that the worlds of academia and of the yeshiva are not necessarily doomed to a headon collision of unbridgeable contradictions and intractable hostility. Many of the fundamental differences between the two worlds arise not from the definition of the data and the analysis of objective facts, but rather from their interpretation. Likewise, it became clear that some of the fundamental questions at the center of biblical study had been addressed already by medieval rabbinic scholars, who had on many occasions provided surprising answers which frequently have not received the exposure that they deserve. My aim in this series is to summarize the approach that has been consolidated over the past generation among serious Orthodox Tanakh scholars who are also well-versed in the realm of academic biblical scholarship. This approach has developed primarily at Yeshivat Har Etzion and the adjacentYaacov Herzog Teachers' College, and these institutions have become a world center for Tanakhstudy. The essence of this approach is faith in the sanctity of the Books of Tanakh and their Divine origin, and the belief that with this faith we are able to examine the questions raised by biblical criticism; to determine which of its claims necessitate fresh insights in Torah, and to distinguish them from those which stem from a worldview alien to traditional belief and whose conclusions are not necessitated by the evidence. Academic study of the Bible has therefore also led to some positive phenomena; it has been the vehicle for new insights and developments in the study of Torah. This approach has its foundation in the well-known teaching of Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak ha-Kohen Kook: In general, this is a great principle in the battle of ideas – that for every view that appears to contradict some matter in the Torah, we must first not necessarily deny it, but rather build the palace of Torah over it. We are thereby elevated by it, and it is for the sake of this elevation that these views are revealed. Afterwards, when we are not troubled by anything, we are equipped, with full confidence, to confront that, too.[1] It is important to emphasize that my intention is not for this series to serve as a tool in a struggle against the world of academic scholarship, in the sense of “Know what to answer a heretic” (Avot 2:14). The questions which have been intensified by biblical criticism deserve to be answered – for the sake of attaining a better understanding of God's word as revealed in Tanakh. A religious person is obligated, first and foremost, to establish his faith upon the foundations of his own inner truth, and if certain issues challenge his belief, he must seek ways to integrate them with his world of faith. At the same time, there is also public and educational importance to dealing with these issues. In recent years I have witnessed increasing distress on the part of graduates of the religious educational system – especially those who have gone on to study at institutions of higher education, and at some stage have been exposed to the world of academic Bible study. This exposure sometimes presents them with questions to which they feel they have no answers; at other times they are astounded and shocked by the dismissal of the entire way of thought that they were brought up with. In some instances they are even angry at the religious educational system for failing to prepare them for this challenge. This reality is problematic in several respects, and it is of great importance that at some stage students are exposed to the fundamental questions and problems, and the various solutions that religiously-committed scholars have proposed. As stated, I believe that these questions lead to a deeper and more genuine understanding of the Torah in and of itself. I am also aware that confronting these questions will allow one to consolidate a broad and firm religious outlook that is aware of the general picture and charts its own path within it. The first section in the series will examine the question of the authorship of the Torah: first I present the relatively limited references to this question withinTanakh itself, and thereafter the various approaches proposed by Chazal (the talmudic sages) for understanding the ways in which the Torah was consolidated and edited. The second section will address one of the first questions raised by the early biblical critics: the existence of verses in the Torah that appear to be written at a later date than that ascribed to them by Jewish tradition. I shall address the approaches to this question among medieval Jewish scholars, and discuss the ramifications of the phenomenon – if indeed it exists – with regard to when the Torah in general was written. The third section addresses the phenomenon of contradictions and repetitions in biblical verses, and reviews the "documentary hypothesis" (Wellhausen hypothesis) with its underlying assumptions, its literary and historical aspects, and the problems and alternatives associated with it. As a contrast to the "documentary hypothesis" I present an extensive review of the "aspects theory" (shitat ha-bechinot) developed by Rabbi Mordekhai Breuer, from the perspective of its later developments. The fourth section deals with the composition of the Books of the Prophets and Writings (Neviim and Ketuvim), based on the Midrash and various opinions among the medieval commentators. I also examine the possibility of implementing the "aspects theory" regarding these Books too, and conclude with a detailed discussion of the composition of Sefer Yishayahu. The next two sections discuss topics related to archaeological discoveries of recent generations. Section 5 addresses the wellknown dispute between different groups of archaeologists (maximalists and minimalists), with a presentation of the fundamental Section 9 discusses the relationship between the straightforward reading of the text and midrash Halakha. Obviously. We will look at the accuracy of the Masoretic text. the conquest and settlement of the land. the Egyptian servitude. Section 7 addresses the precise wording of the biblical text itself (nusach). and discusses the general relationship between Tanakh and archaeology. both in prose and in legal units. present other manuscript versions of the Biblical text. over the course of its development. or literal. with an examination of the fundamental questions pertaining to Halakha and the ways in which its rulings are determined. who noted the importance of drawing a distinction between the various levels on which verses can be understood. I aim to cover only the central points. It must also be noted that the vast majority of the discussion here. and examine the significance of the variations in nusach for various exegetical possibilities. and the period of the monarchy of David and Shlomo. Section 8 addresses the relationship between the straightforward interpretation of the text and midrashei aggada. I discuss here the significance of these discoveries. level (peshat).[3] and presents different models for explaining the discrepancy that sometimes exists between these two realms.[2] and presents the approach of the medieval commentators. The next two sections deal with the fundamental question of the study of Tanakh on the plain. The final section concerns a question that has generated much public discussion in recent years: the proper attitude towards the complex description of central characters in Tanakh and the descriptions of their misdeeds that arise from the plain reading of the text.questions regarding a number of periods: the period of the forefathers. and within the limited scope of this series I shall not be able to address every detail and every aspect of every topic. and the fundamental approaches and positions set forth. This section reviews the questions arising from the existence or absence of various findings. were stated long ago by the classical Jewish thinkers and . We will look at the position of Chazal and the medieval commentators on this subject. the material related to these questions is endless. and also discuss the theoretical and educational questions arising from these positions. Section 6 focuses on the Ancient Near East. which produced several texts – dated before the revelation of the Tanakh – featuring elements that parallel sections in the Torah. [3] Chazal’s interpretations of the legal sections of Tanakh. 2 [Jerusalem 5745]. rather than hiding from. with the main character talking about what happens to him and about his prophecies. which are written in the first person. 164. 1 (Jerusalem 5722). and those composed by an author whose identity is not explicitly stated. Translated by Kaeren Fish [1] Iggerot ha-Re’aya. Rav Kook writes in a similar manner elsewhere. This group includes. vol. letter 134. with the aim of presenting a summary of the relevant problems and the various ways of dealing with them. vol.sages. one that is more illuminating and life-giving than the simple understanding that was illuminated prior to the revelation of that outburst" (Orot ha-Kodesh. challenges to our faith. letter 255.   ********************************************************* This week’s shiurim are dedicated by Leonard Balanson in memory of Rose Balanson z”l ********************************************************* Shiur #02a: Composition of the Torah according to Tanakh and Jewish Tradition Part 1 A. to a greater depth of faith. among others. For example: "All the words and paths that lead to the ways of heresy themselves lead. some of the Later Prophets. and it is specifically in that that God is to be praised and the banner of the believer's faith is raised" (Iggerot ha-Re'aya. among others. 20). p. 2 [Jerusalem 5724]. The first category includes. and the responsibility for what I have written here rests with me alone. without disclosing his identity. If there is anything new in my presentation. At the same time I wish to emphasize that different people address every subject in different ways. What is "Torah"? In general. in accordance with the approach described above that values engaging with. p. The second category includes the books that describe events from the perspective of an anonymous narrator. fundamentally. [2] Chazal’s interpretations of the narrative sections of Tanakh. vol. "We cannot deny that there are many good things even in books that are deficient in many places… and truth is more beloved than all else. 547). it consists of the gathering of these various topics into a single collection. if we seek out their source. the books comprising the Tanakh may be divided into two categories: those composed by an author whose identity is known to us. p. too. the Five . is clearly extensive. . however. on the one hand. on a specific subject. We see this in verses such as the following: "This is the law (torah) of the burnt offering.” appears many times in Tanakh. and is defiled. we will undertake a (largely technical) examination of what the word “Torah” means in the Bible. and of the consecration offering. [2] II. statutes and judgments. is a law. and its meaning throughout this Sefer. The word "Torah" actually has multiple meanings in Tanakh. but on the other is more closely defined and limited than the way in which we use the term today. the word "Torah" refers to a text which. “Torah” in Sefer Devarim By contrast to the preceding examples. but in most cases the plain meaning of the text is not referring to the Five Books of the Torah. It appears for the first time in Shemot (12:49). and of the guilt offering. “Torah” in Chumash The term "Torah.Books of the Torah. as well as in Vayikra andBamidbar. and only in some instances does the word refer to a written text. the word “Torah” is a synonym for commandments. nor does it describe the way in which they were written and conveyed to the Jewish people. the Tanakh itself does not deal directly with the question of who wrote the Five Books of the Torah. and of the sin offering. which are written from an external perspective rather than in the first person. in Sefer Devarim. We shall explore these issues in two weeks by reviewing the relevant verses in Tanakh and the various approaches among Chazal and the medieval commentators concerning the creation of the Torah and its transmission to the Jewish nation." (Bamidbar 5:29)[1] In other instances. Surprising as it may sound. or collection of laws. This week and next.” and even "Sefer Torah. of the meal offering. and of the sacrifice of the peace offering. and for the patch…" (Vayikra 14:54) "This is the law (torah) of jealousies: when a wife strays from her husband." (Vayikra 7:37) "This is the law (torah) for every tzara’at. I. " (Devarim 4:44-45) The plain meaning of the text here suggests that the "Torah" means the things Moshe was going to say from this point onwards. is one continuous. uninterrupted monologue containing an extensive list ofmitzvot. the same "Torah" that was just concluded. Towards the end of Sefer Devarim we are told explicitly: ." (ibid. 27:3) On the plain level of the text. this command. but from the verse itself it is difficult to define what the term actually includes.. occupying chapters 5-26.[3] At the end of the "speech of the mitzvot. would seem to refer to the writing of the "speech of themitzvot" – i. any mention that the "Torah" was also committed to writing in a book. These are the testimonies and the statutes and the judgments which Moshe spoke to the Children of Israel when they came out of Egypt. concerning the king: "And it shall be. This book is mentioned for the first time in a very specific context.” Moshe commands the Children of Israel to set up great stones after passing over the Jordan: "And you shall inscribe upon them all the words of this Torah. too. from that which is before the Levite priests. 17:18) The conventional explanation of the term "mishneh torah" is a copy of the Torah (see Targum Onkelos and others).” This speech.e.A review of the appearances of the word shows that the corpus referred to as "Torah" is. in a book. in fact. that he shall write for himself a copy of this Torah (mishneh hatorah ha-zot). which is conventionally known as "the speech of the mitzvot. Moshe's main speech in Sefer Devarim. for the first time. At the beginning of this speech we read.[4] It is only in Sefer Devarim that we find." (ibid. when he sits upon the throne of his kingdom. "This is the Torah which Moshe placed before the Children of Israel. 31:9) What is included in this "Torah"? Rashi and Ramban explain that it refers to the Five Books of the Torah.” and not to the entire Five Books. First."And Moshe wrote this Torah. at the time of the Shemittayear. and the . As stated. rather. some major sections from Sefer Devarim are read.” Moreover. and this is also stated explicitly at the beginning of Sifri Devarim (piska 1).' 'When you finish tithing. and he gave it to the kohanim. It seems reasonable to suggest therefore. the Mishna tells us that the "Torah" that is read at thehak'hel ceremony includes only the main parts of Sefer Devarim: "And he reads from the beginning of 'These are the things' (Devarim 1:1) up to 'Shema. but rather only the central portions of Sefer Devarim. the plain meaning of the text would seem to suggest that this verse – along with all those that follow – are not part of "this Torah. the word "Torah" refers specifically to the "speech of themitzvot. in which we are told. "Moshe commanded them.' and'Shema' and 'Ve-haya im shamo'a' (the second section of Shema). The conclusion to be drawn here is that the book which the Torah records Moshe as having written did not include all Five Books. 10-11) Chazal (Sota 7:8) agree that the command to read "this Torah" does not refer to all Five Books of the Torah. saying: At the end of every seven years." (ibid. in their hearing. the sons of Levi. 'You shall surely tithe." (ibid. III. we have already noted that in the previous units. However. as we shall see below. that if the words "this Torah" in verse 11 do not refer to the Five Books of the Torah. but rather just to parts of Sefer Devarim. then the same words in verse 9 should refer to the same text. on the festival of Sukkot… you shall read this Torah before all of Israel. The Content of the “Torah” in Sefer Devarim Let us try to define more precisely what is included in the Book of the Torah whose writing by Moshe is described in Sefer Devarim. as does Abravanel in his commentary on this verse.' and the unit on the king. two verses later we find the command concerning the "hak'hel" ceremony. this raises some difficulties. Second. we find chapter 27. in chapter 28.” at the end of chapter 26. aside from the covenant which He had forged with them at Chorev." (ibid. which. in its concluding verse. concerning Yehoshua we read: "And thereafter he read all the words of the Torah – the blessing and the curse. Moshe warns whoever worships idolatry: "God will set him aside for evil. this assertion is based on explicit references in the text. according to all the curses of the covenant that are written in this Book of the Torah. is defined as a "covenant": "These are the words of the covenant which God commanded Moshe to forge with the Children of Israel in the land of Moav. too. the unit on the blessings and the curses.blessings and curses." (Yehoshua8:34)[6] Hence.” and this also squares with the plain meaning of the text." (Sota 7:8) Chazal maintain that the reading also included Moshe's first speech (Devarim 1-4). the blessings and curses were also included in the Book of the Torah.”[5] Chazal also maintained that the "Book of the Torah" included the unit of the blessings and the curses." (28:69) A few verses seem to indicate that the blessings and curses. were written along with the "speech of the mitzvot" in the "Book of the Torah. until the end of that entire unit. according to all that is written in the Book of the Torah. too. out of all the tribes of Israel. 29:20) Similarly. After the end of the "speech of the mitzvot. which includes the commands to build an altar on Mount Eval and to write the words of the Torah upon the stones. is included in the Book of the Torah that was written by Moshe. since the first speech serves as a preface to the main speech – the "speech of the mitzvot. we find. as part of the "Torah. as described in Yehoshua (8:30-31): . as part of the covenant that entails the observance of the "Torah" which appears in the "speech of the mitzvot. It would seem that this chapter.” In between the end of the "speech of the mitzvot" and chapter 28 with its blessings and curses.” Inter alia. Yehoshua: This Book of the Torah shall not depart…'" (Bereishit Rabba 6:9. an altar of stones over which no iron has been lifted. IV. as Moshe. when you have passed over the Jordan. concerning the construction of the altar on Mount Eval. as it is written in the Book of the Torah of Moshe – an altar of whole stones over which no iron had been lifted. He said to him. pp.” the midrash comments: "Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai said: The Book of themishneh torah[7] was a banner for Yehoshua. Aside from the verse we have already examined. on Mount Eval… and you shall build there an altar to the Lord your God."Then Yehoshua built an altar to the Lord God of Israel. on Mount Eval. be of good courage. had commanded the Children of Israel. the servant of God.[8] the expression "Book of the Torah" – at least in Sefer Yehoshua – indeed refers to Sefer Devarim. Yehoshua. When the Holy One. "This Book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth. The Book of the Torah in Tanakh It is interesting to note that with regard to the famous command in Yehoshua (1:8)." In light of this we may conclude that the Book which Moshe wrote included at least chapters 5-28 of Sefer Devarim. . 'Be strong. TheodorAlbeck edition. and you shall meditate over it day and night." This verse represents an almost verbatim repetition ofDevarim 27:45: "And it shall be. and perhaps also chapters 1-4. rather than the whole of Chumash. 49-50) According to Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai. the expression "the Torah of Moshe" also appears elsewhere in Tanakh. in Sefer Yehoshua. blessed be He. He found him sitting with the Book ofmishneh torah in his hand. you shall set up these stones which I command you this day. appeared to him. Concerning King Amatzia. and we may therefore assume that it refers to the same "Book" that we have discussed above." (Devarim24:17) In Sefer Daniel (9:11). each shall be put to death for his own sin. King Yoash]. the quote is an almost verbatim repetition of Moshe's words in his "speech of the mitzvot": "Fathers shall not be put to death for children. whereby God commanded. In Sefer Melakhim we read of the discovery of a Book of the Torah in the days of Yoshiyahu: "And Chilkiyahu. and as we have seen in the example from Sefer Yehoshua. it refers to various statutes or laws.[9] In some cases. as suggested in the commentary attributed to Rashi[10] on Divrei Hayamim (II Divrei Ha-yamim34:14).” the reference being to the unit on the blessings and the curses. the Kohen Gadol. in the other instances too it is verses fromSefer Devarim that are concerned. nor shall children be put to death for fathers. we find mention of "the curse and the oath which is written in the Torah of Moshe. too. (To be continued) . too. saying: Fathers shall not be put to death for children. according to that which is written in the Book of the Torah of Moshe. rather. it seems most likely that reference is to Sefer Devarim. nor shall children be put to death for fathers. said to Shafan. Throughout much of Chumash. the text tells us: "But he did not put to death the children of the murderers [of his father.In most instances it is meant as a general expression for observance of the commandments. the plain reading of the text appears to refer to large portions of Sefer Devarim written by Moshe. and at various points throughout Tanakh.[11] In this shiur. we have seen therefore that the word “Torah” has multiple meanings." (II Melakhim 22:8) Here. whereas in Sefer Devarim. the reference is to a specific subject. as noted above. each shall be put to death for his own sin. the scribe: I have found a Book of the Torah in the house of God." (IIMelakhim 14:6) Here. to include only those texts pertaining to the other nations. "Ha-Torah ha-Ketuva al ha-Avanim be-Har Eval. From the limiting language of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai's view – "they only wrote…" – it can be deduced that he disagrees not only with the idea that the Torah was written in seventy languages. "And this is well said. in his commentary Mishneh Kesef. in the days of Yehoshua: "And he wrote there upon the stones the repetition (or copy) of the Torah of Moshe.). 29-42."[12] This approach is based on the verse describing the fulfillment of the command. which he wrote in the presence of the Children of Israel" (Yehoshua 8:32). we conclude that it was also written in seventy languages.) For extensive discussion of the entire subject. to write "all the words of this Torah" upon stones. and since the verse also adds "very clearly" (ba'er hetev. that the inscription includes only a list of the commandments in brief. The Mekhilta also cites a third opinion. the Mekhilta Devarim also cites the view of R.. He seems to posit this in order to explain how it would have been possible. in the name of Rav Sa'adia Gaon. Mechkerei Yehuda ve-Shomron 2. on the other hand. such as the unit." Ralbag. The commentators raise other possibilities. The Mishna in Sota (7:1) states that the entire Torah was written on them – i. takes the view that the text inscribed on the stones is just the unit of the blessings and curses. pp.Translated by Kaeren Fish Appendix: What Was Written on the Stones Moshe Commanded the Nation to Set Up When Entering the Land? There are many opinions among Chazal and the commentators as to what was written on the stones. this idea had been raised by Rabbi Yosef ibn Kaspi. which sits better with the plain meaning of the text: "They only wrote the repetition (or copy – mishneh) of the Torah by Moshe. which limits the inscription on the stones even further. for it is not possible that they could have written the entire Torah upon them. [rather.] only that which was needed as a matter of routine. see M. in a natural manner. Ehrlich and Y. 5753. (See also his rejection of the possibility that it was only the Ten Commandments that were written.e. "When you besiege a city for a long time. Radak comments. Kedumim-Ariel. in his commentary on Yehoshua ad loc. Eshel (eds. to wage war against it" (Devarim 20:19). but also with the assertion that the Torah was written in its entirety. Bar Ilan.H." in Z. the entire Five Books. Ibn Ezra writes. . Shimon ben Yochai. he maintains that only Sefer Devarim was written on the stones. 27:8). However.. in that with regard to the writing of the Torah upon the stones. see the appendix to this shiur. I raise the possibility that the "Book of the Torah" did indeed include the opening chapters. as part of the discussion of the writing of Sefer Devarim. 26). [7] I. Moshe wrote it. according to Ibn Ezra. and elsewhere. Sefer Devarim. the commentary that appears as “Rashi” onDivrei Ha-yamim was not written by him. The conclusion to be drawn from this brief historical review is summed up nicely in the concluding chapter of the speech: "And now. referring to different teachings. the commentators note that the reference cannot be to such a written corpus. to bring upon it all the curses that are written in this Book" (ibid. rather. it is possible to go on to teach Bnei Yisrael the statutes and the judgments. too. once we examine the verse it seems clear that it cannot be referring to the Five Books of the Torah. and I shall give you the tablets of stone. [6] There are additional verses which mention the blessings and curses as being included in the Book of the Torah: "Also every sickness. [10] As is well known.. for "God did not write the Torah.e." In light of this. Moshe reviews the failures of the first generation. "These are the statutes and the judgments and the laws (torot) which the Lord made between Him and the Children of Israel at Mount Sinai. by the hand of Moshe" (Devarim 26:46). In chapter 1. and also that it refers to a written corpus. We might also cite the verse. [for you] to teach them" (Shemot 24:12). However. For extensive discussion of this commentary." [4] Regarding what was written on the stones." [8] Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai is consistent with his own view. see A. "'And this is the Torah' – that which he is going to set forth after this unit.[1] There is one verse in these books that seems to be an exception: "God said to Moshe: Come up to Me. . 29:19). which did not enter the land because they rebelled against God. the word "Torah" here refers to the first and fifth of the Ten Commandments. Ramban and others) conclude that the word "katavti" (I have written) refers only to the two tablets. discussed in the appendix to this shiur. nor to any other written corpus. as we deduce from another verse that speaks of what was given at Mount Sinai: "And I shall speak to you all of the commandment (mitzva) and the statutes and the judgments which you shall teach them" (Devarim 5:27). to the mountain. Once this conclusion has been established. Here it seems that the word "Torah" refers to something broader than a specific collection of laws. at God's word" (Ibn Ezra). just as the word "mitzva" refers to various commandments. [11] I shall address the matter at length in the third section. which was written in Germany in th the 12 century. Weisel. [5] The main purpose of Moshe's first speech is to arrive at the conclusion that one must obey God and fulfill His commandments. hearken to the statutes and the judgments which I teach you to perform in order that you may live and come in and possess the land which the Lord God of your forefathers gives you" (4:1). Rashbam. until you are destroyed" (Devarim 28:61). and the Torah. and all the curses that are written in this Book will lie upon him" (ibid. will God bring upon you. [3] As Rashi comments. which Chazal refer to in many places as "mishneh torah. It should be noted that. I Melakhim 2:3. In chapters 2-3 he describes the second generation. "God will not spare him. Shemot 16:28. as Moshe indeed goes on to do in the "speech of the mitzvot. and every plague which is not written in this Book of the Torah. Yirmiyahu 44:10. which did obey God. In any event. he explains that what was written was only the "mishneh torah. which serve as an introduction to the main speech. Jerusalem 5770. but then the anger of God and His jealousy shall smoke against that man. II Melakhim 23:25. they (Ibn Ezra. Ramban interprets the word "Torah" as a general term. and be there. [2] See Bereishit 26:5. Israel. Ha-Perush ha-Meyuchas le-Rashi le-Sefer Divrei Hayamim. Therefore." [9] Examples of such verses include Yehoshua 23:6. and the commandments which I have written. "And God's anger burned against that land. in the later books the picture changes somewhat. and caused them to understand the reading… And on the second day the heads of fathers' houses of all the people. "Mekhilta li-Devarim Parashat Re'eh. And Ezra thekohen brought the Torah before the congregation.[12] See S. and all who could hear with understanding. The Five Books of the Torah Thus far we have seen that from the description that appears in the Torah itself and in the Books of the Prophets.). from the first day until the last day. the kohanim sprinkled the blood." (Divrei Ha-yamim II 30:15-16) ." Here we cannot posit that the "Book of the Torah" refers to solely to Devarim. distinctly. the man of God. when. Elbagen (eds. with a convocation on the eighth day. All [1] of these details do. and they gave the sense. the Book of the Torah that was read in the days of Ezra included at least Vayikra. the kohanim." (Nechemia 8:1-18) In these verses Ezra reads verses about the festival of Sukkot from the "Book of the Torah of Moshe. to make sukkot. there is no way of knowing how. to study the words of the Torah. Brannan and Y. Jerusalem 5732. both men and women. as prescribed. the observance of the eighth day as a "convocation" (atzeret)." in M. with the description of the observance of Pesach Sheni in the days of Chizkiyahu: "Then they slaughtered the Pesach [sacrifice] on the fourteenth day of the second month… And they stood in their place as prescribed. and they observed the festival for seven days. were gathered to Ezra the scribe. however. appear in Vayikra (23:33-43). and that they should publish and proclaim in all their cities. Hence." which is also called "the Book of God's Torah. on the first day of the seventh month. We find a similar phenomenon in Divrei Ha-yamim. thatBnei Yisrael should dwell in sukkot during the festival of the seventh month. which God had commanded to Israel.' … And he read from the Book of God's Torah day by day. pp. and branches of thick trees. and they spoke to Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Torah of Moshe. For instance. and palm branches. 189-192.   Shiur #02b: Composition of the Torah according to Tanakh and Jewish Tradition   Part 2   B. Schechter. and we find explicit mention of the existence of a "Book of the Torah" that is more extensive than just Devarim. as it is written. And they found it written in the Torah which God had commanded by the hand of Moshe. And he read from it in front of the broad place… And they read from the Book of God's Torah. and branches of wild olive. and the leviim. the observance of the festival in the seventh month. or even the bringing of species. which they received from the hand of the leviim. and in Jerusalem.Z. Tiferet Yisrael – Sefer ha-Yovel Likhvod R. and myrtle branches. since the description of Sukkot in the "speech of the mitzvot" (Devarim 16:13-17) makes no mention of such central details as the command to dwell in sukkot.M. and by whom the Five Books of the Torah were committed to writing and transmitted to the Jewish People. according to the Torah of Moshe. in the Nechemia we read: "All the people gathered themselves together as one man to the broad place that was before the water gate. saying: 'Go forth to the mountain. and it is defined as the Book of [2] Moshe. and fetch olive branches. Yisrael Levi. However. so that the kohanimcould not stand to minister. those instances in which these Books refer to verses in the Torah. at the beginning of Shoftim – "I raised you up from Egypt and brought you to the land which I promised to your forefathers. for God's glory had filled God's house" (Melakhim I 8:10-11) parallels the description from the Mishkan: "The cloud covered the Tent of Meeting. Rachav's words to Yehoshua's spies – "I know that God has given you the land. dread and fear shall fall upon them…" (Shemot 15:15-16). which was given by the hand of Moshe. lest it be as a snare in your midst. and I said. "to follow God's Torah." (Shemot 34:12-13). we shall suffice with just a few examples of each. and second. an analysis of the books of the Prophets and Writings does strongly suggest that they relate to all five Books of the Torah. At the same time. There are no further explicit references in Tanakh that prove that the Five Books of Torah were committed to writing and conveyed to Am Yisrael.. for the cloud rested upon it. and the heavens – and they had no light" (Yirmiayhu 4:23). and their gods will be as a trap for you" (Shoftim 2:1-3) is a faithful restatement of what God told Moshe following the giving of the second set of Tablets: "Guard yourself lest you forge a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you are coming. and that the fear of you is fallen upon us. and that all the inhabitants of the land melt away from before you" (Yehoshua 2:9) clearly echo the words of the Song at the Sea: "All the inhabitants of Kena'an shall melt away. But you shall pull down their altars and break their images. you shall pull down their altars… for they shall be as snares to you. in the many chapters whose literary structure is built on stories from the Torah and which serve as literary parallels to them. Allusions in Nakh to the Five Books In each of the Books of the Prophets there are many verses that are written in such a [3] way as to indicate a clear connection to verses throughout the Torah. And Moshe could not come into the Tent of Meeting. when the Jewish people commits. and God's glory filled the Mishkan. when the kohanim came out of the holy place.and behold. The reproach of God's angel. And you shall not make a covenant with the inhabitants of this land. The description of God's glory filling the Temple – "And it was. it was void and waste. When Yirmiyahu mourns. I will never break My covenant with you. because of the cloud.. ." This Torah is clearly identified with "God's Torah" later in Nechemia. whether openly or through allusion. For example. God's servant" (Nechemia 10:30). and God's glory filled the Mishkan" (Shemot 40:34-35). "I saw the earth . that the cloud filled the House of God. at the ceremony of the covenant. 1. Both phenomena are extensive in scope.It would therefore appear that extensive portions of the Five Books of the Torah were defined as part of the "Torah of Moshe. This is clearly apparent in two phenomena: first. etc. Literary Parallels in Nakh to Passages in the Torah Let us now turn our attention to the second phenomenon. but it would seem that the reason that the text uses this opaque expression is to emphasize the connection to the story of Yaakov and Rachel. the crossing of the Jordan [Yehoshua 3:3-16] and the splitting of the Red Sea [Shemot 14:21-22]). Other parallels include the incident of the concubine in Giv'a [Shoftim 19] and the story of the angels visiting Lot in Sedom [Bereishit 19]. Megillat Ruth makes explicit mention of the story of Yehuda and Tamar. 've-lo mal'u ha-yamim' – and the days were not yet complete" (Shmuel I 18:26). whom Tamar bore to Yehuda" (Ruth 4:12). with darkness upon the face of the deep" [4] (Bereishit 1:2). In many cases we can also see that the story in the books of the Prophets is based on the text of the story as it appears in the Torah. of special importance is the discussion of parallels between the Books of the Prophets and Writings and the Books of the Torah. (For example. [5] much attention has been devoted to the literary parallels in Tanakh. Yehoshua2]. and stories in the Torah. he is unquestionably hinting at the descriptions of the Creation. In the great majority of cases. This expression presents no difficulty in the story of Yaakov. in the blessing that is given to Boaz: "May your house be like the house of Peretz. and the groom ultimately pays double.as part of his description of the destruction. since there a specific period of time is mentioned. too. just as Onan had avoided giving seed to his brother. the two narratives contain many common elements: in both cases there is a father-in-law who violates his commitment to the groom. In terms of language. The stories of Yehoshua recall the stories of Moshe. It would therefore seem most likely that the author of Shmuel makes use of this expression. In terms of content. 2. There is also an extensive parallel between the story of Ruth and Boaz. "ki mal'u yamay" – for my days are complete – that I may come to her" (Bereishit 29:21). the kinsman declines to marry Ruth. we are able to understand the significance of the parallel and the literary benefit in writing the stories in this way. we shall suffice with a small number of examples. so as to emphasize the messages that the Tanakh is seeking to convey. There are many other such examples. The deaths of Machlon and Khilyon parallel the deaths of Er and Onan. For our present purposes. Chana and Penina [Shmuel I 1] with its obvious connection to the story of Yaakov. we find an expression that is difficult to understand: "… the matter pleased David well to be the king's son-in-law. There is an extensive parallel between the story of David's marriage to Michal and [6] the story of Yaakov's marriage to Rachel. who ultimately fathers their child. In addition. 2. the story of Elkana. in the story of David's marriage to Michal. from Bereishit. the father-in-law has two daughters. with the help of father-in-law's daughters. both Ruth and Tamar undertake some activity at their own initiative in order to reach the patriarch of the family. 1. In the last generation. in many aspects. The groom in each case flees from the father-in-law. Eliyahu at Chorev [Melakhim I 19] and the parallel that it creates between him and Moshe. and the story [8] of Yehuda and Tamar. including. we find clear connections between the Books – in terms of both content and language. familiar to himself and to the readers. Here. "The earth was void and waster. the revelation in Jericho [Yehoshua 5:15] and the revelation at the burning bush [Shemot 3:5]. and many more examples that prove a clear connection between the stories in the Prophets and Writings. In many dozens of instances. Let us examine two examples. there is prominent . where Yaakov uses the same phrase in his words to Lavan: "Give me my wife. Rachel and Leah [Bereishit 30]. The commentators offer different possibilities for [7] interpretation. the sending of spies [Bamidbar 13. use of the root "y-b-m" (levirate marriage), which appears nowhere else in Tanakh other than in the commandment in the Torah (Devarim 25). Here, too,Megillat Ruth would seem to prove that at that time there was some familiarity with the more ancient Torah, includingSefer Bereishit. We therefore conclude that despite the fact that the Books of the Prophets and Writings (up until Ezra and Nechemia) make no explicit mention of the existence of an extensive written Book of the Torah that goes beyond sections of Devarim, there are nevertheless clear connections throughout the Prophets and Writings to the Books of the [9] Torah. C. "It was given part by part" As noted, the tradition concerning the writing of the Five Books of the Torah goes back to ancient times; by the period ofChazal it was taken for granted. In innumerable places, Chazal refer to Moshe as having written the Torah as dictated by God. To cite just one example: "This teaches us that Moshe wrote what the Holy One, blessed be He, told him to. This is as it is written, 'Then Barukh answered them: He dictated to me…' [10] (Yirmiyahu36:18)." (Sifrei, Devarim piska 357; and see Bava Batra 15a) At the same time, opinions are divided as to when, and in what manner, the Torah was written and given to the Jewish people. The Gemara (Gittin 60a) records a debate in this regard. According toRabbi Shimon ben Lakish, "The Torah was given in full and finished form." Rashi (ad loc.) explains: "It was not committed to writing until the end of the forty [years in the desert], after all of the sections had been given over [by God to Moshe]. And those that had been given over to him in the first and second year were set forth orally, until he set them in writing." In contrast, Rabbi Yochanan teaches in the name of Rabbi Bena'a: "The Torah was given 'megilla megilla'" – i.e., one part (literally, "scroll") at a time. The medieval commentators offer two main interpretations of this view. Rashi explains, "When a unit was given over to Moshe [by God], he would write it down. At the end of the forty years, when all the sections were complete, he sewed them together with sinews." According to this view, the Torah was given to Moshe piecemeal over the forty years in the desert; it was made up of many different units, and in the fortieth year Moshe joined them all together, thus creating the "Torah." Ramban, in his introduction to Bereishit, maintains that the "one part at a time" actually refers to only two parts (reflecting the literal, formal meaning of the expression 'megilla megilla'): "When he descended from the mountain, he wrote from the beginning of the Torah until the end of the matter of theMishkan, and the rest of the Torah he wrote at the [11] end of the fortieth year." Although the Torah itself does not address this question directly, there are several verses that offer support for the view that the Torah was given "one part at a time" and, in accordance with Rashi's understanding, that there were many parts given over the course of the years. We find that in various places there is a mention of Moshe writing down some subject that is part of the Torah. After the war against Amalek, for instance, Moshe is commanded: "Write this for a memorial in a book, and repeat it for Yehoshua to hear – that I shall surely wipe out the remembrance of Amalek from under the heavens" (Shemot 17:14). We may conclude from this that at that time, Moshe wrote down the episode of the war. In the second description of the Revelation at Sinai, we find: "And Moshe wrote all of God's words… and he arose early in the morning, and he took the Book of the Covenant, and read it for the people to hear, and they said: All that God has spoken – we shall do and we shall hear." (Shemot 24:7) The Torah offers no elaboration on what exactly was written in the "Book of the Covenant," but from the people's response we understand that it included several [12] commandments. The journeys of the Jewish People in the wilderness were likewise recorded by Moshe: "And Moshe wrote their departures by their journeys at God's command" [13] (Bamidbar 33:2). This presents the picture of Moshe writing short units; we might even conclude that the rest of the sections came to be recorded in the same way, until the entire th Torah was complete. It is interesting to note that according to the French 13 century commentator, Chizkuni, when Moshe ultimately committed all the "parts" to writing, it was he himself who decided upon their order: "But the Torah was given as a scroll, for as Moshe heard the commandments from the Holy One, blessed be He, he would write each one of them on a separate scroll. When his time came to leave this world, he organized the Book of the Torah and set the units in it, to this day, in accordance with the proper juxtapositions of them, as our Sages have taught." (Chizkuni on Shemot 34:32) The verses we have examined until now refer to the texts Moshe committed to writing concerning events that occurred in his lifetime. But what about Bereishit? We might posit that Bereishit, too, is one of the texts that Moshe wrote at God's command, and that is how Moshe came to know things that had happened before his time. However, there is also another possibility: from the Midrash Rabba it would seem, based on the approach that "the Torah was given part by part," that perhaps Bereishit was in fact written before Moshe's time, and that Moshe copied this ancient text into the full Book of the Torah he wrote. According to the Midrash, Moshe knew of the stories of Bereishit from a book he read prior to the giving of the Torah: "'And Moshe went back to God and said: God, why have You dealt harshly with this people?'… (Shemot 5:22)… This is what he said to the Holy One, blessed be He: 'I took the Book of Bereishit, and read it, and saw the actions of the generation of the Flood, [and] how they were judged – this was the Attribute of Justice; and the actions of the generation of the Dispersion, [and] of the people of Sedom, [and] how they were judged – this was the Attribute of Justice. But this nation – what have they done, that they have been enslaved and punished more harshly than all the previous generations? And if it is because our forefather Avraham said, 'By what shall I know that I shall inherit it [the land]?' (Bereishit 15:8), and You answered him, 'Know with certainty that your descendants will be strangers…' (ibid. 13), then what about Esav and Yishmael? They, too, are his descendants, and they should have been enslaved too!" (Shemot Rabba 5:22). This suggests that even before Moshe's time there existed a "Book of Bereishit" which included the exact text of the stories of the forefathers. The same source also indicates that the Jewish people, too, were aware of these texts: "'Increase the work load upon the men' (Shemot 5:9) – This teaches that they possessed texts which they would read every Shabbat, in which it was written that the Holy One, Blessed be He, would redeem Israel. Because they rested on Shabbat, Pharaoh decreed, 'Increase the word load upon the men, that they may labor in it, and not pay heed to vain words.' Let them not relax and let them not rest on Shabbat." The Midrash offers no clue as to who wrote these texts, or how, but it does clearly suggest that some parts of the Torah had originally been written over different periods of time, and by different people, and only afterwards did Moshe gather them as part of God's [14] Torah. Moreover, in at least one place in Bereishit we find explicit mention of the existence of an ancient text: "This is the Book of the Generations of Man; on the day that God created man, in the likeness of God He made him." (Bereishit 5:1) This book, with a genealogy of the ten generations from Adam to Noach, had existed [15] from antiquity, and was later included – in whole or in part – as part of the Torah of Moshe (or as part of the ancient Book of Bereishit, according to the Midrash Shemot Rabba). We shall discuss this in greater depth further on. Next week we shall examine various opinions in Chazal and medieval commentators regarding the question of whether Moshe merely “took dictation” from God, or whether he had a hand in formulating parts of the Torah. Translated by Kaeren Fish   [1] Our present discussion will not address the differences between the species mentioned in Sefer Nechemia and the description inVayikra – "You shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of the beautiful tree, branches of palm trees, the branches of thick trees, and willows of the brook." Despite the differences, the linguistic connection between the two sources is clear. [2] The same impression arises from the verses describing previous stages in Ezra. At the beginning of Ezra we read of the building of the altar for offering the sacrifices of the festivals of the seventh month, in the days of Yehoshua ben Yehotzadak and Zerubavel ben Shealtiel. There were are told, "And Yeshua, son of Yotzadak, and his brethren the kohanim, and Zerubavel, son of Shealtiel, and his brethren, arose, and they built the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt offerings upon it, as it is written in the Torah of Moshe, the man of God… And they observed the festival of Sukkot, as it is written, with the daily burnt offerings by number, as prescribed, fulfilling each day's requirement. And afterwards they offered the continual burnt offering, and of the new moon, and of all the sanctified times appointed by God…" (Ezra 3:25). Once again, the text reflects, in its plain meaning, commandments that appear in Vayikra and Bamidbar, but not in Devarim. [3] The Da'at Mikra series includes, in the Introduction to each Book of the Prophets and Writings, an extensive list of parallels between that Book and the Books of the Torah. [4] For further discussion of the extensive phenomenon of Yirmiyahu's use of verses from the Torah, see D. Rom-Shiloni, "Ha-Torah be-Sefer Yirmiya: Ha-Technikot ha-Parshaniot ve-haMegamot ha-Idiologiot," Shenaton le-Cheker ha-Mikra ve-ha-Mizrach ha-Kadum 17, 5767, pp. 43-87. [5] A significant contribution was made by Yair Zakovitch, who collated dozens of "mirror narratives," as he calls them, distilling their meaning in his Mikraot be-Eretz ha-Mar'ot, Tel Aviv, 1985. For further reading see my work, Makbilot Nifgashot – Makbilot Sifrutiot be-Sefer Shmuel, Alon Shevut 5766, pp. 7-11, 194-200. (Although little has appeared in English on the subject of Biblical parallels, one recent work is that of Judy Klitsner, Subversive Sequels in the Bible, Jerusalem 2011.) [6] I discuss this parallel at length elsewhere: see ibid., pp. 109-121, n. 15. [7] Rashi explains: "He did not wait until the time that he [Shaul] had set for him was ended, to bring the hundred foreskins," and other commentators (Rabbi Yosef Kara, Radak, Rabbi Yishaya of Trani, and Metzudat David), adopt this interpretation, but the previous verses make no mention of Shaul stipulating any specific date or time. It should be noted that a similar expression is repeated in the next verse: "And David brought their foreskins, 'vayemal'um' – and they gave them in full number – to the king." [8] For a discussion of this parallel and its significance, see Y. Zakovitch, Mikra le-Yisrael – Rut, Tel Aviv, 5750, pp. 26-28.   [9] In the coming sections we will address, in various contexts, the approach of biblical criticism, which sets the date of the writing of the Torah and the Books of the Prophets much later, during the period of the monarchy, or even during the Second Temple Period. The parallels between the Books of the Prophets and the stories in the Torah may be viewed as an expression of the pre-existence of the Torah; however, the critical approach argues that the connections arise from the fact that the authors of the Torah and of the Books of the Prophets wrote these works concurrently. Later on, I shall address at length the argument about the later authorship of the Torah. For now I seek only to demonstrate the connection between the Books of the Prophets and the Books of the Torah, even though it is not mentioned explicitly. [10] Meaning that Moshe transcribed the Torah from God just as Barukh transcribed the words of Yirmiyahu. [11] For further discussion of this debate, see A.J. Heschel, Torah Min ha-Shamayim beAspaklariya shel ha-Dorot, London and New York 5725, pp. 402-406. [12] In this regard there is a disagreement among the sages of the Mishna (Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, Yitro, massekhta di-ve-chodesh, parasha 3). According to Rabbi, the "book" indeed included only mitzvot: "The mitzvot that had been commanded to Adam, and the mitzvot that had been commanded to the sons of Noach, and the commandments that they [the Jewish People] had been given inEgypt and at Mara, and all the rest of the mitzvot." According to Rabbi Yossi, son of Rav Yehuda, the book recorded everything "from the beginning of Bereishit up to that point." This opinion serves as the source upon which Ramban relies in his interpretation as noted above, concerning the expression "megilla megilla." Amongst biblical academics the prevalent view is that the "Book of the Covenant" consisted of the chapters preceding this one in parashat Mishpatim – i.e., chapters 21-23 of Shemot. [13] Another verse that deserves mention as part of this discussion raises some difficulty. Following the sin of the golden calf, Moshe pleads with God: "And now, if You will forgive their sin – and if not, I pray You, erase me from Your Book which You have written" (Shemot 32:32). Which "Book" is being referred to here? Chizkuni explains: "We cannot propose that he means 'from the Book of the Torah' – for it had not yet been written. What, then, does 'from Your Book' mean? From the Book of Life, in which human beings are inscribed." His interpretation is adopted by several commentators (Rashbam, and see also Ibn Ezra and Ramban), as well as many scholars (see the summary in Encyclopedia Olam ha-Tanakh –Shemot, Tel Aviv 1993, pp. 197-198.) Other commentators, such as Rabbenu Bechaye, explain that the Book in question is the entire Torah, even though it had not yet been written completely. In any event, if we assume that "The Torah was given part by part," especially if we follow Ramban's understanding of just two parts, then we might explain that "from Your Book" means from the first part of the Torah, up to the story of the Mishkan, which th Moshe received at Sinai. (This represents the view of the 16 Century supercommentary to Rashi, Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi, ad loc.) [14] See also Heschel, ibid., pp. 430-432. [15] Chazal refer to this book as "the Book of Adam" (Bereishit Rabba24:3-7), and explain that this prophetic book included the names of the people of all generations. Elsewhere we read that God showed this book to Moshe: "What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He brought him the Book of Adam and showed him all the generations that were destined to arise, from the Beginning until the Resurrection" (Shemot Rabba 40). On this basis, it would seem that only the first part of the book was included as part of the Torah. It should be noted that there are commentators who interpret the word "book" not in the sense of an object – a written text – but rather as an "account": "These are the accountings of the generations of Man" (Rashi, see also Radak).   Shiur #2c: Composition of the Torah according to Tanakh and Jewish Tradition   Part 3   D. I. Moshe's involvement in the writing of the Torah Two Views of Moshe’s role in the writing of the Torah 'Write for yourself' (Shemot 34:27): The ministering angels said to the Holy One. and among the medieval sages. 'He dictated all these words to me. to Moshe. The midrashim take two main directions in this regard. 'And Barukh said to them. in other midrashim. as it is written. the text itself offers no explicit information. or whether all its verses were dictated by God. Ki Tisa 47. blessed be He. In Shemot Rabba we read: "An alternative explanation for the words.. he is trusted. piska 357) According to this view. 'I gave you the Torah – I am the one who wrote it and gave it to you!' The Holy One. Moshe. in all of My house He is trusted' (Bamidbar 12:7). Vilna edition. from the beginning of Bereishit to 'in the eyes of all Israel' [i. and I wrote them with ink in the book' (Yirmiyahu36:18). 'Not so My servant. he might say to Israel. there is the midrash that we have already cited: "This teaches that Moshe wrote down whatever the Holy One. the end of Devarim] was uttered by the Holy One.A further question that must be addressed is whether Moshe was involved in determining the wording of the Torah. word for word. told him to write.e. told them: Heaven forefend that Moshe would do that. too. blessed be He. God did not necessarily dictate the Torah explicitly to Moshe. but it is true and clear that the entire Torah. blessed be He. On the one hand. and therefore he did the writing."[1] However. 9) According to this midrash. in the same way that we find. blessed be He: You are giving license to Moshe to write whatever he wishes. Here. there are frequent expressions of an approach that grants a special status to Moshe in writing the Torah even though its content was received from God. God dictated the Torah to Moshe. writing in his introduction to Bereishit: "Thus Moshe was like a scribe copying an ancient text. He dictated all these words to me…' (Yirmiyahu 36:18)" (Sifri Devarim. as it is written. and even if he did. but rather trusted Moshe to write in accordance with His will: . Ramban adopts this view." (Shemot Rabba. 'The entire Torah is Divine. heaven forefend. It should be noted. and even one who says: 'The entire Torah is Divine. this kal vachomer. it even excludes someone who denies the Divine origin of the lessons derived through the hermeneutical laws.'… Another opinion says: 'For he has despised God's word' – this refers to one who says that the Torah is not Divine. the punishment stated in the verse refers only to someone who denies altogether that the Torah was conveyed by God toIsrael. therefore. except for this verse which was not said by God. which relate to the writing of the Torah: "Our Sages taught: 'For he has despised God's word and has violated His commandments. it would not be. that the Mishna inSanhedrin (10:1) lists. one who says.e. among those who have no share in the World to Come.' And even if he says. but rather Moshe said it himself' – this is 'for he has despised God's word. that according to thismidrash.' the scope of the required belief in the Torah’s divinity is far more extensive and excludes even someone who maintains that a single verse was uttered by Moshe on his own." The Gemara provides eight different teachings concerning this statement. with God's approval. however. Torah laws that are deduced by means of the hermeneutical rules)' – this is 'for he has despised God's word. rather."Even if Moshe would write something in the Torah on his own initiative. . Moshe did indeed write the Torah in accordance with his own understanding.'" (Sanhedrin 99a) These two opinions reflect very different positions. "The Torah is not Divine in origin. and to him I have handed over all the principles and ways of the Torah. According to the 'other opinion. within the framework of the Oral Law. with the intention of being able to say that he himself had written and initiated that element. I shall cite two of them. except for this detail." (Commentary of Rabbi Ze'ev Wolf Einhorn)[2] We conclude. According to the first view. and with the assumption that God relied upon his abilities to write the Torah as it should be written. which accords with the plain meaning of the mishna. that soul shall utterly be cut off' – This refers to one who says. he is 'trusted in all the house' of Torah. this gezera shava (i. and not from God's mouth. 'The Torah is not Divine.. full of all kinds of goodness? It was not so. Rashbam. this is not necessarily the case. the sea. God created. established as one of the Rambam's Thirteen Principles of Faith. Yosef Bechor Shor. so they would know that God's word is truth: Do you then maintain that the world has always been built up as you see it now. II..The second view. and all that is in them. this does not have to rule out the possibility that God gave Moshe license to write the Torah in his own words. several medieval sages of northernFrance held the view that Moshe had God's permission to formulate the text. Bereishit1:1) Elsewhere. Rashbam offers the following explanation of why it was necessary to start Bereishit with the story of the Creation: "This entire unit on the work of the six days is brought by Moshe as a preface. Rashbam explains why the Torah records the stories of Yosef and his brothers: .. Moshe’s role in the view of Rashbam. The main argument of the "other opinion" is that the significance of faith in "the Divine origin of the Torah" (Torah min hashamayim) is that Moshe did not act on his own accord. Therefore Moshe told this to Israel. rather. the grandson of Rashi. to sanctify it… for [over] six days God made the heavens and the earth. arguing that many units or verses in the Torah were written not for their own sake. at the time of the giving of the Torah: 'Remember the Shabbat day. 'And it was evening and it was morning. The point relevant to our discussion is that Rashbam often seems to suggest that these antecedents were written by Moshe. For instance. R. in order to clarify certain points later on in the Torah.[3] appears at first glance to contradict the view in Shemot Rabbaquoted above. which was the conclusion of the six days of which God spoke at the giving of the Torah. and He rested on the seventh day' (Shemot 20:8-11). but rather as a preface or background to units that appear later on in the Torah.'" (Rashbam. However. offers a unique view. to explain what God says later. the sixth day' (Bereishit 1:31) – that sixth day. Yehuda he-Chassid In any event. however. and R. 'In the beginning. as I shall now demonstrate. and that Moshe did not deviate from the framework of the license given to him. And this is the meaning of the verse. but rather a narration of what Yaakov is thinking in his own mind. the commentators discuss Yaakov's instructions to the messengers who carry his gift to Esav: [5] "And you shall say moreover.that that is the pillar of Rachel's grave. is behind us – for he said. with regard to the verse." There are other background comments occurring as part of the Torah narrative concerning which R."All of this was necessary for Moshe to write. Yaakov. Bereishit 37:2)[4] A similar approach is also adopted by Rabbi Yosef Bekhor Shor in his commentary on the Torah. but the shepherds did not say this [to Esav]. but expresses it in a more radical way: "The author of the book (ba'al ha-sefer) is explaining that this is why Yaakov did all of this – in order to dissipate Esav's anger. I shall appease him with the gift that goes before me. Ibn Ezra. describing how Moshe saw the entire land. writes: "'For he said' – [this refers to] Yaakov. your servant. For instance. for example. for by means of this he rebuked them – 'As seventy souls your forefathers went down…' (Devarim10:22)." (Rashbam. Yosef Bekhor Shor explains using the same approach. if his intentions had been evil. actually preceded – chronologically – the writing of the section setting forth the boundaries of the land at the end of Bamidbar(chapter 34). and this is what Moshe writes. Were .[7] He maintains."[6] Another commentator who follows this approach is Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid." (Bereishit 32:21) Where is the end of what the messengers are supposed to convey to Esav from Yaakov? Some of the commentators understand the final words – "and afterwards I shall see his face. that the final chapter of the Torah. in his heart. "Yaakov set up a pillar upon her grave. for example. Behold. perhaps he will accept me" – as not being included in the message that the messengers should recite before Esav. and afterwards I shall see his face. perhaps he will accept me. which still existed until his day." Rabbi Yosef Bekhor Shor adopts the same view. that is the pillar of Rachel's grave to this day" (Bereishit 35:20). For example. he writes: "So says the author of the book (ba'al ha-sefer) . every citizen in Israel shall dwell insukkot" (Vayikra 23:42). and dwelled in sukkot.[11] in addressing the story of the Creation. and were conquering territories. Rabbi Tuvia ben Eliezer. and refers to the sukkot in which the Children of Israel dwelled on the plains of Moav. Elsewhere in the commentary of R. and Rav Yehuda he-Chasid suggests that this explanation was added by Moshe in the fortieth year. explains why on . is "in order that your generations will know that I caused the Children of Israel to dwell in sukkot when I brought them out of the land of Egypt". In his view. during the conquest of the land: "This verse was uttered in the fortieth year. was written in the first year after the Exodus. The explanation for this command. which appears in the following verse. for how could Moshe had written all this if he had not seen it all from Har ha-Avarim. Vayikra 23:43)[10] III.[9] God had commanded it in the wilderness of Sinai. 'And the border shall go down to Zifron. compiler of the Midrash Lekach Tov (also known as Pesikta Zutreta). where it says. and this was… prior to the end of parashat Mas'ei. hence.this not so." (Perush Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid. the verse. "You shall dwell in sukkotfor seven days. Moshe would not have been able to describe the land in such detail: "And God showed him the entire land' (Devarim34:1). when they were encamped on the plains of Moav. the conclusion is that God did not dictate this to him. The Views of Midrash Lekach Tov and Sekhel Tov The last opinions that we shall address as part of our discussion of this approach are the compilers of the medieval midrashim – Lekach Tov and Sekhel Tov.'[8] and likewise concerning all [the borders]. and to conquer territory for you. Devarim 3:25) The basic assumption here is that Moshe could not have written a description of the borders of the land without having seen it with his own eyes. he argues. Mount Nevo? For the Torah does not follow chronological order. and Moshe wrote this in the fortieth year in order to provide an explanation for what He had commanded concerning sukkot – because it was God's intention to cause you to dwell in sukkot." (Commentary of Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid. Yehuda he-Chasid he is quoted as saying that a chronological distinction should be drawn between the writing of the two verses in the Torah that pertain to the command to buildsukkot. and wrote 'the sixth day. the sixth day of activity. and Moshe "arranged" it all in a book. in contrast to the other days ("a fifth day. "And what is the land – is it fat or lean. with his Divine inspiration and in his own words. for in six days God made the heavens and the earth… and He rested on the seventh day' (Shemot 20:8-11).[12] In light of this we can also understand the midrashic comment on the verse. Likewise he says. p. is there a tree in it or none? And you shall gird yourself and take of the fruit of the land – and the season was the season of the first of the grapes. gave the Torah to Moshe at Mount Sinai. God "recounted" to Moshe all of Creation. TheMidrash Lekach Tov states this slightly differently. with Divine inspiration. said.the sixth day the Torah says. to sanctify it. in accordance with all that is written in the book of the Torah of Moshe. "the sixth day" (Bereishit 1:31)." etc. 'Remember the Shabbat day." (Buber edition. 70a-b) Moshe heard the story from God. When the Holy One. so as to make His might known to His nation. too. Therefore he said 'the sixth day' here too – in other words. from beginning to end. blessed be He. blessed be He. 16) According to the Midrash Lekach Tov." (Lekach Tov Bereishit 1. from God's mouth. and it was he who decided on the expression. are not part of his message to them. but he was the one who wrote it down. Israel." This view conforms with the introduction of the midrash to the Torah: "Moshe wrote. using the definite article." (Bamidbar13:20) Here. and Moshe arranged the entire work of Creation in a book. he writes: .): "Another explanation: 'The sixth day' – when the Holy One. "the sixth day. Buber edition. the creation of the world.' the day upon which there was an end to the labor of the world. we can ask where Moshe's words to the spies end." "a fourth day. 31. 'And it shall be on the sixth day that they shall prepare that which they will bring in' (Shemot 16:5). the man of God. It is fairly clear that the final words of the verse. He recounted to him the entire act of Creation. and this represents Rashbam's understanding of the verse. Concerning the comment at the end of the verse. "And Yosef made it a law over the land of Egypt. 298). Among Chazal there are different opinions as to how exactly the Torah came to be written. we have seen that there are two main approaches to understanding the way in which Moshe wrote the Torah.[16] Thus. It can be summarized in a general way as follows: God conveyed the contents of the Torah. concerning the verse. that the Torah comprises . too. The other approach appears in the works of medieval Ashkenazi commentators such as Rashbam. R. 210) This term – ha-sadran – is used in the midrash to refer to the writer. In the books of the Prophets. Yosef Bechor Shor and R.." in contexts that are similar in nature to the instances treated in Midrash Lekach Tov. of the Torah in other places. to this day. and Moshe served merely as a scribe.e. Summary In the last few shiurim we have seen that theTanakh does not state clearly and explicitly how. too. p. or compiler. having no influence on a single word in the Torah. For instance. There are references to "Torah" in its narrow sense.[14] In five different places in his commentary. which Moshe was explicitly commanded to write. Midrash Sekhel Tov writes: "'To this day' – this is a comment by the sadran" (Buber edition. According to one approach. exemplified by certain midrashim and the Ramban."This is a note by the editor (ha-sadran). to speak the praises of the Land of Israel." (Lekach Tov. and authorized Moshe to formulate at least some of the text in his own style. we see extensive use made of the language of the Torah and its content. Yehuda he-Chassid. we see that from the plain text there is a strong basis to say that "the Torah was given one part (scroll) at a time" – i. that a fifth part goes to Pharaoh" (Bereishit 47:26).[13] The same idea also arises in the work of Rabbi Menachem ben Shlomo. word for word. God dictated the Torah to Moshe. as well collections of midrashim such asLekach Tov and Sekhel Tov. Among other approaches. and by whom. E. p. including central portions of Devarim. the Five Books of the Torah were written. and this tradition is based on explicit verses inNechemia. compiler of the Yalkut Sekhel Tov. or to arrange the materials as he saw fit.Bamidbar 13. The tradition of Chazal maintains unequivocally that it was Moshe who wrote all five books.[15]he too mentions the "sadran. and various commentaries. matters of halakha and customs. The book gave rise to extensive debate. which we will discuss in the next section.various parts that were written at different times. He is also known for his work Tzva'at Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid. The other view suggests that Moshe was given the role of editing/collating. who found some of the material among his father's writings. Rabbi Moshe Zaltman. author of the Or Zaru'a. some perhaps even before Moshe's time (such as Bereishit). a book entitled Perushei ha-Torah leRabbi Yehuda he-Chasid was published in Jerusalem by Yitzchak Shimshon Lange. The students of Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid included some of the most important sages of Ashkenaz. Translated by Kaeren Fish Appendix – Rav Yehuda HeChasid and his commentary to the Torah Rabbi Yehuda son of Shmuel he-Chasid. He was one of the leaders of the group known asChasidei Ashkenaz (the pietists of Ashkenaz) – a movement that developed during the 12th-13th centuries and involved various practices related to Kabbalah. and gathered additional material from others who conveyed teachings in his father's name. heard other parts directly from his father. Likewise. some of which are highly unusual. which includes moral teachings. with its members adopting a life of asceticism and self-mortification. and it was only at the end that Moshe joined them all into a single book. word for word. the content he had received from God. or perhaps even formulating in his own words. Rabbi Yehuda's best known work is Sefer Chassidim.     . The commentary was written by Rabbi Yehuda's son. and Rabbi Moshe of Coucy. based on two manuscripts as well as various commentaries which appeared in other books and were attributed to Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid. author of the Sefer ha-Mitzvot haGadol (Semag). which includes ten "legacies" and practices. explanations of prayers. we noted two approaches amongChazal and the medieval commentators in understanding the way in which Moshe wrote the Torah: one view maintains that the entire Torah was dictated by God to Moshe. of Speyer. such as Rabbi Yitzchak. was born around the year 1140 and died in 1217. Some fifty years ago. from beginning to end. were written by Moshe at God's command. are encamped in the field" (Shmuel II 11:11). Nevo was published by Mossad ha-Rav Kook. as well aspiyutim (liturgical poems) and commentaries on the Talmud (see E. that I may know that you are not spies. pp.” Machanayim 3. Touitou expands on Rashbam's approach and posits that the entire narrative aspect of the Torah. including the commandments. Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid's argument that dwelling insukkot is related to war. u-ve-Parshanut ha-Mikra. In the Torah's account of the actual exchange. and the heart of his servants. p. and Israel and Yehuda. Urbach. Ba'alei haTosafot. 132-140). Brin. Laws of Repentance 3:8. [14] This midrash was compiled in 1139. 16). as noted by M.E. 344-347.” [9] Apparently. and A. Midrash Lekach Tov explains this as follows: "The sadran was sparing with words. [3] See Rambam's Commentary on the Mishna. and he said to his servants. for I have hardened his heart. 19 century. 370-377. they claim that he told them. [11] th This midrash was compiled in the 11 century. Alon Shevut 5771. [8] Bamidbar 34:9. 5754) and on Tehillim. 105b-106a). see A. 120-122. in order that I may set for these signs of Mine in his midst. while only the halakhic aspects. but leaves the wording to his own judgment.. of his own accord. 5765. [12] It seems that this is how we should understand the midrashic teaching concerning God's words to Moshe: "Come to Pharaoh. we get the impression that God dictates the content to Moshe. He wrote a commentary on the Torah (a critical edition edited by Y. p. in the words of Uriya ha-Chiti: "The Ark. 'Set yourselves in array' – and they set themselves in array against the city" (Melakhim I 20:12). and you shall conduct commerce (tischaru) in the land" (Bereishit 42:34). Sabbato.” Leshonenu 66.[1] On the question of whether the Torah was dictated to Moshe orally or whether he copied it from an "ancient book. was one of the Tosafists in th 12 century France. pp. For example. . and my masters servants. Jerusalem. [4] For more on this subject see A. pp. or in the war that Achav wages against Aram.” in: Te'udah 3 – Mechkarim beSifrut ha-Talmud. see R. where we read of Ben Hadad: "And he was drinking – he and the nobles – in sukkot. [2] th One of the greatest of the commentators on the midrash. Ha-Peshatot ha-Mitchadshim Bechol Yom – Iyyunim be-Perusho shel Rashbam la-Torah. but that you are honest men. 302-305. dwell in sukkot. be-Lashon Chazal. Tel Aviv 5743. Mishneh Torah. For more on the matter of the "sadran" in this midrash. The justification for this expansion is not sufficiently proven. "Va-Ani Lefaresh Peshutan shel Mikraot Bati. Concerning the midrash (and the source of the name "Pesikta Zutreta. that which I performed in Egypt…" (Shemot 10:1-2). Jerusalem 5763. to make it known to future generations. [6] For more on Rabbi Yosef Bekhor Shor's approach. the Masoretic text reads. apparently in Greece. "Perush Rashbam laTorah. Mavo la-Midrashim. see G. Torah Min ha-Shamayim be-Aspaklaria shel ha-Dorot. pp. too. Brin. Touitou. 'and you shall conduct commerce in the land'" (Buber edition. see: G." Here. "And bring your youngest brother to me. in order that he would tell it in the Torah. I shall deliver your brother to you. yet they reported to their father [that Yosef had said]. there was no mention of commerce at the end (ibid. pp. pp. According to the midrash. and my lord Yoav. "Ha-Sadran ve-ha-Mesader.” which seems to have been based on an error).”Shenaton le-Cheker ha-Mikra ve-ha-Mizrach ha-Kadum 15 (5765). n. Raisel (above. a disciple of Rabbeinu Tam. were written by Moshe. pp. 321. Introduction to chapter “Chelek” in Tractate Sanhedrin. Jerusalem 5714. vol. "Kavim le-Perush ha-Torah shel Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid. for the Torah did not previously report [that Yosef said]. [7] See the Appendix to this shiur for information on Rav Yehuda he-Chasid and his Torah commentary. p. Harris. Raisel. Kislev.”Shenaton le-Cheker ha-Mikra ve-ha-Mizrach haKadum 12. God's command to Moshe here related to the writing of the story of the Exodus in the Torah: "This verse was said to Moshe. pp. 341-346. 116-117. Vilna. apparently in Italy. "And the border shall emerge (va-yetzei hagevul) to Zifron. 11). And in order that you will tell it in the hearing of your children and your children's children. 'and you shall conduct commerce in the land'. [5] Rabbi Yosef Bekhor Shor. [10] For additional places where Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid follows this approach. 378-382. 1. along with Devarim. arises from the fact that in various places "sukkot" appear in the description of preparations for war. [13] The midrash notes that when Yaakov's sons report Yosef's words to them. 5753. For more on Midrash Sekhel Tov see A.” see Heschel. 221-223. "Muda'ut le-Arikhat haMikra Etzel Parshanei Tzefon Tzarfat. [15] Aside from the examples treated below, see Bereishit 26:32, Buber edition, p. 107; 36:31, p. 210; 41:4, p. 250; 43:34, p. 265 (in this instance the commentary parallels that offered on the same verse in the Midrash Lekach Tov). [16] For more on the attitude of this midrash towards the "sadran,” see Y. Elbaum, "Yalkut 'Sekhel Tov': Derash, Peshat, ve-Sugyat ha-'Sadran',” in: M.M. Bar Asher et al (eds.), Davar Davur al Ofnav: Mechkarim ve-Parshanut ha-Mikra ve-ha-Koran bi-Yemei ha-Benayim, Mugashim le-Chaggai Ben Shammai,” Jerusalem 5767, pp. 82-93.   ********************************************************* Refuah Shleima to Aaron Meir Ben Silah ********************************************************* Shiur #3a: Verses Added to the Torah at a Later Date: The Phenomenon and its Ramifications A. I. From "Eight Verses" to "the Secret of the Twelve" The Final Verses of the Torah In the previous section we addressed Moshe's role in the writing of the Torah as well as questions of how and when the Torah was written and transmitted to the Children of Israel. We will now turn our focus to verses in the Torah which appear to have been written at a later date – i.e., after Moshe's death. The earliest discussion of this question arises with regard to the final eight verses of the Torah, which describe Moshe’s death. Could Moshe have written these verses? Chazaloffer two different approaches: "This follows the opinion which maintains that the eight [final] verses in the Torah were written by Yehoshua, as the beraita teaches: [The text reads,] 'And Moshe, servant of God, died there' – is it then possible that Moshe died, and then wrote 'And Moshe died there'? [Obviously not;] rather, up to this point Moshe wrote, and from this point onwards it was Yehoshua who wrote. This represents the view of Rabbi Yehuda, and some say it was Rabbi Nechemia. But Rabbi Shimon said to him, Can a Sefer Torahbe lacking even a single letter? And yet, the verse states, 'Take this Book of the Torah…'! Therefore [we must conclude that Moshe wrote and transmitted the entire Torah, including these verses:] up to this point God dictated and Moshe repeated and wrote it down, and from this point onwards God dictated and Moshe wrote and wept, as we read later (Yirmiyahu 36), 'Barukh said to them: all of these things he dictated to me, and I wrote them in a book with ink.'"[1] (Bava Batra 15a) According to the second view, represented here by Rabbi Shimon, Moshe himself wrote the final eight verses of the Torah. This view would seem to suggest that since the Torah is not primarily about the life of Moshe, but rather about a wider history of which Moshe is a part, there is nothing that would necessarily prevent Moshe from receiving dictation from God concerning his own death. By contrast, according to the first view, although the Torah is not written from Moshe's perspective, it is nevertheless written by him, and is not altogether separate from his personality. It is therefore untenable that Moshe could write about his own death and what happened afterwards. This view thus maintains that the Torah concludes with verses which were written not by Moshe himself, but rather by Yehoshua bin Nun. Why specifically Yehoshua? Elsewhere, Chazalrelate this to an ambiguous verse at the end of the book of Yehoshua, following Yehoshua's speech prior to his death and the forging of the covenant for with the Children of Israel: "And Yehoshua forged a covenant for the nation on that day, and set them a law and a judgment in Shekhem. And Yehoshua wrote these things in the Book of God's Torah…" (Yehoshua 24:25-26) This verse presents a difficulty, insofar as it would seem to suggest that Yehoshua added something to the Torah – but the events described in that chapter appear nowhere in the text of the Torah, neither in its limited sense (referring to the 'speech of the mitzvot') nor in its broader sense (the Five Books of the Torah as we know them). The gemara suggest two possible meanings: "This was debated by Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nechemia. One said, '[This refers to] the eight [final] verses,' while the other said, '[This refers to the commandment concerning] the cities of refuge.'" (Makkot 11a) According to the first view, which parallels the gemara cited above, Yehoshua wrote the final eight verses of the Torah.[2] This perspective is significant for us since it stems clearly from a rational intuition that Moshe would not have described his own death while still alive. This view validates the application considerations within the context of Tanakh study. of rational And indeed, the understanding that our analysis of a verse must not feel intellectually forced leads us to expand our question beyond the confines of the final eight verses of the Torah. In fact, the medieval Spanish commentator R. Avraham Ibn Ezra notes that the question arises not only concerning the final eight verses, but concerning all twelve verses of Devarim 34, starting with the words, "And Moshe went up from the plains of Moav to Mount Nevo…" Since Moshe never descended after this ascent, if we follow the view of Rabbi Nechemia that Moshe did not write about events that had not yet happened, then he also could not have written the four verses describing his ascent to Mount Nevo prior to his death. In commenting on verse 1 of this chapter, Ibn Ezra writes: "To my view, from this verse onwards it was Yehoshua who wrote, since after his ascent Moshe did not write any more; it was written through prophecy." In using the expression "through prophecy" Ibn Ezra seems to be trying to solve the apparent contradiction between Rabbi Nechemia's approach, which he adopts and expands upon, and the condemnation of anyone who claims, concerning even a single verse, that "it was not uttered by God, but rather by Moshe on his own initiative," as discussed in the previous shiur. According to Ibn Ezra's understanding, a person is condemned for proposing that anything that appears in the Torah was written by Moshe on his own, but that there is nothing to rule out the possibility of verses having been added to the Torah at a later date by a prophet at God's command.[3] II. The Secret of the Twelve Aside from the concluding verses of the Torah, there are other verses which present no less of a problem with regard to having been written by Moshe. Ibn Ezra himself addresses some of the verses whose formulation suggests that they were written after Moshe's time. In his Commentary at the beginning ofDevarim he writes: "Likewise, the interpretation of the expressions, 'according to all that God commanded him to tell them on the other side of the Jordan, in the wilderness, in the Arava.' If you understand the secret of the twelve, then also in 'And Moshe wrote' (Devarim 31:22), 'And the Canaanites were then in the land' (Bereishit 12:6), 'he shall be seen in God's mountain' (ibid. 22:14), 'Behold, his bed is a bed of iron' (Devarim 3:11), you will perceive the truth." Ibn Ezra’s meaning here is obscure. In order to understand his intention, we must look at one of the verses that he quotes: "And Avram passed through the land, to the place of Shekhem, to Alonei Mamrei, and the Canaanites were then (az) in the land." Ibn Ezra comments: "It may be that [the meaning here is that] the landof Canaan had [already] been conquered from some other nation by the Canaanites. And if this is not so, then there is a secret here. And one who understands remains silent." From this we understand the problem that Ibn Ezra is addressing. The expression, "The Canaanites were then in the land," appears to imply that at the time the verse was written, the Canaanites were no longer in the land. If this were so, it would contradict the principle of the Torah having been written by Moshe, since in Moshe's time the Canaanites were still in the land. The word "then" (az) is therefore problematic. Ibn Ezra first proposes that the word be understood in the sense of "by then," or "already," i.e., that by Avraham's time the Canaanites were already living in the land, having conquered it from its previous inhabitants. However, if we do not accept this explanation, Ibn Ezra alludes to a "secret," and it would seem that this is the same secret referred to in his commentary on Devarim as "the secret of the twelve." The "secret of the twelve" appears to be the secret of the final twelve verses of the Torah which, according to Ibn Ezra, were not written by Moshe. The issue is explained by Rabbi Yosef ben Eliezer ha-Sefaradi,[4] one of the sages of Spain in the 14thcentury, in his super-commentary on Ibn Ezra, Tzofnat Pa'aneach: "Ibn Ezra hints at this secret at the beginning ofDevarim. His explanation is as follows: How could the text say here the word 'then,' meaning 'the Canaanites were in the land at that time [of Avraham], but now are no longer in it' – for did Moshe not write the Torah, and in his time the land was [still] in the hands of the Canaanites?!... Accordingly, it would seem that Moshe did not write that word ('az') here, but rather it was written by [7] Ibn Ezra also mentions the verse.’ the end of the verse would seem to refer to a later time. and was thus called “God’s mountain. according to the cubit of a man. facing Suf. and all were spoken through prophecy…"[5] According to this interpretation. behold. and four cubits is its width. king of the Bashan. since the words of all of them were truth. Rabbi Yosef ben Eliezer explains that this in no way contradicts our faith. is it not in Rabba. his bed is a bed of iron. too. "And Avraham called the name of that place 'ha-Shem yir'eh. too. "These are the words that Moshe spoke to all ofIsrael on the other side of the Jordan.” Thus. when the place had already been chosen for the Temple. "For only Og.'concerning which it is said today. since the entire text was written through prophecy. as a later addition. And since we must believe in the tradition and in the words of the prophecies. as testimony to his tremendous size is his bed. 'in the mountain God will be seen'" (Bereishit 22:14). and it therefore makes no difference whether a certain verse was written by Moshe or by a different prophet. introduced at a time when the Temple already existed." (Devarim3:11) This. remained from the rest of the Refa'im. seems to have been written long after the death of Og. in the Arava. in relation to the verse. such as the verse at the end of the story of the binding of Yitzchak. were written after Moshe's death. of the children of Amon? Nine cubits is its length.[6] This also helps us to understand the other examples cited by Ibn Ezra. at the time of writing. in the wilderness. all that remains. Ibn Ezra introduces his far-reaching idea at the beginning of Devarim. like the final verses of Devarim. either by Yehoshua or by one of the other prophets. between Paran and Tofel and Lavan and Chatzerot and Di Zahav." (Devarim 1:1) . From the use of the word ‘today. Ibn Ezra appears to view this verse. Ibn Ezra maintained that throughout the Torah there are verses which. what does it matter whether [this word] was written by Moshe or by some other prophet. Finally.Yehoshua or one of the other prophets…. which refers here – and throughout Devarim– to the eastern side of the Jordan River. therefore. but also to leaders of the nation who lived after the period of prophecy had ended. in contrast to Ibn Ezra. who were able to receive prophecy from God. Yehuda he-Chasid notes in several places that certain verses were added into the Torah at a later stage. there is surely no need to describe it as ‘the other side’? Ibn Ezra’s solution is to see the phrase as the later addition by a prophet who is positioned on the western side of the Jordan. We shall examine three such instances in the coming shiur. and in instances where it was of great importance to add certain comments into the text. as clarification or to add depth of meaning. R.[9] His views are the best known on the subject. and who acted on their own Divinely-inspired initiative. he raises the possibility that these verses were introduced by the Men of the Great Assembly![11] According to this view.[10] In his commentary on the Torah. The plain meaning would seem to suggest that according to this view. it was still open to some limited degree. too – surprisingly enough.What appears to disturb Ibn Ezra is the expression "on the other side of the Jordan" (be-ever ha-yarden).. We have seen in previous shiurimthat the image of Barukh’s transcribing of Yirmiyahu’s work frequently serves as the paradigm for those opinions which see Moshe as having no personal input at all into the writing of the Torah. the unit on the cities of refuge. the authority to add verses of clarification to the Torah was extended not only to the prophets. God dictated the whole Torah to Moshe. however. the prophets were not prevented from introducing them. that according to the Ibn Ezra. [2] The second view invites further discussion. Since the Children of Israel are still located in that area at the opening of Devarim. the Torah was not given as a fixed text with no possibility of future additions. but the same idea was given explicit expression in Germany. Translated by Kaeren Fish [1] I. Ibn Ezra was not the only one of the medieval commentators to raise the possibility that the Torah includes some verses that were added at a later period. Even after the Torah was completed by Moshe.e. just as Yirmiyahu dictated his own work to Barukh. as it appears in the Torah .[8] It would seem. by Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid. it is difficult to understand why there is any need to state that Yehoshua wrote this unit. for he wrote what was going to happen… For all the prophets do the same in their words. it was uttered by Yehoshua. but rather that Moshe said it on his own initiative. since it appears in his book in any case. The Gemara does not go on to adopt this conclusion. and unequivocally prefer the approach of Rabbi Shimon. is "And Yehoshua wrote in his book these things. that Moshe wrote the entire Torah. from 'In the beginning' to 'in the eyes of all of Israel'. Rabbi Moshe Almosnino. 'And Moshe. [5] The same direction is adopted by other commentaries in explanation of Ibn Ezra. 1518-1581). Perhaps we might suggest that the Tannaim indeed referred to the verses in Sefer Devarim that describe the setting aside of the cities of refuge by Moshe (Devarim 4:41-43). 344-348. died there. but you replaced and changed some words' – therefore Ibn Ezra .' while he was still alive. according to this view. but rather assumes that the unit on the cities of refuge that is being referred to is the one in Yehoshua 20. Wilansky. And this is the 'secret' – meaning. who tell us. for in his time [the land] was still in the hands of the Canaanites. and one should pay them no regard. in order that they will not hold the Torah in scorn. condemning one who claims that even a single verse of the Torah "was not uttered by God. we might draw the same conclusion from the special introduction that we find at the beginning of chapter 20: "And God spoke to Yehoshua. Jerusalem 5706.) However. which are written in the Book of God's Torah." th Rabbi Chaim ben Attar. as we shall see further on. but not concerning the narratives. all from God's mouth. Rabbeinu Bechaye ben Asher writes in his Commentary on the Torah: "However. speaking in the past tense instead of [but with reference to] the future. were added to the Torah later on by Yehoshua. pp. [3] Other commentators disagree with Ibn Ezra. and He buried him in the valley. it is proper to believe. Rabbi Yosef ben Eliezer takes a different approach: "The answer is that [the condemnation by Chazalapplies to one who makes this statement] in matters of the mitzvot. In his Commentary on the Torah. if we accept this interpretation. [the concealment] is meant for the benefit of the other nations. The main principle is that the entire Book of the Torah was written by Moshe. Also. was aware of the ramifications of Ibn Ezra's interpretation. c. saying. Heschel. 153). with weeping. See A. Torah Min ha-Shamayim be-Aspaklaria shel ha-Dorot. Jerusalem 5738. Or ha-Chayim. cited above. too. Rabbi Yosef ben Eliezer addresses the statement ofChazal. ben Menachem. and such ideas and their like have become entrenched. See M. it cannot be that this was said by Moshe. [6] Further on. in the 18 century. This is the argument of the other nations – that the text was written by some amongst Israel. or that did not happen in the way that they are described." (Indeed. what the verse means. therefore. and that it describes things that did not happen. "Tosefet Biur al Divrei ha-Ibn Ezra le-Rabbi Moshe Almosnino. For more on Rabbi Almosino see N. that it was not written by Moshe" (cited also in N. the servant of God. maintaining that Moshe himself wrote even the last eight verses of the Torah.J. Among others we may note Rabbi Moshe Almosnino (Greece. For example.'" [4] Commonly – and mistakenly." In light of this distinction." Sinai 59. pp. or perhaps Ezra wrote it. p. for one who is not knowledgeable will not distinguish between verses that convey mitzvot and verses that convey a narrative. it seems – identified as Rabbi Yosef Tuv Elem (Bon-fils). With my own ears I have heard some of our people becoming confused in this regard. and ending up with conclusions that deny the Torah. and the assertion that some words in the Torah may have been added by someone else. he wrote as follows: "It is not proper to write such things concerning the plain meaning of the text – that Moshe did not complete the Sefer Torah when he transmitted it to the Leviim. … and it seems to me that there is nothing remarkable about Moshe having written. rather." I proposed above that Ibn Ezra himself solved this problem by drawing a distinction between the assertion that Moshe made up some words in the Torah on his own. 'Your Torah was originally true. Rabbi Yosef explains why Ibn Ezra only hinted at his understanding of the origin of the verses. ben Menachem. Mechkarim be-Lashon u-ve-Sifrut.(Bamidbar 35:9-34 orDevarim 19:1-13). 394-395." This formula is found almost nowhere else except in the verses of the Torah that record instances of God speaking to Moshe. through prophecy. as per the true tradition that we have. London and New York 5725. rather than spelling it out explicitly: "It is not proper to make this secret known to people. was written by Yehoshua. this would mean that these verses. as we have explained above. who wrote: "Thus. as Chazal teach – 'Moshe completed it. the Torah recounts the war waged against the Canaanites: "And the Canaanite king of Arad.writes.C. and as proof they cite the verse. they are included in the category of 'he has despised God's word. "Many have said that this incident was written by Yehoshua. maintains that Ramban understood this verse as a later addition – in accordance with the view recorded by Ibn Ezra. in his commentary on this chapter. along with their cities. In Bamidbar (21:1-3). and they called the site of the battle 'Chorma. and continuing on into the Second Temple th rd Period. then I will utterly destroy their cities. Other commentators tried to solve the difficulty in other ways. and they destroyed them utterly.'" Radak writes. And Israelmade a vow to God and said. who.   Shiur #3b: Verses Added to the Torah at a Later Date: The Phenomenon and Its Ramifications (continued) . 5 -3 century B. the event described took place during Moshe's time: "It is also correct to say that Israel destroyed this king and his people by the sword right now. However. after the death of Yehoshua. after Moshe's death: "And the text completes its account here. "This day it shall be said on the mountain when God will be seen on it – that an altar will be built on it. Ibn Ezra merely hints at this.e. Abravanel.. he himself rejects this position by arguing that the passages in Bamidbar andYehoshua refer to locations with the same name. maintain that this was not written by Moshe." [7] In his comment on the verse itself in Bereishit. since the appellation here may reflect the more objective. during Moshe's time. this question poses less of a problem.'" [10] Concerning Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid and his commentary on the Torah. at the beginning of this episode. the Torah is indeed telling us here about an event that took place later. 'On this mountain God is revealed to His people. Abravanel himself vehemently attacks this possibility: "But our teacher shames himself in proposing that Yehoshua wrote this verse. and the Temple – then it shall be said. to fulfill the vow which they had made [in the wilderness]. and it is astonishing that from the mouth of one with such wholeness of Torah and purity could come the suggestion that the Torah contains something that was not written by Moshe. in which the tribes of Israel are destined to live their lives on the western side of the Jordan. rather than the record of something which had already happened." According to the second possibility.E. see the appendix to the previous shiur. heard that Israel were coming by the way of Atarim. and that therefore the passage in Bamidbar is really referring to an event that took place during Moshe’s lifetime on the eastern side of the Jordan. Rashi adopts the view that the verse is speaking of the future: "That in the times of later generations they would say of it. Ramban (commentary to Bamidbar 21:1) proposes two possibilities. in their commentaries on the Torah.. after they reached the land of Canaan. [11] By "Men of the Great Assembly" Chazal refer (Avot 1:4 and elsewhere) to the period starting with the time of Ezra and Nechemia. only the ignorant use this for attack." When did Israel utterly destroy the cities of the Canaanites? Ibn Ezra notes. and they shall tell about this day. 'one who understands remains silent' – for one who understands knows that this [knowledge] does no harm.'" The simplest reading of the first explanation is that the Torah is recording a prophecy of Moshe. and for this reason the area where they are encamped prior to their entry into the land is already at this stage referred to as "the other side of the Jordan. However. 'If You will give this people into my hand. Ramban tends towards the view of Ibn Ezra. and He delivered up the Canaanites.. until the time of Shimon ha-Tzaddik – i. who dwelled in the Negev. and they called the name of these cities Chorma [= destruction]. And this being so. and Ibn Ezra took this view in its entirety from the Karaites. for Israel destroyed their cities completely." [8] Admittedly.' And God heard the voice of Israel. "the king of Arad – one" (Yehoshua 12:14). and they called the name of the place Chorma.. when I came to offer up my son Yitzchak as a sacrifice." [9] According to Abravanel. there is one instance in which Ramban also follows Ibn Ezra's approach. fundamental situation. he fought against Israel and took some of them captive. According to the first possibility. 36 was added at a later stage. IIDivrei Hayamim 8:17). asks Rabbi Yehuda heChasid (in his commentary on Devarim 2). daughter of Matred. by positing that verses in another book (Bereishit in our case). How. Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid answers questions on a verse in one book (in our case Bamidbar). with the marriage of Meheitavel. at the time of Israel’s travels in the wilderness Etzion Gever was in an area in which they were permitted to travel (i.. 2. saying: May God make you like Efraim and ." (Bereishit 36:39) Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid continues: "But in the days of Shlomo this had already happened.Let us examine three instances where Rabbi Yehuda heChasid attributes verses of the Torah to the Men of the Great Assembly. as is written in Divrei Ha-yamim. saying: ‘With you Israel willbless. which until now had presented no problems whatsoever.. and the name of his city was Pa'u. it did not yet belong toEdom).e.[2] It should be pointed out that Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid’s approach is far more extreme than the approach of Ibn Ezra discussed in the previous shiur.[1] 1. Concerning the verse that describes Yaakov's blessing to Efraim and Menashe: "And he blessed them on that day. daughter of Mei Zahav. to the king of Edom: "And he was succeeded by Hadar. are in fact later additions. From his words here. then. so that you will not wonder how Etzion Gever came to belong to Edom. We know that Etzion Gever is situated in the land of Edom (as we are told concerning Shlomo. Where the latter suggested that certain verses which themselves seemed out of context were later additions.e. the verse in Bereishit) was written into the Chumash in the days of the Great Assembly. and the Children of Israel were not permitted to enter the land of Edom (Devarim 2:8). daughter of Matred. and the name of his wife was Meheitavel. could be it that the Children of Israel reached Etzion Gever during their travels (Bamidbar 33:35)? His solution is that Etzion Gever fell into the hands of Edom only at a later stage." Therefore. it would seem that the entire unit regarding the kings of Edom in Bereishit ch. therefore it (i. [3] 3.[6] As a result of this controversy.Menashe’ . There is an even more startling assertion elsewhere in his commentary. psalm 136] was created. a new edition appeared with most of the controversial excerpts removed. was set aside. wrote: "My father's explanation [of ‘and he set Efraim before Menashe’] was that this is said not of Yaakov.specifically concerning this verse.[4] It turns out. 'His younger brother will be greater than him. that the same views are already cited in another work from the Middle Ages. the first edition of Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid's commentary. this book. or the Men of the Great Assembly. son of Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid. Moshe. R. however. and the crossing of Wadi Arnon.. until David came and removed Moshe's psalm. but rather of Moshe: Moshe placed Efraim as the leader of one camp. too.that it was a later addition. according to which not only were later sections added to the Torah. Owing to the surrounding controversy. for example. written by Rabbi Menachem Tzioni ben Meir. from which the above quotations were taken. and it certainly comes as a surprise that Rabbi Yehuda heChasid sees fit to suggest . Thus. and it was [originally] written in the Chumash. Then this song [i. because Yaakov had said.and he set Efraim before Menashe" (Bereishit 48:20).[7] The prevailing view among academic scholars is that this is indeed a genuine commentary. in the name of Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid.e.' And Yehoshua wrote this. but sections were also removed. which presents no difficulty in and of itself . and included it inTehillim. he writes explicitly concerning the Song of the Well (Bamidbar 21): "'Then Israel sang this song' – my father and teacher explained this as a reference to the GreatHallel (Tehillim 136) which followed their deliverance from Sichon and Og.[5] who offers the same commentary concerning the Song of the Well. and some have argued that such things could not possibly have been written by Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid and that they are therefore a forgery." This is a startling interpretation even on the literal level of the text." The publication of this work aroused great controversy. was subject to polemic and debate. and . and even in places where suggesting such interpretations was not the only way of addressing a textual problem. too.' you would understand its secret and the secret of its name. R. for it was not he who wrote this verse. but rather someone else. he explained. based on an objective look at the simple. In other words. And do not be surprised at what I say – that 'someone else wrote it. literal text. on sources that we shall examine later on. Shlomo addresses Ibn Ezra's understanding of the word "Azazel. And this is the secret that is referred to here – that it was not Moshe who wrote this verse." R.” Ibn Ezra. Shlomo understood Ibn Ezra's intention here as a hint that this word. Shlomo continued:[10] "Do not be surprised at the fact that he [Moshe] wrote this Aramaic word in the Torah. inter alia. R.not a forgery. who did not regard this view as representing any contradiction or denial of faith in the Divine origin of the Torah. we might point to Moshe's words to the . To the verses discussed above we might add several more which seem to feature the same phenomenon alluded to by Ibn Ezra. As an example. This view is based. knew that the word "Azazel" means "wilderness" in Aramaic. for it has parallels in the Torah. the pietists in Germany expressed the same ideas quite openly and explicitly."[11] The most startling aspect of these latter sources is that while Ibn Ezra wrote his view in very cautious and concealed language.” which had been expressed as follows: "If you could understand the secret that lies behind the word 'Azazel.[12] We may therefore state that the assertion that there are later verses in the Torah. R. has support in the view of some medieval commentators. Shlomo ben Shmuel. there are many verses which were not said by Moshe…. belongs to the "secret of the twelve. The approach maintaining that some verses of the Torah were added at a later stage is continued in the writing of a student of Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid. where the language testifies to the verse having been added after Moshe's time – and in which this conclusion is far more compelling than it seems to be in the verses discussed by the sages of Germany.[8] As part of his studies on the commentary of Ibn Ezra.' for there are other such instances in the Torah.[9] Therefore. for I shall not give you their land for a possession. The commentators offer different explanations: according to Ramban.' The Chorim had also previously dwelled in Se'ir. the children of Esav merit to conquer the Chorim in Se'ir. For the purposes of our discussion. nor goad them into battle. who were conquered by Avraham. suggesting that the text means to compare the conquest by the children of Esav to the conquest by the Children of Israel of the areas to the east of the Jordan. since at the time of Moshe's speech. and annihilated them from before them. verses 10-12 do indeed interrupt God's message to Moshe. the important point here is to be found at the end of verse 12.nation in the first speech in the book of Devarim. For this reason. However. Israel had not yet entered – much less conquered – the land. they too were considered Refa'im." On the level of the plain meaning of the text. since I have given Ar to the children of Lot as a possession. it is not unreasonable to posit that here too these verses might represent a later addition. if we adopt the same logic that Ibn Ezra employs elsewhere. owing to their status as descendants of Avraham. but the children of Esav succeeded them. which had already been accomplished. which God gave to them. this is a most surprising statement. according to which the children of Esav conquered the Chorim "as the Children of Israel did [past tense] to the land of their possession. this was written as a forecast of future events. Even Ibn Ezra offers a standard interpretation. but the Moavim called them 'Emim. as were the Anakim. which God gave to them.[13] (to be continued) Translated by Kaeren Fish . they are nevertheless destined to belong to the children of Lot and of Esav. and dwelled there in their stead – as the Children of Israel did to the land of their possession.)" (Devarim2:9-12) According to Ramban. (The Emim had previously lived there – a great and populous and tall people. and their role is to explain why the Children of Israel will not receive the inheritance of the children of Lot and the children of Edom: although these areas belong to the Refaim and the Anakim. which appear to be suddenly interrupted by a parenthetical statement: "And God said to me: Do not harass Moav. like the Anakim. Appendix – The 20th Century Debate Surrounding the Authenticity of the Commentary of Rabbi Yehuda He-Chassid and Sefer HaTzioni The issue was put to a number of authorities. to deny the Torah. among them Rav Moshe Feinstein zt"l. at the end of his responsum (above). In a letter dated 28 Adar I 5736 (Iggerot Moshe. denies the Torah. Yoreh De'ah. too. and therefore concludes. part III. and is included in the category of 'he has despised God's word. Inter alia. he writes: "One who suggests that Moshe wrote even a single letter on his own initiative. and it seems that he copied what he found in some book with Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid's name on . and many among even the least learned Jews will not believe them. it is even worse than the books of the heretics." Rabbi Moshe Feinstein. since Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid could not have written such things. and argued that it was clearly a forgery. in order to mislead everyone into the heretical view that Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid said this. here too we might argue that a careful look at what is actually written in this commentary reveals no hint of the idea that Yehoshua. but rather by others. siman 114) he expressed vehement opposition to the publication of the book. David or even the Men of the Great Assembly wrote these things on their own initiative. But where the name of Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid appears. it is clear that it is forbidden to print this book. one has to take into consideration the possibility that it will also lead others astray. Therefore.' And all the more so one who says that there is some matter which was written not even by Moshe. which are [at least] attributed to the heretics [themselves]. rather. they were written through prophecy and Divine inspiration. Rav Moshe Feinstein also argues that what was written makes no sense even in relation to the text itself. writes: "We do not have conclusive knowledge of who Rabbi Menachem Tzioni was.'" However. or that others came and removed some matter from the Torah – they deny the Torah and are included in the category of 'he has despised God's word. "These wicked heretics forged this within a book that is attributed to Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid. be-Lashon Chazal u-veParshanut ha-Mikra. both agree that the word "melekh" (king) refers to Moshe. In a manuscript of Sefer Moshav Zekenim (MS Paris. according to which Rashbam's interpretation accords with that of Ibn Ezra. with the view that the Torah does contain later verses. maintained this position. too. and included it among his letters after his death. based on MS Breslau (which was eventually lost). these questions are easily addressed. the manuscript of Rabbi Yehuda heChasid should likewise not be hidden away… and thank God I have reviewed what they wrote and I have seen that they should be interpreted in accordance with his approach." This view is. it seems to me that some misguided student wrote it. and is read with the name of Moshe Rabbeinu. and it would also be proper to write this to the leading authorities in the Landof Israel. however." However in the response Mishneh Halakhot (part XII. since it contains this heretical statement. as the Sifri asks. For I do not believe that Rav Moshe Feinstein had never seenSefer ha-Tzioni. The explanation here contradicts. Concerning the relationship between MS Breslau and other citations from Rashbam. however. siman 214). in other instances. too. see G. 223-226. as Rashi explains inparashat Bereishit: Kush and Ashur did not yet exist. I would say that it is forbidden to sell or buy Sefer Tzioni. immediately rejected: "But this raises a difficulty: can there be a sefer Torah that is deficient. Rabbi Menashe Klein (the "Ungvarer Rov") expresses surprise at this questioning of the credentials of Rabbi Menachem Tzioni. in accordance with the Halakha." [1] For elaboration on this subject. pp. which is well-known. Tel Aviv 5743. . and the possibility that Rashbam did indeed agree. Yehuda he-Chasid." Further on in the same responsum he writes: "In truth. Brin. "Nussach Perush Rashbam la-Torah al-pi Ketav-Yad Breslau ve-al-pi Mekorot Nosafim. And the hands of strangers reigned over him and chose themselves a reputed scholar." in: Te'udah 3 – Mechkarim be-Sifrut ha-Talmud. but this is not their place. "Kavim le-Perush ha-Torah shel R. he must surely have been familiar with it.it. without paying attention. but they appear in the text. the text of Rashbam's commentary that we have today. But in fact this is not a real question. and uses the same tactic against Rav Feinstein's response: "But the truth is I do not believe that this was said by Rabbi Feinstein." Iyyunei Mikra u-Parshanut 13. Jacobs. National Library 260 HEB) there is a commentary attributed to Rashbam: "And these are the kings – Rashbam explained that this unit was written in the days of the Judges. in light of this. see the article by my friend Y. since there are several verses which Moshe wrote with reference to the future. with reference to the future. rather. [2] It is possible that Rashbam." As we have seen. which is not sown. Shlomo did not understand Ibn Ezra correctly. [8] R. M. 274277. c. as well as several liturgical poems. How. in Sefer Vayikra? He proposes interpretation here we find. see Y. even the new edition included the proposition that this was written after Moshe's time. Shlomo ben R. which we discussed in the previous shiur. Adma and Tzevoyim. Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid actually suggests this in view of the Gemara in Menachot (21a). Jerusalem 5749. [6] See appendix. which God overthrew in His anger and His wrath" (Devarim 29:11-22). 29-39. Rather. but concerning something that need not necessarily be said [since it makes no practical difference]. Peles. if there was some need for it. Jerusalem5764. nor does it produce. [5] Rabbi Menachem Tzioni ben Meir lived in Germany. [10] Ta-Shma. i. Shlomo notes the relevant verses cited by Ibn Ezra. see Jacobs' article (see footnote 2 above). see ad loc." Tarbiz 80:1 (5772). stating that the salt referred to here is "melach sedomit" (salt of Sedom). [7] Not all were removed. see Y. Schwartz. "Perhaps originally the text simply read. pp. Shlomo raises the possibility that Moshe could indeed have written this verse as a prophecy.' and after Moshe wrote this in [parashat] Nitzavim. [4] See appendix. could this have appeared earlier in the Torah. then. . R. Concerning the verse about Og's bed in the Ammonite city of Rabba. His work. c. and various studies have addressed the scope of this phenomenon. 5-6 (125-126). with all your sacrifices you shall offer salt" (Vayikra 2:13). such as this verse. they ate the manna until they reached the border of the land of Kena'an. the Bashan. 276-277. "You shall not cause the salt of the covenant of your God to be lacking from your meal offering. Ta-Shma. He wrote a kabbalistic commentary on the Torah. and he named them. b. 'is it not in Rabba…'. Kenesset Mechkarim: Iyyunim be-Sifrut ha-Mechkarit bi-Yemei ha-Benayim 1. 1160-1240. Te'amim shel Chumash." Here again." Ramban comments here that Ibn Ezra is hinting to a verse that appears 33 verses hence. called Sefer Tzioni. For more about this interesting figure. 'You shall not cause salt to be lacking from your meal offering." From the formulation of the verse it would seem that it speaks of the arrival of Israel in the land as an event that had already taken place. Ibn Ezra himself alludes to this. in the past. R. pp. so why say that Moshe did not write it? To this one must answer that he could have prophesied and said something through the Divine spirit. 1340-1410. R. 'Is it not in Rabba…'. he could have prophesied through his Divine spirit and said. Y. Shemot 16:35 – "And the Children of Israel ate the manna for forty years." inMoriah 11. [13] Two more examples of verses presenting a similar difficulty: a. Shmuel lived in France. burning throughout the land. until they reached inhabited land. 282-310. like the overthrow of Sedom and Amora. it certainly could not have been written by Moshe. "Perush Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid leBereishit 48:20-22. The "secret" that Ibn Ezra refers to here is not related to later additions to the Torah. includes commentary and allegories on the Torah. see Y. Devarim 3:14: "Yair ben Menashe took all of the region of Argov. and he had never been in Rabba of the children of Ammon. Even though Moshe had never been in Rabba of the children of Ammon. and is still extant in some manuscripts. pp. they then elaborated on this 'salt' – the 'salt of the covenant of your God'" (Commentary of Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid on Vayikra 2:13). For a summary of these. he would not have received the Divine spirit. "Rabbenu Menachem Tzion (ha-'Tzioni'). up until the border of the Geshuri and the Ma'akhati. Chakhamim beDoram. where would he know this from? Hence. pp.. 5742." [12] To the sources we have cited above we might add many more. but then goes on to reject it: "And if you say. pp. 9-15. This interpretation is based on the verses in parashat Nitzavim: "To cause you to pass into the covenant of the Lord your God and His oath… Brimstone and salt. [11] Further on. And since the Divine spirit did not visit him. Concerning the verse. Concerning this sage and his approach. as a parallel to what we find in Yehoshua 5:11-12.[3] For more on this commentary. it relates to the phenomenon of he-goats (se'irim) in the wilderness. after himself – Chavot Yair – to this day. nor does any grass grow upon it. Yuval. [9] It should be noted that in this specific instance. further on: "And I shall reveal to you part of this secret with the hint that when you are 33. you will know.e. see previous mention of his work. the language appears to reflect a description from the perspective of a later period. we have seen that among the medieval commentators there are two different approaches concerning the verses that appear to have been added at a later time. who replaced Moshe as leader right after his death. but . Some 500 years after he wrote his commentary. "but no man knows his grave to this day" (Devarim 34:6).[1] However. so as not to lead into error those who might not understand him properly. B. there is room to question whether it should be attributed specifically to Yehoshua. there is the sense of great distance in time suggested by the expression. "No prophet will arise. "There arose no prophet since then in Israel like Moshe. The other approach. Thus. and if we adopt the view of Ibn Ezra and other commentators.Shiur #3c: Later Verses in the Torah: The Phenomenon and Its Ramifications (continued) We discussed previously the final eight verses of the Torah. advocated by Ibn Ezra and some of the sages of Germany. who wrote them in a spirit of prophetic foresight. who may be regarded as the first of the biblical critics. since two of these eight verses would seem to have been written from a far broader and more distant perspective than that of Yehoshua. The more widely accepted approach attributes them to Moshe. "there arose no prophet. The verse does not say. If there is already a view that these verses were a later prophetic addition." This would seem to reflect a perspective later even than that of Yehoshua. and second. the text asserts. and for this reason he was careful not to set it down openly. Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677). it is entirely possible that it was added by some other prophet. and the possibility raised by Rabbi Yehuda (Bava Batra 15a) that these were written by Yehoshua. The Origins of Biblical Criticism Ibn Ezra's approach was both innovative and complex. maintained that the Torah contains verses that were added by prophets at a later stage. not necessarily Yehoshua himself.[2]arrived at the following sweeping conclusion: "With these few words [Ibn Ezra] hints and at the same time shows that it was not Moshe who wrote the Chumash." but rather. his caution lost its effect with time. whom God knew face to face" (Devarim 34:10). First of all. daughter of Mei Zahav. could seem to be a later addition. InBereishit. and Hadar reigned in his stead. reigned inEdom… and Ba'al Chanan. and his book should be burned. who lived at a much later time. that there exist in the Torah a few additional verses from after Moshe's time."[5] Indeed.' for all who hear will laugh at him… and heaven forefend. And Bela." (Bereishit 36:31-39) This unit. died. as noted by Rabbi Shemuel David Luzzatto[4] in his commentary at the beginning ofDevarim: "Now that Spinoza's books have already been disseminated in the world… I am forced to state that Spinoza wrote a complete lie… when he said that Ibn Ezra had hintingly written that it was not Moshe who wrote the Book of the Torah. since it is implies that there is already a king ruling overIsrael.rather someone else. It is true that Ibn Ezra alluded. and the name of his city was Pa'u. even Ibn Ezra himself speaks against broadening the idea of later additions to the Torah. Ibn Ezra cites a Karaite commentator named "Yitzchaki"[6] who does suggest that "this unit was written in the days of Yehoshafat. son of Be'or." but Ibn Ezra rejects his view with great vehemence: "It is with good reason that he is called 'Yitzchaki. some of the medieval commentators did indeed view the unit in this light. too. with cunning and guile. heaven forefend that the matter is as he says. and that the book that Moshe wrote was some other [work]. in the days of Yehoshafat. Ibn Ezra proposes a different interpretation: . via the hidden wisdom. and in several places misled his readers. aside from having made some errors in his studies."[3] It must be pointed out immediately that attributing this claim to Ibn Ezra was unquestionably misleading and a misrepresentation." Instead. also unquestionably spoke duplicitously. and his wife's name was Meheitavel. son of Akhbor. As we saw in the previous shiur. but nowhere in all his words and all his allusions is there any room to regard him as not believing that Moshe wrote his book… Spinoza. daughter of Matred. we find a list of the kings of Edom: "These are the kings who reigned in the land ofEdom before any king reigned over Bnei Yisrael. but not with regard to entire textual units (with the exception of the conclusion of the Torah. The approach of the medieval sages was based." We must ask. while he himself accepts in principle that there are verses that were added to the Torah at a later stage? Ibn Ezra offers no explicit reasoning. The phenomenon of later additions exists in almost every ancient text. 'Vayehi' – And there was (or 'he became') – 'a king in Yeshurun' (Devarim 33:5). The debate over this question spills over into the subjective realm. offering instead a fairly weak alternative interpretation. To address the matter at hand: Spinoza's claim invited the first critical polemic concerning the period of the composition of the Torah.[7] In any event. the central point of contention surrounding verses that appear to be later additions is whether they represent exceptions. why does Ibn Ezra attack Yitzchaki so fiercely for suggesting that this is a later unit. but . on the ancient tradition of the Book of the Torah having been written by Moshe at God's command. as it is written. Suffice it to note that in many places the Geonim and the medieval commentators refer to this phenomenon in connection with the writings of Chazal. especially in the Mishna and the Talmuds."And in truth. and is closely bound up with one’s fundamental point of departure. the meaning of 'before any king reigned over Bnei Yisrael' refers to [the leadership of] Moshe. Obviously. but it is possible that he is willing to accept the idea of later additions only with regard to fragments or single verses. The alternative claim. that the phenomenon of later additions in the biblical text is not a matter of a few isolated examples. of course. and there is no need to bring a list of examples to prove this. as Ibn Ezra and the sages of Germany understood them to be. as argued by Spinoza and many of the scholars who followed him. where the addition does not occur in the midst of the text). or whether they are only a small sample that is in fact representative of the biblical text as a whole. it seems that Ibn Ezra's objection speaks for itself with regard to Spinoza's claim that Ibn Ezra himself believed that Moshe did not write the Torah. and the debate continues to this day. with a willingness in principle to recognize the occasional later addition. They do not interrupt the flow of the narrative. Other arguments Spinoza and his followers based their views not only on verses whose language seems to suggest that they were written after Moshe's death." or "Behold. but also on other arguments. and they are not integral to the narrative itself." "Concerning which it is said this day. One of the main arguments is as follows: if the Torah was written by Moshe. as well as his own lineage and his actions and the events of his life. this argument may be rejected out of hand: the Torah was never presented as Moshe's own book. drawing a distinction between the different claims and their degree of seriousness. which we will now examine."[8] On this basis. this approach concludes that the entire Torah is a composition dating to a time later than Moshe. In the mountain God shall be seen. Specifically such fragments as "And the Canaanites were then in the land. and to view these verses as exceptions which indicate nothing about the origins of the text as a whole. Yet an objective appraisal of the verses we have discussed until now would seem to indicate the very opposite. "And the man Moshe was extremely humble. how is it that Moshe refers to himself in the third person. Therefore the Torah says. and do not bear the signs of later addenda at all. 'And God spoke to . Therefore. runs as follows: "These excerpts are not addenda. in the third person.[9] writing among other things. more than any other person upon the face of the earth" (Bamidbar 12:3)? However. they are integral to the narrative and necessary in their context.rather indicative of a much broader body of later writing. and their language and style in no way differs from that which precedes or follows them. his bed is a bed of iron" precisely meet those criteria that are mentioned as possible indicators of (occasional) later addenda: they may certainly be deleted with ease from the text. C. there is no reason not to adhere to the path set by the medieval sages. and it speaks in the third person for the simple reason pointed out by Ramban: "Moshe wrote the lineage of all the early generations. they cannot easily be removed in such a way as to leave a logical text. the tribe of Dan did not succeed in conquering its intended inheritance (seeShoftim 1:34). and then he is mentioned as though someone else was talking about him… And the reason for the Torah being written in this way is because it preceded the creation of the world. while other parts describe events of which Moshe could not have had any knowledge. yet those names were given to those places only after Moshe's time. which is on the left side of Damascus. And he divided [his camp] against them by night.Moshe and said to him' – as a narrator talking about two other characters. and obviously also the birth of Moshe. as the Kabbalah teaches – it was written in black fire upon white fire. There is therefore no contradiction between the fact that the Torah speaks about Moshe in the third person. narrating the events of his life and his actions. introduction to Bereishit) The Torah cannot be Moshe's own book. born in his house – three hundred and eighteen – and he pursued them until Dan. The best-known example concerns Avraham's battle against the five kings: "And when Avram heard that his brother had been taken captive. which is in the region of Damascus. The problem pointed out by these critics is that in many instances the Torah mentions places by name. as described at the end ofShoftim. and was therefore forced to find an alternative portion of land. as set forth inYehoshua (19:40-48). And thus Moshe is like a scribe who copies from an ancient book and writes.[10] Let us now examine a far weightier argument which Spinoza was the first to raise. there is no mention of Moshe in the Torah until he is born. in the story about Mikha's idol . its importance is derived specifically from the assumption that it expresses God's word. since parts of it describe events that preceded his own birth. and therefore he writes impersonally." (Ramban. However. There is also a more fundamental aspect to this question: the Torah is not Moshe's personal book. The name "Dan" raises an immediate question: the original inheritance of the tribe of Dan was supposed to be in the center of the coastal region and the interior lowlands. he led forth his trained servants. This being so. and which has since been echoed by others." (Bereishit 14:14) Avram pursues the kings northward. and the assumption that Moshe wrote the Torah – as the traditional view has it – like a scribe copying from an ancient book. up until Dan. he and his servants. and he smote them and pursued them until Chova. ed. Macpherson." (Shoftim 18:29)[11] How. then.g. I shall cite his approach to various subjects in this series. Radak offers two solutions. The first is that the name "Dan" is written here with prophetic insight." Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy. they called it 'Dan' after Dan. Leviathan. and have proposed various explanations. their father. Hobbes. who arrived at similar conclusions to those of Spinoza: see T. 418. even though they are formulated in the past tense. Spinoza. [2] . because when Moshe wrote this it was not yet called by this name. integrating his faith in God and in the Torah with critical research. "Theological-Political Treatise. conquered the city of Layish. educator. [3] B.Baltimore 1968. while during Moshe's lifetime the tribe of Dan was not even supposed to live there? Why is the city not referred to by its original name – Layish (or Leshem)?[12] Biblical commentators throughout the generations have wrestled with this question. He headed the rabbinical academy in Padua. [4] The biblical commentator Rabbi Shemuel David Luzzato (Shadal) (1800-1865) was also a philosopher. It is therefore difficult to understand why the generation that received the Torah was presented with a place name unfamiliar to them. after the name of Dan. e.' And when it was conquered by the children of Dan. it was called 'Leshem. who was born to Yisrael. C. does Bereishit speak of the city of Dan. Along with Thomas Hobbes." This interpretation continues the approach maintaining that some verses in the Torah were written through prophetic vision with reference to the future. 7 below. Cambridge 2007. Thus the children of Dan moved to the north. and historian. their father. with reference to the future: "[Thus named] because of its ultimate destiny.[13]Yet this approach is somewhat problematic. and engaged in every branch of Jewish study. p. for there is no hint in the text that it refers to a future reality. and only then gave the city its new name: "And they called the name of the city Dan.(chapter 18). Translated by Kaeren Fish [1] See Rabbi Yosef ben Eliezer in n.B. But the original name of the city was Layish.[14] We shall continue next week with Radak’s second answer. Schwartz (see above. But this is not the approach taken by narrators of the Tanakh. [9] Spinoza made a mistake when he argued that only in part of the Torah does Moshe speak in the third person. [6] Opinions are divided as to his identity.). [11] In the brief parallel description in Yehoshua 19:47. or Leshem – and so why does the text refer to it by its later name?"   Shiur #03d: Later Verses in the Torah: The Phenomenon and Its Ramifications (continued) . despite the simple fact that nowhere is there any suggestion that the Torah is presented as Moshe's own book. up to Dan." [12] The same difficulty arises concerning the verses at the end of the Torah. However. every instance of his use of the first person. B. 24. This argument is also made by Robert Alter (The World of Biblical Literature. p." in Z. Y. on the verse. Jerusalem 5769. Fishbane (eds. 176. for a word or a verse is commentary. since according to his view the final eight verses of the Torah were not written in Moshe's time.Mikra veOlamo.Y. [13] This traditional approach had been mentioned by Ibn Ezra before he outlined his own "secret of the twelve. at the beginning ofDevarim. See. the same baseless claims are still being propounded in our generation. 8. is a quotation from one of the lengthy speeches that he delivers before his death. p. Jerusalem 5737. 'You shall not add to it' (Devarim 13:1). in which the author highlights himself. while in Sefer Devarimhe speaks about himself in the first person. For more on this subject. but the prevailing view identifies him as Yitzchak ben Yashush of Toledo (982-1057). p. Surprisingly. whereas an entire unit is a textual addition. inparashat Bereishit (10:11). pp. while the Torah itself stipulates. And if someone should raise the question. where we read: "Moshe ascended from the plains of Moav to Mount Nevo. and I said' – since the beginning of thatSefer states. 'From that land emerged Ashur']. Sifrit ha-Mikra – Mevo'ot u-Mechkarim. Avraham (Ibn Ezra) himself not hint. see also M. But this is not the case here: until the name of the place was changed to 'Dan' it had a name that was known – Layish. 8).Sheffield 1993. see: U. "Ha-Torah: Chameshet Chumasheha ve-Arba Te'udoteha." See also n. n. 13 ad loc. 546-549. Schwartz. the original name of the city is recorded as "Leshem. New York 1992). pp. The impression arising from a simple reading of the text is that the reference here is to "Dan" in the north. Who Wrote The Bible? San Francisco. up until the utmost sea" (Devarim 34:1-2). for example. and the land of Efraim and Menashe. "Yizchaki: A Spanish Biblical Commentator Whose 'Book Should be Burned' According to Abraham Ibn Ezra. p. Therefore the Torah now names it according to the way in which it will be called in the future. and all of Naftali. And God showed him the entire land of Gil'ad. to the top of Pisga. in this context – at least according to Ibn Ezra's approach – this does not present problem. Spinoza did not pay attention to the fact that nowhere does Moshe speak about himself in the first person as the "narrator". ch. Talshir (ed. Segal (Mevo ha-Mikra.). Friedman." [8] B. to clarify it. 1997. 177. 'These are the things which Moshe spoke to all of Israel' – and thus the text records his speech in the first person." in M.[5] Concerning Spinoza's distortion of Ibn Ezra. 217–232 [7] As R. Simon. this applies only where it had no previous name. Haran. Minha Le-Nahum. As Ramban notes in his introduction to Bereishit: "Do not be troubled by the matter of Moshe speaking about himself in Sefer Devarim – 'And I pleaded and prayed to God. that the later prophets added words and verses to the Torah? The answer is that to add a word or verse in explanation of what Moshe had written. throughout Sefer Devarim.E. Yosef ben Eliezer (Tuv Elem) writes: "For if it had been written in the days of Yehoshafat. facing Yericho. Barukh Epstein (1860-1942) in hisTorah Temima: "Even though we find instances where the Torah names something on the basis of the future [as explained above. 124) argues that the argument of the Bible critics is "founded on the norms of secular literature. is not the same as adding an entire unit. Did R. and all the land of Yehuda." [14] The difficulty is noted by R. Z. then an entire unit would have been added to the Torah. Brettler and M. R. Jerusalem 5771. who generally minimize their own presence." [10] M. As a first possibility. We saw Radak’s suggestion that the Torah calls it “Dan” due to prophetic foresight. Until that point.” and it is these suggestions that we shall review in this shiur. was called ‘Dan. in those days. It is quite possible that the Torah is talking about some place other than the one called ‘Dan’ during the period of the Judges. and the grapes that they take from there. and they cut down from there a branch with a cluster of grapes… That place was called Wadi Eshkol on account of the cluster of grapes which Bnei Yisrael cut from there” (Bamidbar 13:23-24). “[these are] the words of Moshe” – meaning that the verse is written from the later perspective of Moshe. he writes. when the tribe of Dan settle there after having failed to conquer the territory in the central coastal region that was allotted to them (Shoftim 18). while at the point in time when the spies . despite the general geographic proximity of the north-eastern region. In the story of the spies we read. we have no way of identifying exactly which place is referred to by ‘Dan’ in the days of Avraham. that the place is given its name. This seems paradoxical: at first it appears that the spies arrive at a place which is already called “Wadi Eshkol. It is quite common for different places in Israel to be known by the same name. The specific example we chose was Avraham’s battle against the five kings. in which he is described as pursuing them until Dan (Bereishit 14:14). We will understand them as both important methodological considerations for the study of Tanakh in their own right. as well as providing compelling alternatives to the conclusions drawn by Spinoza. Ibn Ezra suggests two possible ways of understanding these verses. 1) Radak himself proposed a different possibility: “Or perhaps there was another place which.In the previous shiur we raised the question of how certain places mentioned in the Torah are called by names that are only given to them many years after the death of Moshe.’”[1] Indeed. the city had been called Layish or Leshem. Yet the area near Damascus described in Bereishit only becomes known as Dan in the days of the Judges.” while afterwards the text seems to indicate that it is only in the wake of their visit. Many commentators rejected Radak’s position and suggested other possibilities for explaining the appearance of the name “Dan. “And they came as far as Wadi Eshkol.[2] 2) Ibn Ezra addresses this problem as part of a discussion that includes other verses as well. Spinoza claimed that such examples indicated that the Torah as a whole was written at a much later date than is traditionally assumed. ” The place referred to as “Chova. could have been a later addition. is mentioned nowhere else in Tanakh. naming the city in memory of their ancestor.” Why does Ibn Ezra himself suggest no such thing. and the name given as a result of the events recounted in the text simply provide further reason to call the place by that name.[4] Ibn Ezra’s innovation. with regard to our present discussion. known as Ot Nefesh. which is on the left side of Damascus. And he divided himself against them by night. In one of the early commentaries written on Ibn Ezra.” and concluded that it. and the descendants of Dan eventually restored the original name. one could argue that this verse.[6] and it is therefore possible that at some . while “he pursued as far as Dan” is integral to the story itself.” to the north (“left”) of Damascus. ‘And he pursued up until Dan’ – as though another name. the author incorrectly understands Ibn Ezra as suggesting that the verse “he pursued them up until Dan” (as well as the verse concerning Wadi Eshkol) is a later addition. too. but rather are provided as “midrash shemot.arrived at this place. some commentaries understood from his words cited above that he included this verse. surprisingly enough.” providing new meaning for names that had already existed previously.[5] 3) Although Ibn Ezra’s explanation seems quite clear. More important for the purposes of our present discussion is Ibn Ezra’s second suggestion: “Perhaps the same possibility exists here as in the verse. he and his servants. represents a later addition to the Torah. for a different reason. despite the fact that he does in principle recognize the phenomenon of later additions? Once again. is that the name of the city of Dan actually underwent three different stages: at first it was called ‘Dan. it seems that Ibn Ezra is willing to acknowledge later additions only when it comes to fragments that look like digressions. it did not yet have this name. Nevertheless. is a common occurrence: the names given to places or people in Tanakh are not the original reasons for their names. within the “secret of the twelve.’ later the name was changed to ‘Layish’/’Leshem’.” The plain meaning of Ibn Ezra’s alternative seems to be that the place (Wadi Eshkol/Dan) had been called by the same name in the past. “from the time of the Judges. too. and he smote them and pursued them as far as Chova. too. too. the pursuit is actually mentioned twice: “And Avraham heard that his brother had been taken captive… And he pursued as far as Dan.[3] This. since a close look at the text reveals that. eastward. but it is somewhat forced. The next verse tells that he fell upon them to return the spoils. 6). concerning whom we read (ibid. Grintz proposes viewing Dedan as one of the children of Ketura (Bereishit 25:3).[9] but rejects R. 5) In later generations. 29:1). where the word should start with that same letter. Epstein’s suggestion that it be identified with the children of Cham. to the land of Kedem. Yechezkel 38:13). Avraham gave gifts and sent them away from Yitzchak. Instead.” The land of Kedem (“East”) is in the region of the Euphrates. since Dedan is mentioned in several places in juxtaposition with Sheva (for instance. Dedan is mentioned in several places in Tanakh. which is in the south. 4) Rabbi Barukh Epstein. the manner of the language is such that a letter which occurs at the end of a word also serves as the first letter of the following word. while he himself was still alive. O inhabitants of Dedan. “He pursued up until Dedan” (va-yirdof ad Dedan). Grintz’s conclusion is. Dedan is therefore the outermost limit of the pursuit. “And to the children of Avraham’s concubines. as we knowinter alia from the story of Yaakov’s journey to Charan. raises the possibility that this verse represents an example of a phenomenon that is prevalent elsewhere: “In many places.” This suggestion is certainly original.”[7] Here. and this place was known from ancient inscriptions.[10] but it seems that a full solution to this question has been . but for the sake of the literary flow. and also requires that we assume that the phenomenon of omission of a letter where it is adjacent to another word starting with the same letter. his son. with Dedan representing the name of the place. as noted there. in his Torah Temima. occurs at least twice more in Tanakh. where we read. such as in the prophecy of Yirmiyahu (49:8) – “Dwell in the depths. indicating that at some stage the pursuit continued as far as Dan – a more familiar location.” or in the words of Yechezkel (27:15) to the city of Tyre: “The men of Dedan were your merchants.later stage an explanatory note was added. son of Noach (Bereishit 10:7). named for one of the descendants of Cham.”[8] Grintz accepts the identification of the place as Dedan. “In this instance it is clear that Avram and his allies pursued the kings up until the border of the Euphrates. the text described first what happened later.. the text should read. additional suggestions were offered. “Yaakov lifted his legs and went to the land of the children of the East” (ibid. and he shall be a haven for ships. Blessed of God is his land. etc. Moreover. First. The children of Menashe: to Makhir – the Makhiri family. it seems to be no coincidence that when Yehuda goes down from his brothers.[11] He bases his explanation on two central points.. the Chefri family” (Bamidbar 26:30-32).[14] Likewise. and He shall dwell between his shoulders” (Devarim 33:12). for the dew and for the deep that couches beneath… and from the chief things of the ancient mountains. to Gil’ad – the Gil’adi family” (Bamidbar 26:28-29). He shall cover him all the day long. it is possible to prove that the general division of the land among the tribes was known from the most ancient times – from the time of Yaakov – and would therefore have been known to Moshe as well when he wrote the Torah. 13-15). 10). and he dwelled in it” (Bamidbar 32:40). he mentions geographical areas in relation to some of the tribes. Among the sons of Gil’ad we find the following names: “These are the sons of Gil’ad: I’ezer – the I’ezri family… And Shekhem.[12] “And to Yosef he said. the border between Menashe and Efraim ran through Shekhem (Yehoshua17:7). and “Chefer” is usually identified (on the basis ofYehoshua 12:17-18) with the region of Menashe. His blessing to Yehuda mentions an inheritance that provides an abundance of wine (ibid. and his border shall be at Sidon” (Bereishit 49:13). he wanders about in the Timna region (Bereishit 38:12). Similarly. God’s beloved shall dwell in safety by Him. which ultimately became part of his inheritance . For example. son of Menashe. he says. agriculture. “Zevulun shall dwell at the shore of the sea. In Yaakov’s blessings to his sons prior to his death. for the precious things of heaven. the Shikhmi family… and Chefer. “Shekhem” and “Chefer” are names of well-known ancient cities in Eretz Yisrael. and the fact that the tribe of Menashe ultimately receives their inheritance in the region of Gil’ad: “And Moshe gave the Gil’ad to Makhir.[13] Other descendants of the family of Menashe were also given names of places which ultimately correspond with places that became part of that tribe’s inheritance. “To Binyamin he said.proposed by Yehuda Elitzur. It is difficult to argue that there is no connection between the fact that Menashe’s grandson is called Gil’ad. To Zevulun. Moshe’s blessings to the tribes before his death are also partly related to geographical areas recognized for their landmarks. the Torah talks about the son of Makhir. and Makhir bore Gil’ad. and for the precious things of the primordial hills” (ibid. son of Menashe – “the sons of Yosef by their families: Menashe and Efraim. Efraim.’ since it would seem to suggest that the original inheritance of the tribe of Dan was supposed to be in the north when. is not sufficient to answer our question concerning ‘Dan. as described in Bamidbar (chapter 2): according to the layout described in the Torah. serves as an indication that the location of the tribe of Dan in the north was known prior to the inheritance of the land. after the tribes of Reuven and Gad relinquish their portion on the western side of the Jordan. This may be proved on the basis of two main sources. with my sword and with my bow” (Bereishit 48:22). The tribes of Dan. then. Yissakhar and Zevulun encamp in the east. Why. in and of itself. as stated above. the same conclusion may be arrived at on the basis of the structure of the Israelite camp.[17]Second. the tribes of Yehuda. did Dan not inherit their portion in the north at the outset? It seems that this was the result of certain changes that had occurred since the original plan for the division of the land. just as their banner in the wilderness was on the northern side of the camp. This helps us understand why ultimately the inheritance of the land did not reach . Menashe and Binyamin in the west. as expressed early on. are located in the center of the country.[15] It therefore seems clear that the brothers (Yaakov’s sons) were themselves aware of the division of the land which their descendants were supposed to carry out. it seems to be hinted to in Moshe’s blessing to the tribe of Dan: “Dan is a lion’s cub that leaps from Bashan” (Devarim 33:22). while those whose banners are in the south and the north do in fact inherit the land in these respective areas. we know that Dan had been supposed to take their portion in the south (Shoftim1:34).[16] Second. between the portions of Menashe and Efraim. requesting instead the land on the eastern side. However. Asher and Naftali in the north. This. Elitzur argues that the reality was exactly the opposite: the original inheritance of Dan wasindeed supposed to be in the north. this assumption. Asher and Naftali settle in the north. and finally – Dan. Shimon and Gad in the south. in the words of Moshe. Similarly. where Moshe speaks to the tribe of Dan as though its inheritance lies in the Bashan area (in the north). as mentioned previously. As we can see.[18] the layout of the “banners” essentially mirrors the structure of settlement of the land by the tribes:[19] the tribes whose banners are in the east and the west. First. it is difficult to ignore the connection between Yaakov’s words to Yosef – “I have given you one portion (shekhem echad) more than your brothers. which I took from the hand of the Emori. and the fact that the city of Shekhem ends up within the inheritance of Yosef.(Yehoshua14:57). Reuven. too. The most prominent amendment to the original plan concerns the portion of Zevulun. “He pursued as far as Dan. However. 34). and we have offered various possibilities for explaining this phenomenon.” but is ultimately limited to the lower Galilee (see Yehoshua19:10-16. which would only occur later on. Summary Over the previous shiurim we have seen the following: on the basis of their analysis of the text. from Spinoza’s time onwards. In light of this approach. the familiarity of the writer of the Torah with the division of the land. cannot serve as proof of later authorship of the Torah. were added to the Torah after Moshe’s time. which seeks to argue on the basis of individual.as far as “the approach to Chamat” (Bamidbar 34:8): the land was expanded eastward. We have also addressed at length the argument for later authorship based on the mention of places in the Torah whose names were given only after Moshe’s time. they moved northward and conquered the original inheritance which had been intended for them since the time of Yaakov and his sons. by one of the prophets. there is no room to support an argument for a later authorship of the Torah on the basis of verses such as. but some of the medieval sages – especially Ibn Ezra – continue their line of argument and point to some other verses whose plain meaning raises the possibility that they. after the tribe of Dan failed to conquer this region. . the tribe of Dan receives its inheritance in the central region – which may originally have been meant for the tribe of Reuven or Gad. We have demonstrated that the thesis of the Bible critics. D. and is based on a simplification and misrepresentation of the concept of later additions to the Torah. and therefore there were some northernmost parts that were not conquered and settled. Their discussion concerns the final eight verses of the Torah. exceptional verses that the entire Torah was written later is unproven. which was originally meant to be “at the shore of the sea… and his border at Sidon. well supported by the plain meaning of the text. Therefore. since the division of the land is frequently presented as ancient knowledge.” The Torah hints again and again to the fact that the division of the land – including the northern inheritance of the tribe of Dan – existed and was known in general form from ancient times. too. In the wake of these alterations.Chazal discuss the possibility of some verses having been added to the Torah after the death of Moshe. in Shoftim 1:31 – in the inheritance of Asher. [4] We shall suffice here with a well-known example: following the covenant and oath between Avraham and Avimelekh. 3). ‘liability’) as an allusion to the idolatrous practices that would be maintained there in the future. However. In the next chapters we will address further claims pertaining to this subject.” In other words. ‘And he pursued up until Dan’ – either through prophecy. Moshe describes for the Children of Israel the location of the mountains of Eval and Gerizim: “Facing Gilgal. we read: “Therefore he called that place Be’er Sheva. if it was given this name only during the time of Yehoshua – “And God said to Yehoshua. “the valley of Sidim. that drew the descendants of Dan to conquer it. the name “Afek” belongs to at least three different cities (mentioned inShmuel I 4:1 – in the region of Shilo. to this day” (ibid.Hence. our analysis of the verses themselves does not support an argument for the later authorship of the Torah. Yichudo ve-Kadmuto shel Sefer Bereishit. [3] Ibn Ezra offers the same suggestion in a different context where the same sort of textual difficulty arises. Grintz. [5] This interpretation is adopted by A. Dan is called Chova (literally. and the only new aspect of the name was the new meaning reflected in it. the place had been known by the same name previously.” Of course. which is the Salt Sea” (ibid. in the same chapter. it should had read. 26:32-33). In other words. 15:25). in Yitzchak’s time a completely different explanation is given for the name: “And it was on that day that the servants of Yitzchak came and told him about the well which they had dug. therefore. How could Moshe call the place Gilgal. finds support for this possibility in the fact that had the text been speaking about the same place. Jerusalem 5741. “Similar to. Weiser. but also the name of a city in the southern part of the inheritance of Yehuda (ibid.. 7). to other places known by more than one name: “The king of Bela.M. He adds that it was perhaps the fact that the city had originally borne that name. [6] Chazal noted the difficulty of identifying “Chova. And he called it Shiv’a. Ibn Ezra proposes. rather than to the north of it. 69-70. . [2] For example. and the “renaming” was simply a matter of imbuing the existing name with new significance. as well as a place in the northern part of Jerusalem. and they told him. since the city of Dan lies south-west of Damascus. 17). to this day” (Yehoshua 5:9)? Once again. for there the two of them swore (nishbe’u)” (Bereishit 21:31). pp.” As Rashi comments here. which is by Elonei Mamrei” (Devarim 11:30). and in Melakhim I 20:26 – in the area of the Golan). the name of the city is Be’er Sheva.” in the same way that we find reference. “Chatzor” is not only the name of a major city in the Galilee (Yehoshua 11:10). This day I have rolled (galoti) the reproach of Egypt from upon you. “There is no place that is named ‘Chova. which is Layish/Leshem. mentioned in the list of cities of Binyamin in the days of Nechemia (Nechemia 11:33). Similarly. “And they returned and they came to Ein Mishpat. Translated by Kaeren Fish [1] Y. And he called the name of that place Gilgal. in his commentaryTanakh Meforash on Sefer Bereishit. “to the valley of Shaveh.’ which is Tzo’ar” (14:2). “Dan. which is Kadesh” (ibid. this explanation brings a whole new difficulty. which is the king’s valley” (ibid. the place had been called “Gilgal” previously.’ Rather. Jerusalem 5743. [7] This phenomenon will be discussed at length in the chapter discussing the letter-text (nusach) of Tanakh. or as two names. We have found water. On the one hand. Elitzur argues that the casting of the lots for the inheritance of the land. Nissan 5749. another is the discovery of Yonatan as the person who has violated the oath of Shaul. the mere mention of “shoulders” in other areas of Tanakh already indicates the portion of Binyamin. There are other instances in Tanakh of this sort of phenomenon. columns 252-253: “There is certainly a close connection between the city of Chefer and its ‘region. and must be carried out in a just way. An example is the story of the appointment of Shaul as king (Shmuel I 10:17-27). Jerusalem 5749. northward… And the border passed along the shoulder of Beit Chogla. descended from the tribe of Menashe. n. 17. 16. pp. to the south of Yarmuk. at God’s command (Bamidbar26:52-56. 55-56). Support for Elitzur’s argument may be found in the fact that the command in the Torah is already formulated in a way which indicates a combination between human agency and the intentions of God. northward” (Yehoshua 18:12-19). where the result is known before a selection is made. then what is the point of the command to divide the land fairly? It would therefore seem that the basic division does indeed rest in human hands. pp. and as we find in Tehillim 42:7 – “For I remember You from the land of the Jordan and from the Hermonim.” a euphemism for mountains. and there is a city by this name that is located in the portion of Zevulun (Yehoshua 19:15). [9] See Grintz (above. to the southern shoulder of Luz. to his view. Mazar. and has nothing to do with the relative size of each tribe. . Jerusalem 5725. the casting of the lot represents solely God’s confirmation of the division. p. Israel is commanded to divide the land in a just and fair manner: “For a bigger [tribe] you shall give a bigger inheritance. in the description of the shared border with Binyamin): “And the border went up to the shoulder of Yericho.” [15] Similarly. each in accordance with his census shall be given his inheritance” (Bamidbar26:54).”Encyclopedia Mikrait 3. noting many other verses which. 15:1. 14:40-42). and its implementation over the course of Sefer Yehoshua (14:2. pp.[8] This exact possibility was suggested by Rabbi Reuven Margaliot (1889-1971) in his work Ha-Mikra ve-ha-Massoret. published in Al Atar 4-5. Kiel. Ramat Gan 5748. his father: from the way in which the lot is carried out it is clear that Shaul is well aware that it is Yonatan who violated the oath (ibid. The essence of the explanation below is based on his words. immediately thereafter we find: “But by lot shall the land be divided.) [18] See the Da’at Mikra commentary on Bamidbar. 33:54). which is Beit El… and the border came down to the end of the mountain that lies before the valley of Ben-Hinnom. is not meant to establish a division ex nihilo. 48-49. [12] Aside from the allusion to Binyamin’s portion as the intended dwelling place for the Divine Presence. Midrashei Shemot ba-Mikra.” See Y. n. Eretz ha-Moriah. Jerusalem 5748. If the division of the land is ultimately carried out on the basis of a lot that depends on fate. reflect the same phenomenon. which is adjacent to the portion of Yissakhar. with regard to the city called “Layish”! (See M. Bin-Nun.’ and the extensive family of Chefer. to the slope of the Yevusi on the south… and it passed over towards the shoulder that faces the Arava. and elsewhere). However. according to the names of the tribes of their fathers shall they inherit” (ibid. raises the possibility that the text is referring not to a city called ‘Dan’ but rather to a region – “the land of Dan” – so called because of its proximity to the sources of the Jordan. 2. where “shoulders. with slight changes and some additions. [11] In a lecture he delivered in 5741. These verses appear to be in tension with each other: the second part of the command seems to indicate that the lot is decided by God. 243-249. Yissakhar calls one of his sons “Shimron” (Bereishit46:13). 66. are prominent in the description of the inheritance and its boundaries – and this term does not appear in relation to the other tribes (other than Yehuda. 1). Alon Shevut 5766. while to a smaller [tribe] you shall give a smaller inheritance. p. it merely confirms the general division that is already known. [16] In keeping with this approach. [17] There is certainly room to contemplate the allusion in the expression “a lion’s cub” (gur aryeh). in the above verse (as in other instances) the expression “Gil’ad” is used to refer to the entire eastern side of the Jordan where much of the tribe of Menashe would eventually settle. [14] Concerning this connection see B. obviously. to the north… And from there the border shall pass to Luz. in Da’at Mikra on Sefer Bereishit. although in its narrow sense “Gil’ad” refers to the region on the eastern side of the Jordan. [13] As Elitzur notes. “Chefer. 70. Jerusalem 5757. [10] Y. defining the boundaries more accurately. 16:1. instead. p. Garsiel. is created at a later stage. 1. The visual parallel suggests that their portion was originally meant to be in the southern region. twice God commands Noach to bring the animals into the Ark. and finally man – male and female together (verse 27). and twice we are told that Noach does everything as God commands him (6:14-22. has always existed. the portion that Reuven receives is in the south – but on the other side of the Jordan. and propose different explanations for the phenomena of repetition and contradiction in Tanakh. "one verse says… while another verse says…. and in relation to contradictions that occur within one single unit.   Fundamental Questions in the Study of Tanakh By Rav Amnon Bazak Duplication and Contradiction (Part 1) A. from one of Man's ribs (verses 21-23). followed by animals (verses 20-25). followed by vegetation (verses 8-9). with the text emphasizing that there was no point in creating plants prior to the appearance of man." The commentators broaden the discussion even further. both in relation to contradictions between different textual units. let us list some of the betterknown contradictions. 7:1-5). "Two biblical verses contradict one another".[1] To illustrate the phenomenon. Woman. as set forth in chapter 1 and chapter 2 of Bereishit. In chapter 2.[19] Except for an obvious deviation concerning the tribes of Reuven and Gad. Furthermore . is built on a systematic duality: twice we are told that God sees the evil of man and decides to destroy mankind from upon the earth (verses 5-8. 2. The most famous would seem to be the two descriptions of the Creation. by contrast. Chazaladdress these phenomena in many places. Background The awareness that the Torah contains many instances of duplication. man is created first (verse 7). Ultimately. as well as contradictions between different sources. 9-13). The story of the Flood. Duplications and contradictions of this sort continue throughout the narrative in Bereishit. Chapter 1 suggests that first the plants were created (verses 11-12). and note them using expressions such as. for example. and animals are created only in order to serve as a "helpmate" to man (verses 18-20). too. as stated at this Covenant between the Parts. over their lakes. This is also suggested by God's words in the Covenant between the Parts (Berit bein HaBetarim): "I am the Lord Who brought you forth from Ur Kasdim" (15:7). I will smite with the staff that is in my hand upon the water that is in the River. in the plague of blood. However. 18). God appears to Avraham and tells him that his son. 6. Yitzchak. But two verses later God tells Moshe. When Yaakov returns from Charan to Kena'an. "Go forth from your land and from your birthplace and from your father's house. we read. in Se'ir (32:3). 3. of all flesh.. are "from the River ofEgypt to the great river. For instance. but two chapters later the boundaries are limited to "the landof Kena'an" (17:8). owing to their respective wealth. Noach is told: "Of all the pure animals shall you take for yourself by sevens. "TheMidianites sold him to Egypt. the Euphrates" (ibid. Later on we read that they continued from Charan to Kena'an (12:5). The same phenomenon continues intoShemot. the captain of the guard" (37:36). but further on we read. at the end of their encounter Esav returns home to Se'ir (33:16). and . At the end of parashat Noach we read that Terach led Avram. "Behold. in light of the impossibility of both of them living in the same area. For he is told. But at the beginning of parashat Lekh-lekha. 8. "Say to Aharon: Take your staff and stretch your arm over the water of Egypt. to Potifar. this time it is Sara who laughs. male and female" (7:2). In the next chapter. and it shall turn into blood" (Shemot 7:17) – i. he sends messengers to Esav. over their rivers. 7. angels reveal themselves to Avraham and inform him that in a year's time a son will be born to him (18:10). just four verses later. to the land which I will show you" (12:1) – seemingly implying that Avraham was still in his birthplace and his father's house when God commanded him to go to Kena'an. Sarai and Lot from Ur Kasdim. Moshe himself will strike the River with his staff. Moshe says. 4. "And of all the living things.there is a direct contradiction concerning the number of animals that Noach is required to take. "And Potifar bought him… from theIshmaelites who had brought him down there" (39:1). over their streams.e. God commands Avram. located between the great sea (Mediterranean) and the Jordan River (see Bamidbar34:1-13). but they stopped in Charan (11:31-32). Pharaoh's chamberlain. In the sale of Yosef. in the direction of Kena'an. two of everything shall you bring to the Ark" (6:19-20). The boundaries of the land. and Avraham responds with laughter.. 5. will be born in a year's time (17:15-19). But in chapter 36 (verses 6-8) it seems that it is only after Yaakov's return to the land that Esav goes to Se'ir. that they might send them out of the land… for they were driven out of Egypt.)." This is also suggested in parashat Re'eh: "You shall take the awl and put it through his ear. These sorts of contradictions are to be found in legal units. with an awl. InVayikra. it is Aharon who strikes the water with his staff. and what they leave. And for your cattle. But a few verses later we read. to the door. and for the beasts in your land shall all its produce be. too. In the laws concerning a Hebrew servant. that the poor of your people may eat. for food" (Vayikra 25:6-7). Chapter 1 of Devarim beings with a description of the appointment of the judges (verses 9-18). and then "he shall serve him forever" (Shemot 21:6). we read that the essence of theShemitta year is to allow everyone to eat of the produce freely: "And the Shabbat produce of the land shall be for you for food. "For in the month of spring the Lord your God brought you out of Egypt by night. and for your servants. "[Pharaoh] called for Moshe and Aharon by night. however. the beasts of the field shall eat" (Shemot 23:11). and for your maidservants. In parashat Behar. As Rashbam explains (ad loc. and could not delay. 12. and for the stranger who sojourns with you. and not only the Nile. they shall not be sold as bondsmen" (Vayikra25:4042). those whom I brought out of the landof Egypt. and for your hired workers. Moshe tells Bnei Yisrael. At the time of the Exodus. In the commandment of Shemitta. we read that a servant who does not wish to go free in the seventh year has his ear pierced by his master. This tells us that they left by night – as supported by the verse in Devarim (16:1). "No man shall emerge from the door of his house until the morning" (12:22). by contrast. the Sabbatical year. and it . we read in Shemot that the produce of the land is meant for consumption by the poor: "But in the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow. turn into blood. and they shall be blood" – in other words. suggesting that the Exodus takes place the next day. 'And he shall remain there forever' (Shmuel I 1:22). the Torah rules out the possibility of a Hebrew servant serving beyond the Jubilee year: "Until the Jubilee year he shall work with you… for they are My servants. nor had they prepared themselves any provisions" (31-39). but all bodies of water throughout Egypt.” 10. and he shall be your servant forever" (Devarim 15:17). Especially prominent are the seeming contradictions between Devarim and the preceding Books – both in terms of the narrative and in details of halakha. as it says in the Book of Shmuel. 9. and he said: Arise and get out from among my people… and the Egyptians urged the people to hurry. in parashat Mishpatim. "The literal meaning is – all the days of his life.over all their pools of water. 11. Likewise there are differences in descriptions of what happened in the episode of the golden calf: Shemot. in Devarim it is the people who request this scouting mission. Furthermore in Shemot it is Moshe who selects the judges. the account is quite different from the one recorded inparashat Shelach. while in Devarim he appeals to the people to choose them. only afterwards does he ascend to God and ask that He annul the decree. and here again. Moshe begs and pleads and succeeds in annulling this decree. In Bamidbar. Moshe recounts the episode of the spies. In Devarim. "Observe"). and He rested on the seventh day. not permitting even the purchase of food and water. chapter 20. and the Lord your God brought you out of there. In the halakhic realm we find. The most glaring difference is that while in parashat Shelach the initiative of appointing spies comes from God. we read that the Children of Israel wanted to journey through the land of Edom. 16. with no mention of Yitro. There are also many other differences. and all that is in them. they will be permitted only to purchase food and water from them (verses 5-6). the question of whether the conclusion drawn from the mission is stated by the spies or by the people. chapter 32. extending to the reason behind the mitzva. Further on in chapter 1 of Devarim. Yehoshua's role. 15. the sea. Moshe descends the mountain with the feeling that the fate of the nation has been sealed. and more. In Devarim chapter 9 by contrast. the appointment of the judges is depicted as Moshe's own initiative.18. for example. etc. The discrepancy goes beyond the opening command ("Remember" vs. with a strong hand and an outstretched arm. 13.” Devarim emphasizes the social context: "And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt. therefore God blessed the Shabbat day and sanctified it. Shemotemphasizes the context of the man-God relationship: "For in six days God made the heavens and the earth. who in Shemot persuades Moshe to appoint judges. In chapter 2 we read of the Children of Israel's approach to Edom. concerning the purpose of the mission. therefore the Lord your God commands you to observe the day of Shabbat. as actually happens (verse 29).differs in several significant respects from the narrative in Shemot ch. the wellknown differences between Shabbat in the Ten Commandments as they appear in Shemot (20:8-11) and in Devarim (5:12-15). and the warning they are given in advance that they will not be able to enter the land of Edom." . describes how immediately after God tells Moshe of His intention to wipe out the nation. and Edom refused. 14. As another example. and come as far as Charan? Rather." On the plain level of the text. concerning the animal we read. until they reach Charan.). nor boiled at all in water" (verse 9). concerning a Hebrew maidservant we read in Sefer Shemot. In Sefer Devarim. "But did he not leave there already. and leave your father's house. his father. ad loc. The above are just a few examples of the phenomenon under discussion here. In Devarim chapter 16. and as to the form: "There you shall offer the Pesach… and you shall cook it and eat it in the place which the Lord your God will choose" (verses 6-7). The plain meaning is that she is not automatically freed when a Hebrew servant would be – "after six years" (Rashbam. and the contrasting revelation in which God calls upon him to leave "your land and your birthplace and your father's house. Rashi (12:2) writes. 18. this is what God told him: Distance yourself even further from there. a Hebrew man or Hebrew woman is sold to you. as mentioned in the previous verse. we mentioned above the textual description of Avraham journeying with Terach. For instance. one who seeks to understand the literal meaning of the text has trouble reconciling the various explanations with the plain meaning. "You shall take it from the sheep or from the goats" (verse 5). As an example. as in fact is made explicit later when his journey is recalled in Bereishit15:7.” implying that this command came while he was still in Ur Kasdim. of the flock and of the herd (cattle)" (verse 2). but the difficulty seems to remain. we read concerning the animal to be used as the sacrifice. In the units describing the Pesach sacrifice there are likewise discrepancies between Devarim and the previous Books. "go for yourself") to mean "distance . however. we find: "If your brother. he shall serve you for six years. and the continuation of his journey to Kena'an. These examples have been debated over the generations and various explanations have been proposed. with his father. in many instances the solutions are less than satisfactory. and concerning the form in which it is to be eaten – "You shall not eat of it raw. in Shemot chapter 12. The commentators offer various ways of resolving this contradiction. and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you" (Devarim 15:12).17. "You shall offer a Pesach to the Lord your God. "She shall not go out as the slaves go out" (21:7). since they interpret the text in a manner that does not sit well with the plain meaning. it is difficult to interpret the command "lekh lekha" (literally. However. ” For this reason. forever" (Devarim 23:7). However.[2] Other commentaries give rise to other questions. Chazal's solution to the contradiction is to conclude that. encounters such a great number of contradictions. rather than simply stating "until the Jubilee year"? Aside from the unsatisfactory nature of the solutions to the various contradictions. Concerning the Hebrew servant. and it always means "forever. would the Torah use an expression whose meaning is clear. I shall never break My covenant with you" (Shoftim 2:1). "And I said. we noted above the contradiction between "and he shall serve him forever (le-olam)” in parashat Mishpatim. and not to "distance himself even further. then.yourself even further" – especially in light of the fact that a similar command appears in the context of the Akeida (the story of the Binding of Isaac) at Bereishit 22:2. and the mandatory release in the Jubilee year. he cannot help but ask himself why the Tanakh is written in this way.” For instance. "'Forever' means 'for as long as there is until the Jubilee'" (Kiddushin 21b). "You shall not seek their peace and their welfare all the days of your life. as the study of the biblical text spread. where the plain meaning is again to leave the place where he is right now. If a scholar. requiring such a great variety of solutions and explanations. B. this is difficult to reconcile with the literal level of the text. a French doctor named Jean Astruc published a book in which he proposed a revolutionary explanation for the authorship . The Documentary Hypothesis[4] In 1753. whom we quoted above. there is a more fundamental difficulty that arises in view of the sheer number of such contradictions. Why. smooth style devoid of repetition and contradiction? Indeed. if for no other reason than that the formulation of the verse gives no hint of this chronological ordering. The expression "le-olam" appears dozens of times inTanakh. it became necessary to address this phenomenon from a broader and more all-encompassing perspective. in view of its other appearances.[3] The same perplexity arises in the halakhic realm. this too presents difficulties. Would it not be more appropriate that the text be written in an organized. and the verse in fact is meant in the sense of the past perfect tense – that God "had commanded" Avraham. However. as mentioned in parashat Behar. Ibn Ezra and Radak explain that this command was indeed given to Avraham in Ur Kasdim. focusing on the plain meaning of the text. as noted by Rashbam. and confirmation of Noach's obedience. so he did" (Bereishit 6:22). and tried to define and characterize the nature and style of the different sources out of which. since these often arise between two units that refer to God by different Names. concerning verses which appear to have been written at a later time than the events which they describe. The central question was how each source could be isolated. considered the father of modern biblical criticism. extended Astruc's ideas to address the entireTanakh. To return to some of the questions that we addressed at the outset: the contradictions between the first and second chapter ofBereishit are associated with the fact that chapter 1 speaks of "Elo-him. the text reads. Over the years. "And Noach did according to all that Hashem commanded him" (7:5). after which one could . even where different Names of God did not appear in the text.” The repeated description of God's decision to bring the Flood likewise arises from the fact that the first unit attributes the decision to Hashem (Y-H-V-H). the basic theory was developed and broadened further. and the command by Hashem to take "by sevens. Various scholars argued for the existence of additional sources. the Torah had come to be constructed. It may similarly be demonstrated that the contradiction concerning the number of animals to be taken in arises between the command by "Elo-him" to take two of each. while the second time we find. Astruc's theory opened the way for other biblical scholars. He was also the first to propose that Moshe had not been the editor who joined the separate sources into a single work.” In the same way. according to their view. "And Noach did according to all that Elohim commanded him. Astruc addressed the question of why God is mentioned by different Names – with special emphasis on the name Y-H-V-H and the name "Elo-him. from his time until today.” And so on. relates to the fact that the first time.” while chapter 2 speaks of "Hashem Elo-him.of Sefer Bereishit. His argument for attribution of a later date to the various sources rested on claims we addressed in the previousshiurim. while the second unit speaks of "Elo-him.” He arrived at the conclusion that Moshe wrote the Torah by combining two distinct sources ("documents"). in many other instances. Johann Gottfried Eichhorn. each of which referred to God by a different Name. the repeated command to bring the animals into the Ark. Between 1780 and 1783 he developed a method of distinguishing the literary and thematic indications of separate sources. This hypothesis served to resolve many of the contradictions in SeferBereishit. This is the latest source. consisting mainly of Devarim. Julius Wellhausen reformulated the documentary hypothesis. The "J" source (reference to the first letter of the English transliteration of the Name Y-H-V-H which. The "D" (Deuteronomist) source. including the chapters concerning the Mishkan in Shemotand major portions of Vayikra. is dated to the period of Yoshiyahu. In 1805. composed during the period of King Yoshiyahu. 2. and serves as the basis for the dating of the other documents.).C. Wellhausen regarded this source as having been composed as late as the Second Temple Period (6th century B.attempt to show how all the parts of the Torah belonging to that source connect to form a continuous text with a certain characteristic approach.C.E. which included the commandments pertaining to the priests (kohanim). and a major portion of the Books of the Early Prophets.” and posited the existence of an additional source. proposing four separate sources reflecting different stages in the evolution of Jewish faith. 3. such that the contradictions in the Biblical text arose from inter-generational differences of view. and having nothing to do with nature. This source. Wellhausen proposed hypotheses as to the period in which each of the four sources had appeared: 1. addressing detailed laws and the superior status of the priests. with pictorial descriptions of God and extensive attention to nature. and the priests formed the major religious leadership. Some pointed to contradictions among the various textual units that use the name "Elo-him.[5] In 1878. the scholars argued that the various documents reflect views which developed and changed over the course of many generations.E. On the basis of de Wette's theory thatDevarim had been composed during the period of King Yoshiyahu. The "P" (priestly) source. a German scholar Wilhelm de Wette published his theory that the Book of Devarim represented a separate source. The "E" source (referring to the name "Elo-him"). . which is slightly later (8th century B. as noted. according to Wellhausen. dating to the beginning of the period of the monarchy. At the same time. is the Name used for God in this source) is the most ancient.). 4. when the faith of Israel had become more focused on details. and thereafter we will treat the literary focus of the Documentary Hypothesis. it was before he sinned and was expelled from the Garden of Eden. 'Go forth from your land…'" Ramban points out another difficulty with understanding the verse in this way: If Avraham had indeed started out on his journey in response to God's command. at the end of chapter 11. Both of these pillars are not without their serious difficulties. [2] Hebrew grammar does not offer a fixed form for complex tenses such as the past perfect. addressing the contradictions in the text. as well as to identify their authors. What we find. and explaining them on the basis of a division into four separate documents.e. "And God had said (va-Hashem amar) to Avram. "This was prior to the matter just discussed.[7] and a historical focus. is that it is Terach who seems to be the main character: "And Terach took Avram. An example is the verse "And Adam had known (ve-ha'adam yada) (i. his son… to go to the land of Kena'an. ’va-yeda ha-adam. too. This forces him to .. were combined by a number of editors. the most ancient layer of Jewish faith was "natural religion. to his view. according to the documentary hypothesis. when the biblical text seeks to convey the past perfect. The phenomenon and the applicability of the solutions proposed in relation to the rest ofTanakh will be discussed in a later chapter." [3] Ramban. the text should logically have read. engaged in marital relations with) Chava. but rather in Charan. however. In the next shiur we will address the historical focus. we may point to the verse. Generally. "And God had revealed (va-Hashem gala) to Shmuel a day before Shaul's arrival…" (Shmuel I 9:15). his wife" (Bereishit 4:1).[6] The documentary hypothesis therefore rested on two central pillars: a literary focus. Translated by Kaeren Fish [1] For the meantime we will concern ourselves with the phenomenon as it is to be found in the Torah. which attempted to trace the chronological development and appearance of the four documents. until the final form of the Torah was achieved in the 5th century B. represented a backward step in terms of the development of ideas. and likewise the pregnancy and birth (preceded the sin and expulsion). for example. According to Wellhausen's theory. where Rashi comments. In the case of God's command to Avraham.’ it would mean that his children were born only after he was expelled." Similarly. which was the basis for the Pharisee and rabbinical Judaism that prevailed until the end of the Second Temple Period – a form of Judaism which. the usual order of the verse is changed around so that the subject appears before the object. according to the explanation of Ibn Ezra and Radak.” following which there came the moral monotheism of the prophets.C.E. and then the theocratic religion of the priests. argues that Avraham had not been born in Ur Kasdim at all. If the verse had read. rejecting the interpretations of Rashi and Ibn Ezra. then he should be depicted as the dominant figure on the journey.These four sources. explain verse 15:7 with reference to Avraham's miraculous deliverance from the fiery furnace. This direction of interpretation, quite uncharacteristic of Ramban, is based on a homiletic interpretation, and is difficult to reconcile with the plain meaning of the text. [4] Much has been written on this subject. Some of the major reviews in Hebrew may be found in the following sources: M. Weinfeld, ed., "Torah, Mechkar ha-Torah ba-Et haChadasha," Biblical Encyclopedia vol. 8, Jerusalem 5742; columns 495-507; Z. Weisman,Mavo la-Mikra (Open University series), Tel Aviv 5749, vol. 3 – unit 6, pp. 32-97; A. Rofe, Mavo le-Sifrut ha-Mikra, Jerusalem 5766, pp. 26-82; B.Y. Schwartz, "Ha-Torah: Chameshet Chumasheiha ve-Arba Te'udoteiha," in: Z. Telshir (ed.), Sifrut ha-Mikra – Mevo'ot u-Mechkarim, Jerusalem 5771, pp. 177-225. Similarly, much has been written in English on the Documentary Hypothesis; an excellent summary of the history and nature of it can be found in Joshua Berman’s introduction to Umberto Cassuto’s The Documentary Hypothesis, Jerusalem 2010. [5] King Josiah in English, who lived from 649 BCE until 609 BCE and whose reign is described in II Melakhim, chs. 22-23. [6] Wellhausen believed that the stories of the forefathers are myths and legends. While accepting the historical basis for the story of the Exodus and of the settlement in the Land of Israel, he argued that these narratives were written at a much later stage, and fictional elements were woven into these traditions. [7] It should be noted that although Wellhausen proposed four documents, he did not mean by this that every narrative or commandment in the Torah appears in four different versions. Many of the chapters belong to one source without any parallel in the others, and most instances of duplication and contradiction arise from two (or occasionally, three) parallel sources.   Shiur #4b: Duplication and Contradiction (continued) C. Historical focus of the documentary hypothesis Our discussion of the historical aspect[1] of the documentary hypothesis will begin with the main arguments for the dating of the Deuteronomist source, which serves as the basis for the dating of the other documents. The prevalent view in academic circles, since the time of de Wette, has been that the major part of the Book of Devarim was written in the 7th century B.C.E., as part of the battle waged by Chizkiyahu and Yoshiyahu for centralized ritual worship, and that there is a connection between this source and the discovery of the Book of the Torah by Chilkiyahu the Kohen in the Temple, in the days of Yoshiyahu (Melakhim II 22).[2]This assertion is based mainly on the argument thatDevarim is the only Book of the Torah which speaks of the selection of a single location for Divine service, and rejects worship outside of this location, as emphasized over and over in chapter 12. For instance, we read: "Guard yourself lest you offer up your burnt offerings in every place which you see; but only in the place which God will choose, among one of your tribes – there shall you offer up your burnt offerings." (12:13-14) Practical expression of the war on multiple places of Divine worship in the land appears for the first time in the days of Chizkiyahu (Melakhim II 18:4, 22), and especially in the words of his great-grandson, Yoshiyahu (Melakhim II 23), immediately after the discovery of the Book of the Torah. This led to the hypothesis that the Book in question was composed during this period, as a means of reinforcing the struggle for the designation of a single location for Divine worship, and as part of the war on idolatry around Jerusalem and in general. For this reason it is only in the Book of Melakhim, which was obviously composed after the period of Yoshiyahu, that mention is made of the fact that the people offer sacrifices on 'bamot' (altars other than the one in theTemple). As noted, the dating of the Deuteronomist source served as the cornerstone for the dating of the other documents, for this was the only instance where the proposed period of authorship rested upon a specific historical event, while the dating of the other documents was based more on literary and philosophical analysis, rather than on actual history. Specifically, it was proposed that the verses attributed to the "Elohist" (‘E’) source seem to indicate that sacrifice is possible anywhere, and there is no obligation that they be limited to a single location: "You shall make for Me an altar of earth, and you shall offer upon it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings and your sheep and your oxen; in every place where I cause My Name to be uttered, I shall come to you and I shall bless you." (Shemot 20:20) The argument runs that this source must have preceded the Deuteronomist source, and that it was only at a later stage of history that the idea of centralization of worship in a single location arose, necessitating the composition of a book which would make that argument – i.e. the Book of Devarim. However, this claim – central to the documentary hypothesis – raises several difficulties. We shall address some of them.[3] 1. As we know, Devarim makes no mention of the name of Jerusalem; rather, it speaks (more than twenty times!) of "the place which God will choose." Had Devarim indeed been written only towards the end of the First Temple Period, why would the selection of Jerusalem not be mentioned explicitly? 2. De Wette's hypothesis grants disproportional weight to the opposition to Divine worship outside of the location designated by God, when one takes into account its rather minor place in Yoshiyahu's revolution, on the one hand, and inDevarim, on the other. The crux of Yoshiyahu's battle was against idolatry, which as we know, features throughout the [4] Torah. The Tanakhdevotes 21 verses to its description of Yoshiyahu's actions in the wake of the discovery of the Book of the Torah, and the great majority of these describe explicitly the extermination of the various types of idolatry: the ba'al and theashera (verses 4-7); worship of Molekh (verse 10); sunworship (verse 11); the altars built for idolatrous purposes by the kings of Yehuda, from the time of Shlomo until the days of Achaz and Menashe (verses 12-14); worship of the calves by Yerav'am ben Nevat (verses 15-18), etc. Only a single verse discusses Divine worship outside of the Temple (verse 8). The argument thatDevarim was composed for the purpose of reinforcing such a relatively minor issue as the centralization of Divine worship in Melakhim, seems questionable. At the same time, even in Devarim itself, this prohibition is mentioned in chapter 12, but cannot be regarded as a central motif of the book as a whole, in comparison with its multiplicity of mitzvot and other subjects. 3. Melakhim recalls, throughout, the problem that "the people were still sacrificing and offering incense on the bamot" (Melakhim I 22:44; Melakhim II 12:4, and elsewhere), and the word "bamot" appears dozens of times. If Devarim was composed for the sake of the Book of Melakhim's struggle against Divine worship outside of theTemple, we would expect Devarim to make explicit mention of the 'bamot.’ In practice, however, the word does not appear in Devarimat all. 4. Opposition to the centralization of Divine worship in Melakhim appears when such worship takes place for the first time, early on in the book, following the construction of the altar in Beit El, by Yerav'am (Melakhim I 12:32-33). Concerning this, the 'man of God' who comes from Yehuda chastises Yerav'am, and foretells a gruesome end for the altar: "Altar, altar, so says God: behold, a child will be born to the house of David, by the name of Yoshiyahu, and he shall offer upon you the kohanim of the bamot who burn incense upon you, and they shall burn human bones upon you" (ibid. 13:2). This tells us that the struggle against altars outside of Jerusalem began immediately after the phenomenon appeared, following the break between the two kingdoms. According to the documentary hypothesis, one would have to conclude that this narrative was composed only after Yoshiyahu's religious revolution, and was deliberately "planted" in the text in order to support his campaign.[5] However, an approach which accepts the reliability of the biblical narrative in a partial manner that suits its own assumptions seems rather superficial. 5. In Yirmiyahu's prophecy (34:13-14) we read: "So says the Lord God of Israel: I forged a covenant with your forefathers on the day I brought them out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery, saying: At the end of seven years, every man shall release his Hebrew brother who has been sold to you; when he has served you for six years, you shall let him go free from you." Yirmiyahu refers here to a covenant which had been forged already at the time of the Exodus – and then goes on to cite almost verbatim a verse from Devarim (15:12): "If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, when he has served you for six years, then in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you." Thus, Yirmiyahu clearly testifies that Devarimwas written during the period of the Exodus, and he makes extensive use of this Devarimthroughout his prophecies,[6] to reinforce the messages that he seeks to convey.[7] 6. The argument that there is an absolute contradiction between the principle of centralization of worship espoused by Yoshiyahu and the book of Devarim, and that which we find in Shemot – "In every place where I cause My Name to be mentioned, I shall come to you and I shall bless you" – is likewise fairly weak. It fact, one might arrive at the opposite conclusion, since the source in Shemot does not offer license to build an altar anywhere, but rather in specific places where God causes His Name to be mentioned. As Ibn Ezra comments: "In every place where I place awareness of My Name, since My glory dwells there – such as Shilo and Nov, where the Ark stood [at different periods]." The verse in Shemot, according to the plain meaning of the text, refers to different periods, prior to the selection of a single location. This situation lasted for hundreds of years, from the entry into the land until the building of the Temple by Shlomo, and during this time there were different places where God caused His Name to be mentioned. But the verse in no way This would seem to show that the prohibition of sacrificing outside of the Temple was instituted only in the time of Yoshiyahu.[10] However. it was these altars that were destroyed by the worshippers of Ba'al. Mikha. the "competition" between Eliyahu and the worshippers of Ba'al could obviously not have taken place there. and second. Those in the Kingdom of Israel who built altars to God were evidently regarded by the .contradicts the idea that at some stage a single location would be chosen where God will cause His Name to rest. In fact. when Eliyahu flees and comes to Mount Chorev.[9]Concerning the first argument. their destruction was seen as a very grave demonstration of idolatrous loyalties. and Yishayahu. The adherents of de Wette's view saw further proof for their argument in the fact that altars existed in the time of Eliyahu. Although the establishment of these altars was forbidden in the first place. after the establishment of the Temple and well before the reigns of Chizkiyahu and Yoshiyahu. there was indeed a phenomenon of altars to God in the Kingdom of Israel. yet no mention is made of disapproval of Divine worship outside of the Temple in the Books of prophets of this period such as Amos. "For the Children of Israel have abandoned Your covenant. This also helps us understand why this subject does not feature in the prophecies of the prophets of Israel at the time: in their campaign against idolatry. in Devarim itself we find the commandment to build an altar on Mount Eival (Devarim 27:4-7) and to offer up sacrifices upon it. there was no room for speaking out against the worship of God in inappropriate places. the establishment of the altars on Mount Carmel by Eliyahu (Melakhim I 19) was clearly a one-time event meant to demonstrate and prove faith in God. why would Eliyahu have been troubled by the fact that they had been destroyed? It seems that after the division of the kingdom. It could not have taken place in Jerusalem. even if theoretically it might have been possible for him to get to Jerusalem. Hoshea.[8] 7. he declares. they have destroyed Your altars and have slain Your prophets by the sword" (Melakhim I 19:10). for two reasons: first. which was cut off from the Temple at Yeravam's initiative. whose capital was in Shomron. Hence we must conclude that there is no problem with building altars and offering sacrifices in various places prior to God's selection of one specific location. If altars were forbidden in any case. because Eliyahu was active in the kingdom of Israel. see U. it should be emphasized thatMelakhim itself – whose composition. "Devarim. was inspired by Yoshiyahu's revolution. Grintz. gives rise to doubts concerning the practical likelihood of such a conspiracy. 140-142. concerning the essence and dating of Sefer Devarim. [2] De Wette had offered the hypothesis that the Book of the Torah was actually a forgery. and that it was the kohanim in the time of Yoshiyahu who had authored it. Weinfeld himself presents a far more complex view). Segal. [3] For reviews of the difficulties surrounding the hypotheses of de Wette and Wellhausen. Indeed. Unless we posit that the editor ofMelakhim did not understand the contradiction between his narratives. In English. And since this argument is the basis for the dating of the other documents. In our first chapter we discussed the possibility that the "Book of the Torah" discovered by Chilkiyahu may well have included only the main parts of Devarim. We therefore conclude that the central argument for the claim of late authorship of Devarim has multiple and serious flaws. and was rediscovered during the reign of Yoshiyahu (see M. according to these scholars. and we noted that the commentary on Divrei Ha-yamimattributed to Rashi maintains this view. Weinfeld.M. arguing instead that the Sefer had been written during the time of Chizkiyahu. and was aimed at advancing the idea of the concentration of worship – is the very same source that brings the story of Eliyahu. (To be continued) Translated by Kaeren Fish [1] Historical questions arose once again in the wake of archaeological discoveries in Israel. on the other. the claim that the work was a forgery that was innocently accepted by the public. "You shall make no mention of the name of other . M.Z. "Devarim. However. was hidden during the period of Menashe." Ha-Encyclopedia ha-IvritXI. see: M." Encyclopedia Mikra'it II. columns 887-890. the historical claims of the documentary hypothesis as a whole are without foundation.D. there is no contradiction between that and the gravity of the shattering of altars to God outside of Jerusalem. and it was for this reason that they placed it in a concealed place in the Temple. MiYehoshua ve-ad Yoshiyahu. Jerusalem 2011. [4] In the Ten Commandments we already find. this proves that this incident is not a contradiction of the principle. Jerusalem 5737. pp. many scholars today do not accept this theory. which arose at a later period than the documentary hypothesis. will be discussed in future chapters. These geographicalhistorical aspects. In any event. with the aim of having it viewed as holy in order to gain acceptance by the people. "You shall have no other gods beside Me" (Shemot 20:2). column 611. 177. Jeruslaem 5714. the obvious conclusion is that this Book believes that although one single location had been chosen in Jerusalem. Y. and further on in Shemot. p.prophets in a positive light. on the one hand. Cassuto. since the obvious alternative was the far greater evil of outright idolatry.The Documentary Hypothesis. Cassuto. Mavo ha-Mikra. Jerusalem 5717. and Ancient Near Eastern studies. Jerusalem 5752. However. who was familiar with the specific fulfillment of this prophecy. Elitzur. z”l. Ha-Assufa ha-Mikra'it: Tahalikhei ha-Gibbush Ad Sof Yemei Bayyit Sheni ve-Shinuyei ha-Tzura Ad Motza'ei Yemei ha-Benayim. Yisrael ve-ha-Mikra. Haran rejects outright the existence of the phenomenon of prophecy.   ********************************************************* Dedicated in memory of Joseph Y. which are not relevant to our discussion at this stage. Haran. these arguments are puzzling: Devarim itself emphasizes that the prohibition applies specifically in the context of "the place which God shall choose". 5767. Therefore. but rather were a later addition introduced by the editor of the Book. In addition. Furthermore. 43-87. who reigned before Chizkiyahu and Yoshiyahu."Shenaton le-Cheker ha-Mikra ve-ha-Mizrach ha-Kadum 17. Jerusalem 5764. n. The plain meaning of the text gives no indication of a prohibition on sacrificing at other locations prior to the selection of the site of the Temple. See Shemot 34:1116. but they address mainly the verses in Sefer Vayikra 17. by Y. see: D. it shall not be heard from your mouth" (ibid. this hypothesis relies on two prior assumptions. for example. if this were true. there would be no reason for it to have mentioned the obligation of acting in a positive way towards Edom (see Devarim 23:4-9).Chazal discuss the question of the permissibility of bamot and the different periods in which this license was used (for a summary of the discussion. [6] For a discussion of the ways in which Yirmiyahu makes use of verses from Devarim. cf. only then could historical events be presented as having been prophesied in advance. Jerusalem 5760. This assumption does not rule out the concept of prophecy concerning the future (as noted.gods. 5 in last week's shiur]. M. for example. Rom-Shiloni. 339-341). and God's choice of Jerusalem became apparent only during the time of Shlomo (see Melakhim I 8:12-21). then even if the words "by the name of Yoshiyahu" did not appear here. pp. to his view. Vayikra 19:4. but rather represents a later addition. However. after that "future" had already come to pass. 59). [5] See. However. Nadler. A. pp. Among others. 3). pp. the proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis indeed argue that the unit in Devarimconcerning the altar on Mount Eival does not belong to the Deuteronomist source. since Edom was an enemy kingdom during this period (see Melakhim II 8:22). the depiction of the prophet-leader set forth in Devarim 18:16 sits well in relation to such figures as Yehoshua and Shmuel. viewing it as an "emergency measure" (seeYevamot 90b and elsewhere). and elsewhere. there would be no room for a prophet to say anything about the future. p. 19-20). "Ha-Torah be-Sefer Yirmiya: ha-Technikot ha-Parshaniot ve-ha-Megamot haIdeologiot. Devarim 23:18). this seems like a superficial and ad hoc manner of solving textual difficulties. the text affirms that Amatzia. 3 above. but not with regard to the prophets at the end of the First Temple Period. [9] Scholars who adopt de Wette's view also base their view on the absence of any negative view regarding the multiplicity of altars from the period of the Judges or from the time of King David. 2832. for example. there is no difficulty in accepting the possibility that a prophet would foretell the future. Encyclopedia Talmudit 3. any story about a prophecy concerning the future is actually based on later authorship. [8] As Cassuto notes (above. pp. and that in fact. Haranattempts to prove that the story is chronologically later on the basis of the mention of Yoshiyahu as the one to destroy the altar. see "bama". these sources indicate evidence of many altars during the period of the settlement of the land and the period of the Judges (see. First. it is reasonable to posit that only the words "by the name of Yoshiyahu" are not part of the original narrative. Rofe [n. [10] Chazal point out the exceptional nature of the construction of an altar on Mount Carmel. even if we agree that prophets do not usually foretell the names of people who will only be born hundreds of years in the future. Yosef ben Yechezkel Tzvi ********************************************************* Shiur #4c: Duplication and Contradiction (continued) . even when it results in such a forced reading as this. the following difficulties are treated: Had Devarim been written in the time of Yoshiyahu. Second. Obviously. using the theory to shape the evidence rather than the other way round. for a person who believes that prophecy did exist. 23:13). also fulfilled the commandment set forth in Devarim not to put children to death for the transgressions of their fathers (see Melakhim II 14:6. [7] Many additional arguments in this regard are raised in the sources cited in n. In terms of subject matter. and which was contested by many in the previous generation: the dating of the Priestly source to the Second Temple Period. Wellhausen claimed that at the time of Ezra and Nechemia the Jewish religion was shaped and influenced by the priestly regime.Let us now address another argument that is central to Wellhausen's approach. which was a central issue treated by Ezra and Nechemia – make no appearance at all. and within this context there was a fundamental transition from religion based around natural life. would include laws that have no connection with the Second Temple Period – such as the instructions to build the Mishkan and its vessels. and that the idea of sacrifice in general became dominant and prevalent. new festivals and new religious institutions were invented. to one focused on historical events and to ceremonial and symbolic frameworks. seems absurd to anyone who is familiar with the cultures of the ancient Near East… Wellhausen viewed institutionalized and [3] .[1] In brief. and the division of the land among the tribes. which includes major sections of Shemot and Bamidbar and almost all of Vayikra. the entire subject of priestly gifts. "The argument that during the period of exile new sacrifices. These speculative claims as to the nature of the Priestly source and its relationship to the preceding Books were countered. by Rabbi David Tzvi Hoffmann and Prof. Yechezkel Kaufmann. appeared only in the period of the priestly regime. In addition. Wellhausen argued further that it was during this period that the idea formed of sacrifices that could atone for sin (the sin offering and guilt offering). according to Wellhausen. One aspect of this was that the festivals. I shall set forth three of the major arguments found in their works against this approach. it became clear that phenomena such as a multitude of ceremonies and sacrifices existed even hundreds of years prior to Israel's entry into the land. along with the festivals that were not agricultural in nature – Rosh ha-Shana and Yom Kippur – which drew on the sense of iniquity of the Jewish community in its Babylonian exile. it is difficult to understand why the Priestly source. which had originally been purely agricultural celebrations. were imbued at this time with additional historical significance. In light of archaeological finds from the ancient Near East. some laws that were extremely relevant during that period – primarily the issue of mixed marriages. from different directions. 2.[2] 1. At the same time. but argue that it is the invention of scholars who lived during the Second Temple Period. was cited extensively by Wellhausen's school as evidence of later writing."[4] 3. which points to the conclusion that it belongs to the linguistic context of a period long before that of the Second Temple. For example. there are some scholars who agree that biblical Hebrew is indeed different from the Hebrew of the Second Temple Period. in the Later Prophets – only three times."[8] while in Sefer Yechezkel the verb "n-d-ch" is used instead (for example.[10] while later biblical Hebrew matches external testimonies that we have from the Second Temple Period. and in the Books from the time of the return from the Babylonian exile (Ezra and Nechemia[7]) it makes no appearance at all – although seemingly. the verb used in the Priestly source to describe the washing of the parts of the sacrifices is "r-ch-tz.[9]Thus we find that ancient biblical Hebrew matches inscriptions from the period of the monarchy." The decrease in the number of appearances of the word "edah" indicates the gradual abandonment of this term. would also seem to ignore archaeological findings which appear to corroborate the development of the Hebrew language as it is presented in the different books of the Tanakh. He had no idea of the existence of orderly and fixed ritual in the major cultural centers of the ancient Near East. which appears dozens of times in different parts of the Torah that are attributed to the Priestly source.[6] this word is used less and less: in the Books of the Early Prophets it appears twenty times. and likewise in Divrei Hayamim (Divrei Ha-yamim II 4:6). despite the relatively extensive treatment of Templematters in Yechezkel. However. Scholars have noted linguistic elements showing the profound differences between biblical Hebrew and the development of the language in the Second Temple Period.complex ritual as the fruit of later development. in the Books of Bereishit. and existed as a literary language rather than a living one. Instead. such as the Book of Ben Sira and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Shmuel andMelakhim. For example. which seem tenuous on their own terms. In view of these discrepancies. Such claims. it should be quite ubiquitous. there is frequent mention of the . In addition. these Books make extensive use of the word "kahal. the word 'edah' (congregation).[5] For instance. there are also prominent differences between the language of Yechezkel and that of Vayikra. 40:38 – "yadichu et ha-olah" – "they would wash the burnt offering"). "Naveh" refers to the place where shepherds sit as they pasture the flocks. nor in the Books ofYehoshua and Shoftim. and so may He add.[11] while in Divrei Ha-yamim it is referred to as "Darmesek" (Divrei Ha-yamim I 18:5-6. The study of the development of biblical Hebrew provides a very strong indication that theChumash predates not only the later Books of Tanakh. despite the general similarity between them. Linguistic layers Until now we have discussed the refutations of the documentary hypothesis with regard to the dating of the Deuteronomist source and the Priestly source. but starting only in the Book of Shmuel. 1. D.." These arguments have led many scholars to reject Wellhausen's hypothesis concerning the later authorship of the Priestly source. Let us mention three prominent examples. the city is called "Damesek. but is not used in connection with any of the oaths in the Torah. we find a number of motifs that appear exclusively in one but not the other. even where the verses parallel sources in Shmuel and Melakhim. 2.[16] Its absence . However.[13] This is shown most strongly when we contrast the language of the Chumash with the Books of the Prophets where. beyond addressing the problems inherent in the historical claims of the documentary hypothesis. For example.E. The expression "ha-Shem Tzeva-ot" ("Lord of Hosts") appears 260 times in Tanakh. some common expressions in the prophetic literature are completely absent from the Torah.Divrei Hayamim II 16:2).[12] even though some of them generally subscribe to the documentary hypothesis. dating to the 14th century B. too: in the Tel Amarna letters. and other inscriptions. The same phenomenon is to be found in external sources.[14] There is no mention of this description of God in the Torah. The expression "So may God do. but also the Books of the Prophets. as discussed above. we must also emphasize a central difficulty that emerges from an in-depth analysis of the language of theTanakh. The word is used in this sense some twenty times in Tanakh – all from the Book of Shmuel onwards." while in the Dead Sea Scrolls and other later writings it is referred to as "Darmesek.[15] 3.city of "Damesek" (Damascus)." appears eight times as an oath in the Books of Shmuel and Melakhim.C. and not a single time with the letter 'vav. the rest of Tanakh includes the word 23 times – all spelt with a 'heh' at the end.e.' with only the vowels (chirik) indicating the feminine form. with a 'vav.. There are also many instances of differences in spelling between the Torah and the Books of the Prophets." accompanied by the "kamatz" vowel to signify the feminine form. mostly in Devarim. and that it began to be used only during the period of the monarchy. and why the authors of the Books of the Prophets would not have used the same terms which they had employed. The word "na'arah" (girl) appears twenty-two times in the Torah. In contrast. it is difficult to understand why this is the case. according to this view. and is a central motif in the world of sacrifices. the same word was used for the masculine and feminine forms of the word. To cite just two examples: 1. in writing the Books of the Torah. in contrast. 2.' It is reasonable to assume that this difference in spelling reflects a difference in the way the word was pronounced. the word is spelled with a 'yud' 474 times. far more often (199 times!) we find the same spelling as the word "hu" (meaning 'he') – i. On the basis of the documentary hypothesis. but do not appear in the Books of the Prophets. and that the traditional . much later on. but in any event it points to a difference between the period of the Torah and that of the prophets. the word "isheh" (referring to a burnt offering) appears dozens of times in the Books of Vayikra and Bamidbar. The absence of these common expressions from the Torah would suggest that the Torah’s Hebrew is a more ancient stage of the language than that which is found in the Books of the Prophets. Here again it would seem that in the most ancient form of Hebrew. only once is it spelled with the letter 'heh' at the end (Devarim 22:19). We may also point out instances of the opposite phenomenon: words which exist in the Torah. there would be no reason for the absence of such common expressions. For example. in every other instance it ends with the letter "resh. The word "hi" (she) is spelled just eleven times in the Torah with the letter 'yud'.from the Torah would seem to indicate that the word did not exist in this sense at that time. Had some parts of the Torah been written from the period of the monarchy onwards. In the rest ofTanakh. but it appears nowhere in the prophetic literature. n. [9] See Hurvitz 1997 (above. p. 1). for example. for example. Jerusalem 5761.pronunciation of the word "na'ar" as "na'ara" represents a later development. (To be continued) Translated by Kaeren Fish [1] Rabbi David Tzvi Hoffmann (1843-1921) was one of the leaders of German Jewry. pp. Mazar (eds. 13: 8:21. a professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 247-256. pp. Zakovich and A. 301-315. [6] See Rabbi Hoffmann (above. 9:14. [7] In Divrei Ha-yamim it appears just once (Divrei Ha-yamim II 5:6). and by comparison with external findings. which claims that that the Torah was authored contemporaneously with many later books ofTanakh. columns 499-502. Levin and A. a halakhic authority and a commentator on Tanakh. Rofe (eds. [4] Weinfeld. Decisive Refutations of Wellhausen. Ha-Pulmus al ha-Emet ha-Historit ba-Mikra. n. Vayikra 1:9. Hurvitz: A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel. has no convincing explanation for this fact. 34-46. 113-120 (translated and abridged by Prof. The documentary hypothesis. who headed the Hildesheimer Rabbinical Seminary in Berlin. too. pp. MiYehoshua ve-ad Yoshiyahu. 308-313. "Le-Shimusho shel ha-Munach ha-Kohani 'Edah' be-Sifrut ha-Mikrait. [2] See Weinfeld. See his work. column 500. Rabbi Hoffmann presented a moderate and objective refutation of Wellhausen's claims of a Priestly source dating to the Second Temple Period.). pp. In his book. "Al Kama Munachim mi-Techum ha-Kedusha ve-ha-Tahara ha-Meshamshim be-Sefer Yechezkel be-Mishkal 'Mekutal'. “The Historical Quest for Ancient Israel and the Linguistic Evidence of the Hebrew Bible: Some Methodological Observations. Chicago 1960). originally written in German." in: Y. the verse has a parallel in Melakhim I 8:5. 5). "Ha-Vikuach ha-Arkheologi-Histori shel Kadmut ha-Sifrut ha-Mikrait Leor ha-Mechkar haBalshani shel ha-Ivrit. Hurvitz. was among the scholars who did accept the documentary hypothesis in principle. Shemot 29:17.Moshe Greenberg as The Religion of Israel. Yechezkel Kaufmann (1889-1963)." in: Y.[18] By comparing the various Books of the Tanakh with one another.” Vetus Testamentum 47. .L. such that the appearance of the word here does not represent any new content. [5] See. [3] We shall discuss the relationship between these finds and the biblical text in a later chapter. [8] See. 62. vol. we see quite clearly the development of the Hebrew language and the building of its various layers as the Tanakh progresses.Jerusalem 5736. Sefer Yitzchak Aryeh Zeligman. n.[17] These discrepancies of spelling are easy to understand if we assume that the period of the Torah was characterized by a more ancient stage of the Hebrew language. p. the following by A. 1.). Jerusalem 5743. 261-267. A."Tarbiz 40:3 (5731). 1. Paris 1982. Toldot ha-Emunah ha-Yisraelit. pp. 1997. but nevertheless were completely opposed to Wellhausen's claim in this particular regard. but there. in his book on the grammar of the Hebrew language he writes that they "should be attributed solely to later editing." However. but nowhere in the Books of the Prophets. column 502. in contrast. contains significant difficulties. [13] The examples cited here were presented in a lecture by Y. and therefore various attempts were made to divide the documents themselves into sub-sources. [17] Further examples: 1. the root "k-l-m" (shame). Yosef ben Yechezkel Tzvi ********************************************************* Shiur #4d: Duplication and Contradiction (continued) E. and in a metaphoric sense: "To Your holy habitation" (el neveh kodshekha – Shemot 15:13). Nadler. but never in the Torah.[1]The attempt to create a uniform continuity within the various documents was unsuccessful. the claim that a later editor would alter the language in such a peculiar way seems highly unlikely. Elitzur. the Lachish letters. in the Books of the Prophets. as a verb and as a noun. For instance. [16] It appears in the Torah only once. 209. p. appears some seventy times in Tanakh. it appears in defective form only rarely (19 out of 150 instances). 2. 2. Schwartz. created His world. z”l. appears 8 times in the Torah. and elsewhere.   ********************************************************** Dedicated in memory of Joseph Y." in the sense of "ha-eleh" ("these"). [15] Other examples: 1. The word "dim'a" (tear – as in weeping) appears in its various forms 25 times in Tanakh. 135. its literary aspect.[10] Relevant findings in this regard include the Siloam (Shiloach) inscription. no one called Him 'Tzeva-ot' until Channa [mother of Shmuel]. and inscriptions in neighboring languages such as the Mesha Stele.") [18] Linguistic scholar Gotthelf Bergsträsser addressed these phenomena. We will discuss archaeological artifacts from the period of the monarchy later on. The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible. The phenomenon of defective spelling (where on occasion a word is spelt with a letter missing) is far more prevalent in the Torah than it is in the Books of the Prophets. p. too. Melakhim I 11:24. "Revadim be-Ivrit haMikrait ha-Keduma. who called Him by this Name" (Berakhot 31b). the word "eleihem" (to them) appears in defective form (without the 'yud') in the vast majority of cases in the Torah (86 out of 103 instances). where the root is used in a completely different sense: "You shall not delay to offer the first of your ripe fruits [meleatekha] and of your liquors [ve-dim'akha]"). This example is cited from J. and has caused scholars of recent generations to gradually reject parts of the approach. inter alia. phenomena such as the stages of . The proper sub-division of the four central sources gave rise to much controversy among scholars. Weinfeld. but never in Torah (except for Shemot22:28. The word "ha-el. New York 1989. with especially contentious debate surrounding the division between the "E" source and the "J" source. (In Divrei ha-Yamim I 20:8 we find one instance of "el noldu" – "these were born. blessed be He. The literary aspect of the documentary hypothesis Like the historical aspect of the documentary hypothesis. [11] Shmuel II 8:5-6." at the Study Days in Tanakh held in Alon Shvut during the summer of 2006. With an absence of agreement concerning even the basic assumptions for the discussion. [12] See. Barr. [14] Chazal note this: "Rabbi Elazar said: From the time that the Holy One. and have proposed alternative models to explain the process of the writing of the Torah. despite the disparate origins of the sources. but a single. While this approach was not meant to replace the documentary hypothesis. Differences of opinion spread also to other aspects of the hypothesis. beyond these debates. the degree to which the redactor was involved in the writing. and analysis of. having concluded that there is little to be gained from trying to discover the origins of the Biblical text.[4] As a result of the diminishing persuasiveness of the documentary hypothesis. the main difficulty in the documentary hypothesis is the very notion that several sources were brought together to form a single work – not an anthology comprising several sources placed in succession. founded by the German scholar Hermann Gunkel. Many modern scholars. the question of how and when the sources were joined into a single Torah. At the beginning of the 20th century a new school of thought appeared. the distinctions among the various sources (even as they continued to recognize their existence in principle in the process of the consolidation of the Torah). the relationship between their various sub-units. who suggested that the text in itself reflects the consolidation of various oral traditions. many scholars of the last generation eschewed attention to. it did lead to the development of other scholarly views which tended not to accept the documentary hypothesis in its entirety. continuous text in which the various sources are intertwined so as to preserve continuity of theme.development reflected in these sources were difficult to address. These disagreements undermined. turning instead to literary analysis of the text in its present form. based in Germany. including the dating of the various documents. and more. However. the reliability of the approach as a whole. nor has any archaeological discovery ever been made of any of them in pristine individual form. have almost completely abandoned the documentary hypothesis. one need not necessarily posit a collection of contradictory written sources. to a certain degree. There is no precedent for such an enormous editorial enterprise[2]and there is no known document from the ancient world that was compiled in such a way. hence.[3] Why would the anonymous redactor decide to take disparate sources and to weave them into a single work? We might also note that no mention is made anywhere of the independent existence of any of these individual documents prior to their combined presence in the Torah. . The "aspects" approach The documentary hypothesis stands. and the impossibility of reading the Torah as a single continuum.[6] such as Malbim. the textual problems which prompted the hypothesis. F. Any student of the Torah therefore must confront the challenge of how the contradictions and duplications within the Torah should be addressed. Rav Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy [7] [8] Rabinowitz. and the fact that in many cases one is able to discern a pattern to the contradictions between different units. to some extent.Yet despite all the difficulties we have noted that weaken the claims of the documentary hypothesis and similar models. was to reject it out of hand. did not succeed in supplying a satisfactory answer to the main question with which we began: what is the meaning of the obvious contradictions and duplications that we find in the Torah. The prevalent approach among the Jewish scholars who did address the documentary hypothesis. a Torah sage as well . remains valid. likewise led to a general distaste for this academic realm and also. Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch. for the most part. too. which views the Torah as a unified creation emanating from a Divine source. and even those who have partial familiarity with it have. to a weakening of Tanakh study amongst religious Jews. The contradictions and duplications present in theTanakh.[5] Fear of the possible influences of the Enlightenment and its attendant views. still remain. of course. the world of Biblical academia is generally dismissed without any serious attention. and which it attempted to solve. and how do they fit in with the traditional faith in the unity of the Torah? How are we to view the systematic nature of these contradictions? A revolution in the attitude of Jews who believe in the unity of the Torah towards the research by biblical scholars was brought about by Rav Mordekhai Breuer (1921-2007). it would seem that even Rav Hoffmann. who was the only one to tackle the documentary hypothesis head-on. and – especially – Rav David Tzvi Hoffmann. However. including different Names of God. which had penetrated the Jewish world. in terms of the different terminology which they use. Much of the religious Jewish public has never been exposed to the documentary hypothesis. have not been solved. the fundamental questions it sought to address – in fact. in direct contradiction to the traditional Jewish world-view. but rather as expressions of the multifaceted nature a given topic which." (ibid. We cannot deceive our souls in turning a lie into truth. 132-133) .as a scholar of world renown in the field of biblical study who developed the "aspects approach. D. and He Himself also took on R's redaction work.The principal innovation of the approach was to acknowledge and utilize the claims of the documentary hypothesis which saw the Torah as made up of multiple and frequently contradictory texts.. pp. This man believes that God Himself wrote J. The man of great faith. and P.”[9] or in Hebrew. the Torah presents different aspects of reality – on both the narrative and the halakhic level – through the technique of multiple descriptions of a given topic or event. the differences cease to appear as contradictions. 112) Yet Rav Breuer maintained that the contradictions are part of God's method of writing the Torah in such a way as to present different subjects in their full complexity. written by J. When one steps back from the text and considers the multiple aspects of a topic that have been presented. and anyone who seeks the truth and acknowledges the truth cannot deny the truth that arises from the words of these scholars. or can be presented in combination with other conflicting descriptions that express a different aspect of the issue. sees in the Torah the work of God. while maintaining that these differences and contradictions were nevertheless Divinely authored and intended. each expressing one aspect of reality in its pristine form. These descriptions can be presented individually and alone. D. rather than a combination by a later editor of multiple human authors and traditions. He expressed the significance of the documentary hypothesis as follows: "These conclusions of biblical scholarship are based on firm evidence which can in no way be refuted. P. According to this approach. Thus Rav Breuer continues: "The man of science sees in the Torah a collection of documents. give us the whole picture. shitat habechinot. E. and redacted later on by R…. taken together. we too – as faithful Jews – shall not deny that which the human intellect indicates with certainty. And since our tradition teaches that one cannot deny that which the eye sees and the ear hears. and truth into a lie…" (Shitat ha-Bechinot. p. in contrast. E. ” whom he can love and rejoice in. to alleviate man's loneliness by providing him with a partner. perhaps fundamentally. male and female together. on the other hand (starting from verse 4). In this natural world. to the creation of man – who is likewise created naturally. and guidance of. the world. In reality. is not intended solely for the purpose of continuing the human race. via animals. able to give names to the animals.” and the truth is a combination of these two ideas together. Rav Breuer argued that these two chapters represent two different aspects of God's relationship with. man's role is to rule over nature – but he has no creative role. "both these and those are the words of the living God. nor any special quality that separates him fundamentally from the animal kingdom. expresses revelation and the connection between God and man. Man stands at the center of this world. who is created in this version after man. where the Name Y-H-V-H is added to God's Name. there is no point in creating plants and animals (which are created after him). He is a creature with intelligence.Rav Breuer applied his approach in his books. but also fundamentally . with the natural role of reproducing and continuing the human race. which both describe the creation of the world. but rather presents each aspect as though it stands alone: how the world would have been created had it been a world of nature alone. Thus. her role is also. Chapter 2. Chapter 1. the Torah does not gives us one account of how the world was created. where the order of Creation follows a natural progression from plant life. and he is given special prohibitions by God – he may not eat from the Tree of Knowledge.[10]and we shall examine very briefly a few examples of his approach.” represents the world of nature. in which God is called "Elo-him. Man's role in chapter 2 is "to cultivate it and to guard it": he has a creative role. In this world. the creation of woman. and how it would have been created had it been a world only of revelation and direct contact between God and man. that of the first two chapters of Bereishit. and to eat in a manner that is different from the animals. Let us start with a famous example of where two seemingly different versions of the same event are placed alongside one another. relating to his obligation to develop the world. a "helpmate. and until he is created.[12] Man is at one and the same time a part of the natural world and the most sophisticated creature in it.[11] In keeping with his approach. So says the Lord: By this shall you know that I am the Lord: behold.separate from nature and a part of God Himself – a creature endowed with intelligence who may be commanded. too. "Show a sign for yourselves" (7:9). and he did not listen to them" (7:13)." (Shemot 7:15-17) The same Nile in which Moshe had been hidden as an infant. And you shall say to him. which places it as part of a more general theme within the plagues as a whole that are intended as a response to Pharaoh's demand. becomes – at Moshe's command – a river of blood. Here. We mentioned in a previous shiur the contradictions in the description of the plague of blood in Egypt. and "Pharaoh's heart was hardened.[14] First we read of the specific command to Moshe to address Pharaoh. From this perspective. The Lord God of the Hebrews has sent me to you. and the Egyptians will no longer be able to drink water from the Nile. I shall smite with the staff that is in my hand upon the water that is in the Nile. and where he was saved from the bloodbath that was the fate of the other Jewish babies. to say. Let My people go. and whose connection with his partner is not like that which exists among the animals.[15] The Torah then goes on to describe the other aspect of the plague of blood. after the sign involving the serpent does not have the desired effect. and it shall turn to blood. the plague on the Nile represents an "escalation" in the power of the sign.[13] Let us now examine an example where the two aspects are not separated but intertwined in the text. and to strike the water of the Nile. and the Nile will stink. and you shall take in your hand the staff which turned into a snake. For this purpose the staff of Aharon is used. that they may serve Me in the wilderness. "measure for measure. and therefore the plague affects not only the Nile but also every source of water in Egypt. you have not obeyed until now. he goes out to the water – and you shall stand at the bank of the Nile to meet him.” for his command that all boys born to Am Yisrael be cast into the Nile: "Go to Pharaoh in the morning – behold. it seems that the Torah is describing two separate aspects of the plague. just as it had been for the sign of the serpent: . This striking seems to represent the beginning of Pharaoh's punishment. but has a strong social-spiritual component as well. And the fish that are in the Nile will die. for behold. nor did he listen to them." (verses 22-23) . as God had said. and over every pool of water. and the result is the same as after the sign of the snake: "And the magicians of Egypt did the same with their secret arts." (7:13) Thereafter. over their ponds. the main purpose of the plague is to serve as proof of God's existence. before the eyes of Pharaoh and before the eyes of his servants. Take your staff and stretch out our arm over the water of Egypt – over their rivers. both in [vessels of] wood and in [vessels of] stone. And the fish that were in the Nile died. that they shall become blood. the end of the plague is likewise described from both perspectives. as God had commanded…" (verse 20) – detailing first the one aspect of the plague and then the other: "… And he lifted the staff[16] and he struck the water that was in the Nile. and there shall be blood throughout the land of Egypt. and the Egyptians were unable to drink water from the Nile…" (verses 20-21) This description corresponds exactly to the warning that had been issued concerning the striking of the Nile by Moshe. And Pharaoh turned and went to his house. and the Nile stank. and Pharaoh's heart was hardened. But it becomes apparent that once again. The Torah then immediately goes on to describe the second aspect of the plague: "And there was blood throughout the land of Egypt" (verse 21). the Torah records the execution of both aspects together: "And Moshe and Aharon did so. the plague has not achieved its aim. and all the water that was in the Nile turned into blood. Just as the two aspects of the plague of blood are intertwined in both the introduction and the enactment of the plague of blood. According to the aspect that describes Aharon's striking of the water. and did not take even this to heart."And God said to Moshe: Say to Aharon. over their canals. pp. common to all the plagues. “Tahalikh Tzemichatah shel ha-Torah – Gishot ba-Mechkar haModerni. 144: "No work has ever been composed through this approach of joining fragments – neither in biblical literature. and in his wake A. that according to this aspect. Thus. 5-38. and therefore Pharaoh once again refused to award Aharon's sign any serious attention. 5737. And seven days were completed. the Egyptian magicians would not have been able to perform the same feat.” Beit Mikra 22 (3) (70). nor in world literature… This entire idea.Z. and the Egyptians were unable to drink water from the Nile – the same Nile which in the past had been full of the corpses of Jewish babies. Segal. runs contrary to common sense and to scientific truth. then.It would seem.Z. R." (verse 24) According to this description." [3] This problem troubled many scholars. pp. Schwartz. Segal. set forth by the proponents of the documentary hypothesis. Alberts. It was only at the end of the week that the plague was seen to have ended. pp. [2] As noted by M. as the Torah immediately goes on to note: "And all the Egyptians dug around the Nile for water to drink. 348-361. “Ha-Chumash ha-Shomroni ke-Degem Empiri le-Bikkoret ha-Sifrutit shel ha-Torah. Aharon's sign ended after some time. since they would have had no fresh water to use. p. However. the plague lasted a week. cite.” Beit Mikra 55 (2) 5771. the plague had not yet ended. (To be continued) Translated by Kaeren Fish [1] Reviews of approaches opposing the documentary hypothesis may be found in sources cited previously: A. 101-104. pp.[17] Thus. B. in terms of Moshe's specific striking of the Nile. after God had struck the Nile. 83-112. and then the magicians managed to replicate the sign. we conclude that the plague of blood had a dual purpose – to serve as a ‘measure for measure’ punishment of the murder of the Israelite baby boys in the Nile and as a sign.Y. Y. 127-147. Rofe (ibid) pp. prompting them to seek sources for this sort of compilation during the biblical period. the plague of blood had already ended – for if all the water in Egypt was blood. as evidence of a style that brings contradictory . for they could not drink of the water of the Nile. and it was time for another plague. of God’s truth and power. Tigay.H. 218-225. giving us a multifaceted and nuanced presentation of the plague of blood. pp. The Torah presents both aspects through the intertwining of their various elements. See also M. Rofe. Tigay acknowledges (p. Pirkei Mikraot. in Shemot 18:13-27. His own articles. U. appear together in the book Shitat ha-Bechinot shel Ha-Rav Mordekhai Breuer.sources as part of a single text. reflected in the Name "Elo-him"). and where is the innovation?" (Shitat ha-Bechinot. 'in reality. pp. Rav Breuer suggests that we look in the midrash: "Someone who believes that only the plain. Jerusalem 5746. 82-122. Cassuto. ed. vol.Torat ha-Te'udot ve-Sidduram shel Sifrei ha-Torah. [10] Pirkei Mo'adot. [6] A review of Jewish Orthodox grappling with the documentary hypothesis is presented by Shavit and Eran. [11] For more extensive discussion. and other articles written about his approach. The best discussion in English of Rav Breuer’s work appears in Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah. as part of his speech. 19-38. 72-75. [13] Obviously. Alon Shvut 5758.' But their view is the view of the Sadducees and the Karaites. will have trouble believing that the plain level of the text does not describe what 'actually' happened. the Samaritan Chumash includes some verses from the parallel narrative in Devarim 1:9-18 – but they have been altered with a view to turning the resulting text into a single continuous narrative: Moshe's words to the people. which in Sefer Devarim are recorded in the first person. which features a number of articles by Rav Breuer and others about his approach. Pirkei Bereishit. instead of presenting them equally or creating a completely new version through his own free workings of them. saying. For a general discussion of the topic see Y. [5] This thoroughgoing apathy arose. in the story of the appointment of the judges. [4] See Alberts. they demonstrate an attempt to forge the different sources into a single continuum that does not grant legitimacy to the contradictions. I cannot bear you alone"). literal level of the text is the 'correct' or 'true' interpretation of the Torah. reflected in the Name "Y-H-V-H"). since in the Samaritan Sefer Torah the fragments that were integrated into Sefer Shemot remained unchanged in their place in Sefer Devarim. pp. Beyond this. Rav Breuer makes extensive use of the expressions "middat ha-din" (the Divine attribute of strict justice. Alon Shvut 5765. Jerusalem 5719. there is a significant difference between these sources and what appears in the Torah: in these sources some changes have been introduced in order to create a single narrative continuum.). pp. I cannot bear you alone". from the fact that some of the greatest supporters of the critical approach were outspoken anti-Semites who used it as a means of launching attacks on Jews and on Judaism. however. [7] In his book Dorot Rishonim. [9] This new approach was first published in the journal De'ot 11. [12] If the biblical text presents “aspects” of the full truth. there are also other ways of understanding the nature of the contradictions. 6-7. 18-25. the references from this point onwards are to this book. Jerusalem 5699. 360) that. Alon Shvut 5769. [8] We have mentioned Rav Hoffmann's book on the subject previously. pp. This principle is well-known and universally accepted in the halakhic realms of the Torah. 299-300). and after that he wrote several more articles on the subject. For example. 1996). see Pirkei Bereishit. and "middat ha-rachamim" (the Divine attribute of mercy. explains the relationship between the two Names in a slightly different way: he posits that the Name "Elo-him" is a "general Name" and therefore appears in various possessive forms. in which the narratives in Sefer Shemot include parallel fragments from Sefer Devarim. pp. as well. Aronson. Shavit and M. where is the problem. among other reasons. In other words. esp. and especially the significance of the two different Names for God in the two accounts of creation. how can we know what actually happened? Counterintuitively. the Samaritan Chumash and manuscripts found at Qumran. 6. the Samaritan text reads: "And Moshe said to the people. A greater measure of freedom than this is attributed to the redactor of the Torah" (ibid. Milchemet ha-Luchot – Ha-Hagana al ha-Mikra be-Mea ha-Tesha Esreh u-Pulmus Bavel ve-ha-Tanakh. In his commentary on Vayikra and Devarim he deals extensively with the critical approach. Tel Aviv 5764. Faithful Jews believe that both the peshat (literal level) and thederash (homiletical level) provide correct and true interpretations of the Torah. rather. my 'aspects approach' merely applies this method to the narrative. Shalom Carmy (The Orthodox Forum. pp. are reworked in the Samaritan Chumash in the third person (for example: instead of "And I said to you at that time. "the protoSamaritan redactor is revealed as having added into one fundamental text an addendum from another text. . pp. in Devarim 1:9. This being the case. 68-80. based on Chazal's teachings in this regard. while the peshat describes what should have happened. The derash describes what actually happened in reality. even in the Samaritan Chumash and other similar sources we find no situation of contradictory narratives which are presented in juxtaposition. Eran. implying the definite article: "Elo-henu" (our God). etc. [15] The connection between the striking of the Nile and the casting of the newborn boys into the Nile is apparent not only in the repetition of the word "yeor" (Nile) multiple times in both narratives. chapter 1 presents a general. is a "private Name" which is not made explicit and does not appear in any possessive form. pp. this is the Lord God of Israel. take in your hand as you go" (Shemot 17:5). "Elo-hekha" (your God). The Name YH-V-H. as a personal Name. provides contradictory answers to this question and it appears that this is a function of the specific aspect of servitude that is being focused on in each location. too. and God commands him. objective description of a universal God and transcendental Being. the Name "Elo-him" expresses a general. as we see later on: "And God said to Moshe. The language here is highly reminiscent of the description of Moshe's concealment as an infant: "And she placed him in the reeds at the bank of the River (al sefat ha-yeor). the land of Israel. The description using God's "general Name. the expression "al sefat ha-yeor" (at the bank of the Nile) is not mentioned in the other plagues. Likewise. [16] The reference here is to Moshe. makes no mention and gives no hint of this relationship. ibid. 208-218. The Torah. whether he likes it or not. Nadler.   ********************************************************* Dedicated in memory of Joseph Y. [17] Two distinct aspects are apparent in the plague of frogs. and Israel in particular. z”l. the dual description of the Flood: the first description. while the Name "Y-H-V-H" expresses the unmediated relationship between God and His creatures in general. describes God as having "regretted… and was sorrowed in His heart. and the staff. Parashat Behar as a whole expresses the idea that God owns the world. for this reason it is emphasized that the servant cannot serve his master in perpetuity but is released. Hence. which relates the laws of theeved ivri in a number of places. The Torah begins with both descriptions in order to express the two aspects of God's relationship with man and to convey both the required "fear of God" – arising from a sense of distance. [14] The explanation proposed here is slightly different from that given by Rav Breuer himself: see Pirkei Mo'adot. And his sister stood (va-tetatzav) at a distance. and "love of God" – arising from a sense of closeness. while in chapter 2 the description is personal and subjective. the question arises as to whether he serves his master forever or goes free in the Jubilee year. but also in another linguistic link: Moshe is sent to Pharaoh prior to the plague. Notably. with which you struck the Nile." on the other hand. in the fiftieth year. and man himself. on the other hand. which mentions "Y-H-V-H". as Rav Breuer notes. For this reason. Yosef ben Yechezkel Tzvi ********************************************************* Shiur #4e: Duplication and Contradiction (continued) The third example that we will look at to illustrate Rav Breuer's "shitat ha-bechinot" is a legal one. Pass before the people and take with you some of the elders of Israel. to know what would be done with him" (2:3-4). . If an indentured Hebrew servant (eved ivri) decides to remain as a servant to his master. overall description of Creation. "You shall stand (ve-nitzavta) at the bank of the Nile (al sefat hayeor) to meet him" (verse 15)." since the text is speaking here of the direct relationship between God and man. the master. then you shall take an awl and thrust it through his ear to the door. and is sold to you. and without any action on his part – or on the part of the slave – being able to prevent the release in any way. and he shall be your servant forever. or a Hebrew woman. without any formal act required on the part of the master. it is a release that is incumbent upon. a Hebrew man. He shall be a hired worker and sojourner with you. and also to your maidservant shall you do thus. therefore I command you this thing today. In contrast. Then he shall depart from you – he and his sons with him – and return to his family." (Devarim 15:12-17) According to this perspective. and . you shall not cause him to serve as a slave. and therefore the release in the Jubilee year is automatic. you shall not send him empty-handed: you shall surely give him from your flock and from your threshing floor and from your vineyard."If your brother who is with you grows poor. for I love you and your house. And you shall remember that you were a servant in the landof Egypt. like the release in the Jubilee year. they shall not be sold as slaves. he has a practical obligation to let his servant go in the seventh year. he will serve with you until the Jubilee year. of that with which the Lord your God has blessed you shall you give to him. he cannot be sold into perpetual servitude in the same manner as a servant who is not an Israelite. what obligates the master to free the servant is not the religious aspect ofparashat Behar – that Israel are God’s servants and not man’s servants – but rather the moral aspect: since each Israelite was once a slave in Egypt. rather. And it shall be. For they are My servants. ‘I will not go out from you. and he shall return to the inheritance of his fathers.’ for he is happy with you. His release in the Jubilee year is a function of the concept of God's ownership over Israel. and initiated by. if he says to you. he must treat his own servants in a moral fashion. This release is not automatic. For this reason." (Vayikra 25:39-42) The emphasis in these verses is on the fact that since every individual in the nation is a servant of God. in parashat Re'eh the Torah illuminates a different perspective of the relations between the master and servant: "If your brother. whom I brought out of the land of Egypt. he shall serve you for six years. and the Lord your God redeemed you. And when you send him free from you. is sold to you. and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. and thereby recognizes in principle. in this instance. However.[1] The examples we have examined are only a few of the many instances in which the "aspects approach" makes use of. as well as succeeding in passing off his work to the Israelites as God's Torah. is exempt forthwith from initiating his release. In Rav Breuer's words: . then the master has no further obligation to effect his release." In practice. but ultimately it is the fundamental basis for the entire debate between the documentary hypothesis and the aspects approach. who joined together contradictory sources from different periods. Instead of this improbable hypothesis. forever. managing to weave them into a reasonably coherent continuum. unparalleled work of an anonymous editor. the master. the scholarly analysis of Wellhausen et al which exposed the contradictions and the independent ideas expressed in the various units. "both these and those are the words of the living God" – and therefore the laws arising from both sections are combined when it comes to the actualhalakha: the master bears a moral obligation to release the servant in the seventh year.for this reason the master is also commanded not to send the servant away empty-handed – just as Israel did not leave Egypt emptyhanded (see Shemot 3:21). yet it explains the nature of the phenomenon in a radically different way. this approach is dependent on faith in God as the Giver of the Torah. These contradictions are not the wondrous. Of course. in the Jubilee year. if the servant wishes to stay. This faith lies beyond the specific textual questions that are addressed here. the servant goes free automatically – since an Israelite cannot be sold into perpetual servitude. This composition is indeed unparalleled and unprecedented – precisely because only God could have created it. the servant indeed remains "a servant forever. Given that the master has exhausted his moral obligations. By separating out the two aspects of servitude – theocentric (Israel are God’s servants not man’s) and anthropocentric (Israelites must learn from their experience in Egypt to treat their kinsmen ethically) – the full picture presented is more complex and nuanced than would have been possible had the laws appeared combined in a single section of the Torah. Rav Breuer presents a sober and logical explanation which views the contradictions as God's way of conveying the complexity that characterizes different realms in the Torah. and if the servant foregoes his freedom and prefers to stay. for his part. However. is not always convincing. In his books. based on more clearly defined ideas. Rather. and that it is He who also edited them into a single book. This debate between us and the Bible critics cannot be decided by the intellect. and may propose a different division of the aspects. on the other hand. as noted. Rav Breuer’s fundamental insight should be seen as highlighting the Torah's tendency to express the complexity of various concepts and narratives through repetition. attributing half-verses to one or another aspect. believe that the sources of the Torah were written by God."All that separates us is faith in the Divine origin of the Torah. They believe that the sources of the Torah were written by man." (Shitat Ha-bechinot. ambiguity. we can state that the phenomenon of different and contradictory aspects certainly exists in the Torah. In parallel with the process that has occurred in the academic world. then. but it need not be applied at all costs and certainly not in a dogmatic fashion. they acknowledge that the text is sometimes so intertwined and convoluted that the proposed division is difficult to accept. while in recent times. for the intellect has nothing to say on the matter. pp.[3] F. scholars seeking to implement the "aspects approach" do not view themselves as being obligated by the precise claims of the early critics’ division of the text. some of these have already been treated here. many scholars have questioned the possibility of arriving at a clear. This insight exists in its own right and is not dependent upon the ability to divide and separate the text in to a number of clearly defined documents. Rav Breuer explains these contradictions on the basis of the "aspects . In general.[2] It seems therefore that the "aspects approach" itself allows us to understand that there is actually no need to identify a clear division between the various documents – a division which may reasonably be assumed not to exist. 343-344) It should be noted that Rav Breuer's extensive and minute analysis of the textual units. and the division between various units of the text may be implemented in places where the division is clear. and contradiction. Sefer Devarim Biblical scholars since de Wette have been entirely correct in identifying many contradictions between the contents of Sefer Devarim and that which we find in the other Books of the Torah. and that a mortal redactor edited them into a single book. systematic division of sources. He accepts almost unquestioningly the literary analysis of the classical Bible critics. We. while the curses enumerated inparashat Bechukotai in Vayikra must be completed in a single reading from the Torah without interruption. the curses in parashat Ki Tavo in Devarim may be interrupted in the middle. but in the curses in SeferDevarim.[6] Elsewhere Chazal note that in analyzing Moshe's speeches in Devarim one can speculate as to the reason for the juxtaposition of two particular subjects." (Megilla 31b) In other words. Those are stated in the singular.[5] For this reason. What is the reason for this? These are stated in the plural. since the great majority of the book is made up not of objective narration.approach. In some places Chazal note the special nature of Moshe's speeches. but rather Moshe's own words in the speech where he bids farewell to the nation. and Moshe uttered them at God's instruction. Yet it seems that specifically with regard to Sefer Devarim." and we have already examined one example in our above discussion of the release of the Hebrew servant. and Moshe stated them on his own. recorded in the unit of the curses in Sefer Vayikra. but in Devarim he did. since these are not a quote of God's words. it is permitted to interrupt." (Yevamot 4a)[7] . as evidenced by Rabbi Yehuda. pointing out that the fact that it is he who delivers these speeches even has halakhic significance: "And there is no interruption of the section on the curses… Abaye said: This applies only to the verses in Sefer Vayikra. who usually did not seek to explain. these words of Moshe should be regarded as equivalent to any other reported speech in the Torah and not treated in the same way as God's words. he does so. even if one were to maintain that in general there is no special significance to the ordering of topics in the Torah: "And Rav Yosef said: Even one who does not usually delve into the reason behind the juxtaposition of different units in the Torah – with relation to Devarim. but rather of Moshe's own lengthy speeches – especially the opening speech (1:6–4:40) and the "speech of the mitzvot" (5:1-26:19). there is no need to appeal to the aspects approach in order to resolve the abundant contradictions. the contradictions arise not between two textual units of the Torah. but rather between the words of the Torah and the words of Moshe as recorded in the Torah.[4] In other words. for it would be unwarranted to expect that a story told from an objective standpoint would be identical to a subjective account offered by someone who was part of that story. in each instance we need to examine the account and explain why the event is described from a subjective viewpoint. The Lord before Whom I walk will send His angel with you. 39-41)[8] Thus.In light of this. One of the most prominent differences concerns the initial dialogue between Avraham and his servant. "Guard yourself lest you take my son back to there…. shall I then take your son back to the land from whence you departed?" (Bereishit24:5). how it expresses . the entire matter of the possibility of taking Yitzchak is omitted. Then you shall be free of my oath. you shall be free of my oath.. And he said to me. The objective account records the servant as asking Avraham. and you shall take a wife for my son from my family and from my father's household. you shall be free of this oath to me. Rather. "Perhaps the woman will not agree to follow me to this land. When the servant recounts these events. and the objective narrative that precedes it in the Torah. 6-8). Avraham's response is. all that is recalled of the discussion is: "I said to my master. Perhaps the woman will not follow me. and if they do not grant it to you. and cause your path to prosper. there are many discrepancies between the report that Avraham's servant conveys to Rivka's family concerning his quest to find a wife for Yitzchak. This point is borne out by the fact that in many places in the Torah we find discrepancies between the Torah's objective description and the subjective account of a participant who describes the events from his own point of view. the discrepancies between objective descriptions and subjective accounts should not be treated as contradictions. there is no need to appeal to the "aspects approach" when discussing the contradictions between Devarim and other parts of the Torah. For instance. only do not take my son back there" (ibid." (ibid. when you come to my family. If the woman will not agree to follow you. the speaker's own perspective, and what is its role in the larger narrative. This principle holds true regardless of whether we are analyzing a short account, such as that conveyed by Avraham's servant, or a long monologue, such as Moshe's second speech in Devarim. The subjective nature of the account remains what it is. Of course, this point does not free us from the obligation to address the reasons behind the discrepancies between subjective and objective reporting in the Torah. If this is true of discrepancies concerning narrative sections, it is all the more true with regards to units of a halakhic nature where, presumably, Moshe’s subjective standpoint would be of little significance. Nevertheless, the overall point remains that we should distinguish between contradictions within the Torah’s objective account, and contradictions betweenMoshe' words in Devarim spoken from his own perspective and the rest of the Torah. In the next shiur, we shall examine three of the main characteristics of Moshe's speeches, which help us understand Moshe's intention and also, thereby, the nature of the contradictions between his own words and that which we find elsewhere in the Torah. (To be continued) Translated by Kaeren Fish [1] See Shitat Ha-bechinot, pp. 69-70. In a future shiur I shall address the question of the relationship between the plain meaning of the text and the midrashei halakha (the rabbinic analysis of the legal sections of the Torah), in instances where there are different aspects that contradict one another on the practical level. We will see how themidrash halakha in fact integrates the different approaches into a practical solution. [2] As we have noted in the past, even the division between the "Divine attribute of strict justice" and the "Divine attribute of mercy," as Rav Breuer proposes it (paralleling, in literary terms, the division between the "E" source and the "J" source), neither requires nor admits of systematic adherence to these concepts. [See the wide-ranging and perceptive treatment of R. Yehuda Rock, “Shitat Ha-bechinot: Bikkoret Metodologit veYissum Mechudash,” Megadim 53 (Tevet 5772), pp. 9-73.] [3] Some proponents of Rav Breuer's approach deviated from his approach, and sought to argue that it is still possible to accept the fundamental historical argument of the documentary hypothesis and to say that the Torah was indeed written by prophets during the First Temple Period, and not by Moshe. This approach argues that such a claim does not contradict faith in the Divine origin of the Torah, since everything was written and redacted with a prophetic spirit, even if not by Moshe personally. Rav Breuer rejected such approaches vehemently (Shitat Ha-bechinot, pp. 156-168), arguing that they were to be regarded as "a new faith which these people invented on their own" (ibid., p. 162), since the Torah is not a prophetic book written in the language of the prophet, but rather God's direct word as conveyed to Moshe. Yisrael Knohl (cited by Rav Breuer, pp. 301-305) attempted to defend these approaches, positing that some of the medieval commentators recognized that certain verses in the Torah were not written by Moshe (as we discussed at length in previousshiurim), and that it is therefore possible to grant legitimacy to the argument that different aspects in the Torah were written by prophets. However, Rav Breuer argued (pp. 306-313) that a few individual verses do not serve as the basis for drawing conclusions as to the writing of the Torah as a whole. For more on this polemic, see Uriel Simon, "Shenayim Ochazim be-'Sod Ha-sheneim Asar' shel R. Avraham Ibn Ezra," Megadim 51 (Iyar 5770), pp. 77-85. Rav Breuer also made this point in an article published in English, “The Study of Bible and the Primacy of the Fear of Heaven: Compatibility or Contradiction?” in Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah, ed. S. Carmy (Jersey City, 1995), pp. 159-181. [4] See Ramban at the beginning of his commentary on Sefer Devarim (1:1). [5] Of course, this teaching of Chazal in no way implies any distinction between the status of Devarim and the status of the other Books of the Torah. Chazal simply mean to note that the great majority of Devarim consists of Moshe's speeches, and therefore these quotes may indeed reflect Moshe's own individual style, where he speaks "on his own," not having been commanded to say these words by God – just like the words of anyone else as recorded in the Torah. [6] This principle is extended by Rabbi Chaim ben Attar, in the introduction to his commentary Or Ha-chaim on Devarim: "Our Sages taught that the curses in Devarim were uttered by Moshe himself. Even though he was repeating and explaining God's prior words, he was not commanded to do so; rather, he repeated it on his own initiative… Therefore Devarim starts with the words, 'These are the words which Moshe spoke…' – meaning, these alone are the things which Moshe said of his own initiative, whereas in everything that preceded this, in the other four Books, he did not utter so much as a single letter on his own; rather, it was conveyed directly as God commanded." [7] As noted by Rabbi Eliezer ben Natan of Mainz, one of the great sages of Ashkenaz in the th 12 century, in his Responsa, #34: "The entire Torah was uttered by God, and there is no chronological order; but Moshe ordered Devarim, section after section, in such a way as to impart certain lessons." [8] Another example is the meeting between Yosef, as governor of Egypt, and his brothers (Bereishit 42). The Torah records that after accusing his brothers of being spies, they deny the charge and willingly offer the information that they have another brother: "And they said, Your servants are twelve; we are brothers, the son of one man in the land of Kena'an, and behold – the youngest is with our father today, and one is gone" (ibid. 42:13). But when Yehuda approaches Yosef later on, and recalls all that has transpired in the encounters between them, he offers a different account: "My lord asked his servants, saying: Do you have a father or a brother? And we said to my lord, We have a father, who is old, and a young child of his old age; and his brother died, and he alone remains of his mother, and his father loves him" (ibid. 44:19-20). Further on in Yehuda's dramatic speech there are other significant differences between his subjective account and the objective description that precedes it in the previous chapters.   ********************************************************* Dedicated in memory of Joseph Y. Nadler, z”l, Yosef ben Yechezkel Tzvi ********************************************************* Shiur #4f: Duplication and Contradiction (continued) Three Themes Unique to Sefer Devarim 1. Morality as the basis for commandments inDevarim In our discussion on Devarim until now we have noted that in the unit concerning the Hebrew servant, Moshe emphasizes the ethical obligations of the master towards his servant, with the basis of this demand lying in the exhortation to "remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt" (5:14). This expression, which occurs five times over the course of Devarim, is a motif that reflects the emphasis in Moshe's speech on the moral dimension of the commandments, in contrast – or in addition – to the religious aspect that is emphasized in the other books of the Torah. The best-known example in this regard is the rationale for Shabbat as set forth in the two different formulations of the Ten Commandments. In parashatYitro in Sefer Shemot, the mitzva is presented as pertaining to the man-God relationship, with its purpose being to remember the Creation of the world: "Remember the Shabbat day to sanctify it… For [in] six days God made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; therefore God blessed the Shabbat day and sanctified it." (Shemot 20:7-10) By contrast, in parashat Vaetchanan in Devarim, Moshe repeats the Ten Commandments and presents Shabbat in a very different light: Shabbat is a moral-social commandment whose goal is to provide rest for the servant. "Observe the Shabbat day to sanctify it… in order that your manservant and your maidservant shall rest like you. And you shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out of there with a strong hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commands you to observe the Shabbat day." (Devarim 5:11-14) In this instance, the rationale for the command rests upon a recollection of Israel's experience of servitude inEgypt. Another example of a commandment whose description takes on a distinctly moral character when it appears in Devarim is the commandment of rejoicing on the festivals. When the commandment appeared inVayikra, it is mentioned in the context of the four species: "And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of a beautiful tree, branches of the date palm, and twigs from the tree with thick bark, and willows of the river, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days." (Vayikra 23:40) The rejoicing appears here as an expression of thanks to God, performed through the bringing of the four species.[1] In Devarim by contrast, the joy of the festival is a far more socially-oriented concept, which entails the involvement of the more vulnerable sectors of society – once again, based on the moral imperative that arises from the memory of slavery in Egypt: "And you shall remember that you were a servant in Egypt… and you shall rejoice in your festival – you and your son and your daughter, and your manservant and your maidservant, and the Levite and the stranger and the orphan and the widow who are in your gates." (Devarim 16:12-14) The principle finds expression in several more [2] commandments, yet the examples we have seen until now appear sufficient to demonstrate the general phenomenon of the role that morality plays in the commandments in Devarim. The reason for this becomes clear when we consider the context and setting of Devarim. Moshe delivers his speeches as the nation is about to cross the Jordan and enter the land, undergoing a great transformation from a nomadic people to a nation living in its own land. For this reason, Moshe regards it as essential to emphasize the social aspect of the commandments, as a fundamental condition to sustain Israel’s presence in the land for the coming generations. The memory of the exodus fromEgypt will accompany them as the basis of their commitment to behave morally and ethically towards the weak and the vulnerable among them. 2. God’s love of Israel in Devarim Moshe's speeches are the only sources in the Torah that treat the relationship between God and Israelfrom a perspective of love. Devarim speaks of God's love for Israel, in verses such as, "It is not because you are more numerous than any other nation that God set His love upon you and chose you, for you were the fewest among all the nations; [rather,] it was out of God's love for you, and for Him to keep the oath which He swore to your forefathers…" (7:7-8); 6) In other words. and He shall be good to you. and obey Him… and the Lord your God will bring back your captivity. it is only in Devarim that we find the reciprocal command for Israel to love God: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart. and you shall take possession of it. it seems that the reason for this is connected to the context of Devarim. and with all your soul. and have mercy upon you. and with all your soul. This is indicated in Moshe's parting speech at the end of Devarim. 3. The Sanctity of the People in Devarim . love of God is possible only in theLand of Israel – the land upon which God's eyes rest "from the beginning of the year until the end of the year" (see 11:12). and multiply you more than your fathers." (30:2-5) Only afterwards does Moshe say. "And you shall return to the Lord your God. being set on the eve of entry into the land." For this reason. First we read."The Lord your God would not listen to Bil'am. and gather you back from all of the nations… and the Lord your God will bring you to the land which your forefathers inherited. Only in the land can the relationship between God and Israel reach a level that may properly be called "love." (23:6) Likewise. and the Lord your God transformed the curse into a blessing." (ibid. and with all your might" (6:5). again. "You shall love the Lord your God and observe His charge and His statutes and His judgments and His commandments for all time. where he describes the process of repentance that Israel willundergo after being exiled from the land as punishment for their sins. for the Lord your God loves you." (11:1) Here. that you may live.. it is just prior to entry into the land that Moshe permits himself to mention this concept to describe the bond between God and the nation. to love the Lord your God with all your heart. "And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants. and the Lord your God has chosen you to be a special possession for Himself out of all the nationsthat are upon the face of the earth." (chapters 5-26 of Devarim) in contrast to the other books of the Torah. including the following prohibition: "They shall not make a bald patch on their head. for it is the offerings of the Lord made by fire." (ibid. the bread of their God. nor shall they shave the corners of their beard. since we may posit that there are two levels of holiness: whereVayikra speaks of the holiness of . Moshe treats the whole people as holy. In Devarim. This status requires conduct on a certain level. For you are aholy nation unto the Lord your God. nor make a baldness between your eyes for the dead. or is torn by beasts. is the special level of sanctity attributed to the people as a whole. that he may eat it. by contrast. you shall give it to the stranger who is in your gates. 22:8). and shall not profane the Name of their God.Another principle that is conspicuous in Moshe's "speech of the mitzvot. you shall not gash yourselves. for you are a holy nation unto the Lord your God. and forbids them from various practices such as making a bald spot or cutting themselves. that they offer up. to defile himself with it" (ibid. In the continuation of the discussion. They shall be holy to their God.Parashat Emor in Vayikra sets forth various laws pertaining to the sanctity of the kohanim (priests). and for this reason the entire nation bears the same restrictions as those given to thekohanim in Vayikra: "You are children to the Lord your God. he [the kohen] shall not eat of it." (Devarim14:1-2) "You shall not eat any animal that dies of itself. therefore they shall be holy. or you may sell it to a foreigner. 21) The discrepancy between Vayikra and Devarim in this regard is not necessarily contradictory. this holiness also prohibits kohanim from eating forbidden foods: "That which dies of itself. nor make any cut in their flesh." (Vayikra 21:5-6) The source of the kohanim’s special holiness lies in the fact that they minister in the Mishkan and administer the sacrificial services. just as the breast of elevation offering and the right thigh are yours. of your wine. the Torah addresses the kohanim and speaks of their obligations and their rights. behold. you shall not redeem. and the firstborn of your herds." (Devarim 15:19-20) And in the only place in Devarim where mention is made of tithes. in the place which the Lord shall choose – you and your household. For example. we read of the giving of the firstborn to the kohen: "But the firstborn of an ox. of your oil. the Torah talks about the tithes given to theleviim: "And to the children of Levi.[4] How are we to explain this phenomenon of the sanctity of Israel that appears so prominently inDevarim? It would seem that on the eve of the entry into the land. you shall sprinkle their blood upon the altar… and their meat shall be yours. or the firstborn of a goat. year by year. after the rebellion of Korach. year by year. in the place where He will choose to cause His Name to rest – the tithe of your corn. Moshe inDevarim introduces the idea that these laws actually apply to the entire nation. 14:22-23). Inter alia." (Bamidbar 18:17-18) Further on.the kohanim. and of your flocks" (ibid.[3] Indeed. over the course of the speech of the mitzvot it becomes clear that Moshe understands the halakhic dimension of the holiness of Israel as finding expression not only in prohibitions but also in rights and entitlements normally reserved for thekohanim or leviim. they are holy. or the firstborn of a sheep. 21) Moshe's speech in Devarim however. I have given all the tithes in Israel as their share." (ibid. And you shall eat it before the Lord your God. indicates that it is Israel themselves who are entitled to partake of the firstborn animals: "Every firstborn male that is born of your cattle and your flocks you shall dedicate to the Lord your God… you shall eat it before the Lord your God. Moshe describes a utopian reality – the . in return for the service which they perform – the service of the Tent of Meeting. the same idea recurs: "You shall surely tithe all of the increase of your seed that the field brings forth. This question – of whether Israel merit God’s benevolence and designation as a holy nation – is one of the central themes of Moshe's speeches throughout Devarim. it is contingent upon observance of the commandments. as He promised you. rather. In this sense.ideal situation of Israel. Moshe declares that there is seemingly no need for the legislation regarding cancellation of debts. there is a connection to another instance in Moshe's speeches where the utopian vision and gritty reality are presented alongside one another. And you shall be for Me a kingdom ofkohanim and a holy nation. if you keep the commandments of the Lord your God and follow in His ways. where we are told: "And now. the Lord your God has chosen you to be a special possession for Himself out of all the nations that are upon the face of the earth. then you will be My special possession out of all the nations. if you will diligently obey Me and observe My covenant." (Devarim 28:9) The holiness of Israel will be expressed only if the nation observes the commandments and follows the way of God. This idea. On the one hand. for all the earth is Mine. but only if Israel were truly deserving of their status as a holy nation. this vision itself hints strongly that this holiness is not automatic. The whole nation was indeed supposed to be imbued with the same sanctity as that of the kohanim." (Shemot 19:5-6) On the other hand. On the one hand. as well as in other places – the people are indeed holy: "For you are a holy nation unto the Lord your God." (Devarim 7:6) This continues the vision that was presented prior to the revelation at Sinai. too. since there will be no loans and no poor people: . he asserts – as we have seen in the verses discussed above. recurs in Moshe's speeches on the eve of the entry into the land: "The Lord shall establish you for Himself as a holy nation. Thus the ideal of Israel living in the land as a holy nation is always presented alongside the awareness that such a status is conditional upon the people living up to the obligations that are at the heart of the lofty vision. Conclusion We have examined several points here that illustrate the special nature of Devarim."But there shall be no poor person among you. Obviously. for the Lord shall surely bless you in the land which the Lord your God gives to you as an inheritance. as he states explicitly in several places during his speeches (such as 4:25-27. Moreover. to your poor and to your needy who are in your land. as they are about to enter the land. with its idiosyncratic style and unique ideas. Moshe sees fit to present the people with the aspiration to be a holy nation. and therefore Moshe establishes only a few verses later: "For the poor shall never cease from the midst of the land. the scope of this shiur does not allow for an exhaustive discussion of the entire book. these laws may well never be implemented – for Israel will not reach the level of holiness that will create this reality. Nevertheless. Moshe describes the nation in an ideal state. saying." (ibid. to observe and to perform all of these commandments which I command you this day. in his speeches. therefore I command you. treats identical topics with different emphases founding Devarim and in the other books of the Torah. you shall surely open your hand to your brother. they provide a convincing response . Identification of such themes allows us to explain the variations between his words inDevarim and the text elsewhere." (Devarim 15:4-5) However. however. We have explained why Moshe. just as the priests who serve in the Temple do. 30:1). to possess it – only if you diligently obey the Lord your God. but I believe that the examples that we have addressed here offer an overall approach toDevarim as a whole. where they are worthy of eating of the firstborn of the animals and of the tithes of the produce. The same idea applies holds true with regard to Israel and their holy status. even this formulation suggests that ultimately the idyllic economic situation is dependent upon observance of the commandments. In practice. as something for which they should strive in their life in the land. 11) This command rests upon Moshe's clear assumption that the people will sin and be exiled from the land. you shall not forget" (ibid. this interpretation is difficult to reconcile with the plain meaning of the text. but the plain reading of the text contains no mention of the sacrifices in these verses." However. In the description in Devarim. rather. [3] As Ramban comments (Devarim 14:1): "Now it is made clear that Moshe commanded them thus not only owing to the stature of thekohanim. in accordance with the halakha set down byChazal: "'You shall eat it before the Lord your God' – this is addressed to the kohen. 19). just as they do. Nadler. while you were tired and weary" (ibid. hence you too should observe this commandment. z”l. 54a) records a dispute as to whether the rejoicing here is over the four species or over the festive sacrifices. concerning contradictory verses that were said "as a single utterance" (be-dibbur echad): .. 17:14).” this approach has much earlier – perhaps even ancient – roots. The roots of the "aspects approach" While Rav Breuer pioneered the systematic application of the "aspects approach. (To be continued) Translated by Kaeren Fish [1] The Yerushalmi (Sukka 3:11. all of the congregation is holy. [2] We might briefly note an interesting example: the story of Amalek is presented in Shemot (17:8-16) as the first war waged against Israel. The most obvious foundation for such an approach would seem to be found in the well-known teaching of Chazal. in contrast (25:17-19). and it therefore seems more reasonable to accept the view that the rejoicing is over bringing the four species. p. and as the first blow to God's "deterrent effect" which is described at length in the Song of the Sea (ibid. that appears in a number of variations. the obligation concerning Amalek is placed specifically upon Israel: "You shall erase the memory of Amalek from under the heavens. Yosef ben Yechezkel Tzvi ********************************************************* Shiur #4g: Duplication and Contradiction (continued) G. 18).to the questions raised by Biblical scholars from de Witte onwards regarding the disparities between Devarim and other books of the Torah. 15:14-16).   ********************************************************* Dedicated in memory of Joseph Y.. God Himself fights against Amalek." [4] Rashi explains. ‘You are all sons of the Lord your God’ – like the kohanim. for we already know that this is one of the gifts given to the kohanim. and attacking the stragglers who trailed after you. For this reason. and promises to do so also in the future: "For I shall surely erase the memory of Amalek from under the heavens" (ibid. Hence. the emphasis is on the negative moral aspect of Amalek's act towards Israel: "For meeting you on the way. Nedarim chapter 3. col. 'One thing was said by God' – in speech."'Shav' and 'shaker'[1] emerged as a single utterance. or for the ear to perceive. which is impossible for the human mouth to say. without blemish' (Bamidbar28:9) emerged as a single utterance. says the Lord. pertaining to material fact. which is impossible for the human mouth to say. then "both these and . one of the most prominent Tosafists of the 13th century. 'Is My word not like a fire. like a hammer that shatters rock' (Yirmiyahu 23:29). or for the ear to perceive. based on Biblical sources. there are differing opinions. to the human mind these statements appear to contradict one another. For our purposes it is important to note that while the Talmud and classical commentators have supplied answers to the contradictions and tensions cited here. where the gemara(Eiruvin 13b) concludes that "both these and those are the words of the living God.[3] 'You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife' (Vayikra 18:16) and 'Her husband's brother shall go to her' (Devarim 25:5) emerged as a single utterance …[4] And so it is written. 'Zakhor'and 'shamor'[2] emerged as a single utterance.” Rabbeinu Peretz bar Eliyahu of Corbeil. and it is written. The verses may be interpreted in two different ways. One opinion states that its size was sixty cubits while the other maintains that it was twenty. the text offers no decisive ruling. Surely the actual size of the altar could accord with only one of the opinions? Rabbeinu Peretz explains that even in this sort of question. 'yet two things have I heard' (Tehillim 62:12). raises a question on this statement that is pertinent to our own discussion:[5] how can we conclude that "both these and those are the words of the living God" in questions of material fact? For example. the emphasis of our gemara is that the disparities between the verses are to be appreciated in and of themselves without reference to any potential resolution. which is impossible for the human mouth to say. concerning the size of the altar in the Temple(see Zevachim 62a). 37d) This passage draws a clear distinction between God and man: where God is able to utter multiple ideas in a single utterance. and so long as the method of exegesis is rooted in the text itself. A well-known Talmudic text of a similar nature occurs concerning the disputes between the School ofHillel and the School of Shammai. 'Those who desecrate it shall be put to death' (Shemot 31:14) and 'Two lambs of the first year." (Yerushalmi. or for the ear to perceive. in an ancient book that had been written before Sancheriv's upheaval. and in another book something else. The text need not adopt a one-sided position. the text does not necessarily describe the physical reality as such but rather offers the possibility of multiple interpretations. went toMount Se'ir… and they smote the remnant of Amalek. are able to coexist. but nevertheless are both to be considered as “the words of the living God. means up until the time of the writing (and not until the reader's time)." (Divrei Ha-yamim I 4:42-43) Clearly. this verse still poses a problem.” which appears many times in Tanakh. "Some of them. this description is not relevant to our own times. Because in any case the lineage of the generations is not properly ordered. as I have written. to the human mind. author of Sha'agat Aryeh. one of the greatest Lithuanian scholars of the 18th century. arose and confounded all the nationalities. In Sefer Divrei Ha-yamim we find. and he copied what he found. and also some between Divrei Ha-yamim and the Book of Ezra. The Gemara (Yoma 54a) states that the expression "to this day.those are the words of the living God" – even though it is clear that only one opinion can accord with what was historically the case. appear contradictory. which. then it surely applies to a matter of different perspectives on reality. who had escaped.' . king of Assyria. It seems most likely to suggest that he found written. such as the size of the altar. for according to Chazal it was Ezra who composed Divrei haYamim (Bava Batra 15a). for the purposes of the Tanakh’s message. it includes several internal contradictions. or different elements of a world-view. Thus. of the children of Shimon." However." Rav Breuer himself[6] found a basis for his approach in the works of Rabbi Aryeh Leib Ginzburg. If this is so where the question at stake is of a technical nature. and they dwelled there to this day. for in one book he found such-and-such. for "Sancheriv. long after the time of Sancheriv – so how could even Ezra himself have written about Shimon dwelling in MountSe'ir "to this day"? Rabbi Aryeh Leib Ginzburg suggests an answer in his Gevurat Ari on Massekhet Yoma: "We must conclude that Ezra copied the Chronicles from some books which he found. it may express two truths which. 'And some of the children of Shimon went…' up until 'And they dwelled there to this day. not wishing to introduce any changes [although this was no longer the reality]. too. the conceptual basis of the "aspects approach. is indeed an original and audacious idea. when we are not pressured by anything. it is specifically the grappling with such approaches that creates the possibility of deepening our understanding of the Torah: And in general. we can confidently also struggle against it. which views contrasts and contradictions as part of an overarching. Were the distances between them to be eliminated.” too. and Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik.and he copied it word for word. For example. so that eventually true unity can arise. While it seems that even the Sha'agat Aryeh himself never contemplated for a moment the possibility of applying this approach concerning the latter Books of Tanakh. expressing all of its unique. not as problems that require solutions. they would blur into one another. individual characteristics. and through this exaltation the ideas are revealed. the "aspects approach" in fact rests upon Rav Kook's fundamental approach of seeking out the positive elements even in those views that contradict the Torah and Jewish faith. and thereafter. As we have mentioned in previous shiurim. in doing so we are exalted by the Torah. Thus. to the Five Books of the Torah. this is an important rule in the struggle of ideas: we should not immediately refute any idea which comes to contradict anything in the Torah. conforms to Rav Kook's harmonious approach. but rather we should build the palace of Torah above it. allencompassing unity. This idea appears in many different places in Rav Kook's writings.[8] he compares different world-views to saplings which must be planted at some distance from one another in order for each to be able to grow and develop fully. For him. but as part of an overall harmony and a more . Only out of this distance and sharp contrast are we able to appreciate the connections between the separate parts. the identity and features of each would be less distinct. we do encounter the foundations for such an approach in the writings of two of the greatest Jewish philosophers of the 20th century: Rav Avraham Yitzchak ha-Kohen Kook. which Ezra copied verbatim into his books despite the resulting contradictions. in Orot ha-Kodesh.[7] More specifically. Rav Kook also laid the foundations for the approach which views contradictions in the biblical text." The assertion that Divrei Ha-yamim and the Book of Ezra were composed with input from other sources. on literary categories invented by modern man. Of course. . [3] Likewise in reference to Shabbat. we reject this hypothesis which is based. since we do unreservedly accept the unity and integrity of the Scriptures and their divine character. like much Biblical criticism. At the end of a discussion on the nature of prophecy and its relationship to science he concludes: "…. "Shamor et yom ha-shabbat" – Observe the Shabbat day. and explained some of the contradictions between Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of Bereishit[10] in a manner similar to the "aspects approach": "We all know that the Bible offers two accounts of the creation of man. not in an imaginary contradiction between two versions but in a real contradiction in the nature of man. for it is inestimably greater than science. Reality is not afraid of contradictions as science is. This incongruity was not discovered by the Bible critics. (To be continued) Translated by Kaeren Fish [1] th This refers to the discrepancy in the 9 of the Ten Commandments. in Devarim 5:16 we find "ed shav. although Rav Breuer was the first to apply his method in a consistent and specific manner. and it is no wonder that they are not identical. two types. the roots of his approach are firmly rooted in generations of Jewish philosophy. However."[9] Rav Soloveitchik took this a step further."[11] Thus. true that the two accounts of the creation of man differ considerably.” [2] th The 4 of the Ten Commandments in Shemot is introduced by the words "Zakhor et yom ha-shabbat" – Remember the Shabbat day. this is not a contradiction. Our sages of old were aware of it.complete truth. The two accounts deal with two Adams. two representatives of humanity. We are also aware of the theory suggested by Bible critics attributing these two accounts to two different traditions and sources. It is. of course. two fathers of mankind. two men. Strictly speaking. the answer lies not in an alleged dual tradition but in dual man. "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor": in Shemot 20:12 the expression for "false witness" is "ed shaker". inDevarim we find. since it is possible for God to prohibit labor on Shabbat while at the same time commanding the offering of sacrifices on Shabbat. ignoring completely the eidetic-noetic content of the Biblical story. The deep sleep could be interpreted as visions. and this could also last for some time. also lead in their essence – if we seek their source – to the depths of a faith that is more exalted. p. Jerusalem 5764. especially in part I. 2012). kovetz 1 siman 594. 70. See Shitat ha-Bechinot. [6] See Shitat ha-Bechinot. Iggerot haRAY"H 1. [7] Iggerot ha-RAY"H 1 (Jerusalem 5722). p. 27." Concerning the relationship between the story of the Creation and the theory of evolution. p. Rav Kook writes a similar idea in other places. in chapter 1 and chapter 2 of Bereishit). Jerusalem 5724. Rav Kook was vehemently opposed to the study of biblical criticism: see. such as in Orot ha-Kodesh 2. and that through some sort of vision it appeared to him that he had to establish a family that would be stable and of noble spirit. out of the same simple understanding that shone prior to the appearance of this rift. This. 92 onwards. [10] On more than one occasion I heard Rav Breuer express his regret that Rav Soloveitchik did not expand his approach beyond the specific aspect noted here. Bias in the writing of Tanakh? We have seen that despite making identical use of the same literary tools. is cited byRav Breuer. for example.14). iggeret 134 (translation from Tzvi Feldman in Selected Letters [Ma’aleh Adumim. at the end of a different article: see Shitat ha-Bechinot. chapters 8-13.[4] Here again. the most fundamental difference between the documentary hypothesis and the aspects approach concerns the question of whether the Torah is of Divine origin or a human creation. see my article in Shitat ha-Bechinot. Rav Soloveitchik goes on to develop these two aspects of man. The other examples which Chazal go on to cite. 188-189. Rav Kook wrote: "A comparison between the story of the Creation and recent studies is a noble endeavor. [9] Iggerot ha-RAY"H 2. more illuminating and life-giving. omitted here. which does not arise for those who believe in Divine authorship of the Torah.   ********************************************************* Dedicated in memory of Joseph Y. 547: "The very same declarations and paths that lead to the ways of heresy. Nadler. see Shitat ha-Bechinot. 1986]. 299-300. Adam I and Adam II (corresponding to the Torah's description of his creation. p. pp. 317. Jerusalem 5722. p. p. There is no problem with interpreting the biblical account. too. until the consolidation of the idea of 'bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh'…" (Shemonah Kevatzim. The idea that Rav Kook sets forth here is part of a more comprehensive discussion which he develops over the course ofOrot ha-Kodesh. At the same time. p. and Rav Breuer's response. p.Rav Breuer himself cites this passage as the heading of his second article on the subject of his exegetical approach. 120. A central question for Bible critics. pp. until man arrived at some awareness that he was differentiated from all animals. [5] For further discussion. z”l. p. iggeret 478. Iggerot ha-RAY"H 2. Yosef ben Yechezkel Tzvi ********************************************************* Shiur #4h: Duplication and Contradiction (continued) H. [8] Orot ha-Kodesh 1. 15. is the question . iggeret 279. 163). Jerusalem 5723. this is not a clear contradiction. 28. p. [11] The Lonely Man of Faith (Jerusalem: Maggid. 295-298. 7. who would be more connected to him than his father and his mother – his natural family members. iggeret 363. pp. 'These are the generations of the heavens and the earth' as containing within itself worlds of millions of years. since the Torah does not state explicitly that one may not marry the wife of a brother who has died. p. by choosing a wife. are of a similar nature. in truth he does not want to bear a son. However. It will also be argued that only by reading the Biblical text on its own terms can its messages be appreciated. from the point of view of Yaakov. so as to evade the difficult moral problem of murder (Bereishit37:26-27). At the beginning of chapter 38. the wife of his deceased brother. A review of the story demonstrates that its central theme is Yehuda's process of repentance. while at the same time not killing him. Outwardly. with no lying or deceit – "See now. the shameful path of combining sin with evasion of responsibility reappears in the behavior of Onan. However. In this shiur we will demonstrate the considerable difference that arises therefore between approaches which will always look at a text with an eye to who wrote it and why. Two of Yehuda's sons die. these attempts have generally been rather forced. he spilled [his seed] on the ground so as not to give seed to his brother" (Bereishit38:9). just as it does for murder (Devarim 24:7). In recent generations there have been attempts to identify the authors with greater precision – whether in relation to the documentary hypothesis or independently of it. His sin lies primarily in his attempt to gain the best of both worlds. selling a person into slavery is a very grave act. and ask with seeming innocence – technically. offering a "white lie" as they show Yaakov Yosef's coat that has been dipped in blood.[2] and therefore "when he came to his brother's wife. Er. The story of Yehuda and Tamar (Bereishit 38) is one of the most dramatic episodes in the Torah. One chapter prior to this story. Yehuda is the main protagonist in the sale of Yosef.[1] The brothers all adopt Yehuda's deceptive approach. the blow is exactly as painful as it would have been had the brothers really killed Yosef. and that searching for agendas behind the text ends up obscuring far more than it illuminates. as it were: he wants to rid the family of Yosef. as well running counter to the impression that arises from the biblical text as a whole.of who authored the various documents and who collated them into a single textual anthology. is it your son's coat or not?" (Bereishit 37:32). Various scholars have tried to demonstrate different political interests or ideological biases on the part of authors who sought to convey their own messages by means of these documents. However. he fulfills his moral responsibility in marrying Tamar. In addition. for which the Torah mandates the death sentence. Yehuda's son.[3] and one might have expected that he would deduce from this . and the traditional approach which seeks to read the story on its own terms without asking questions of authorship or agenda. when he visits Tamar. She is obligated to undergo a levirate marriage." (verse 25) Yehuda does not respond to her first statement. we see Yehuda reach the lowest moral rung in his life. Just as Yosef's brothers used a garment (Yosef's special coat) to deceive their father. Tamar does not accuse him outright. See now to whom this seal and this cloak and this staff belong. he is quick to sentence her to death by burning. too. Once again. my son.that there was some problem with the path he was following and the education of his children. whom he mistakes for a prostitute (Bereishit 38:15-18).” recalling how "they took Yosef's coat and they slaughtered a goat kid (se'ir izim) and .[5] but the second shakes him out of his complacency. When he hears that Tamar is pregnant. but Yehuda prevents her from marrying his third son. instead. he sins further: he attributes the death of his sons to Tamar. And she said. to evade responsibility: "As she was being brought out and she [had] sent word to her father-in-law. is grown' – for he said [to himself].” recalling the testimony of the brothers in the previous chapter: "See now. The man to whom these belong – I am pregnant by him. It is at this dramatic moment that Yehuda reaches his turning point. "I will send (ashaleach) a goat kid from the flock (gedi izim). However.[6] It appears that it is specifically this echo that stops Yehuda in his tracks. so Tamar has deceived Yehuda using a garment – her veil. Shela. once again. Lest he. 2. and therefore oppresses her and does not allow her to rebuild her life. Of particular note is Tamar's use of the expression "haker na" – "see now. but rather stalls her with an excuse which the Torah itself testifies as not representing his true position: "Yehuda said to Tamar." (38:11)[4] As the chapter progresses. It suddenly becomes clear that there are many similarities between what Tamar does to Yehuda and what the brothers previously did to their father: 1. is this your son's coat or not?" (37:32). she hints to him in a way that would allow him. he does not explain to her what he is doing and why. rather. saying. Yehuda proposes to Tamar. at this stage Yehuda does not take heed. his daughter-in-law: 'Remain as a widow in your father's house until Shela. die as his brothers did. Now.dipped the coat into its blood.[7] 3. and he said. at the moment where he expresses his readiness to remain as a slave in Egypt instead of Binyamin.[9] The story ends with the birth of Peretz and Zerach. Yehuda had argued before his brothers. The fact that Tamar places the full weight of responsibility upon Yehuda." Thus. of course.[8] For the first time since the beginning of the story. from now onwards he assumes moral responsibility even for that which he personally has not done: "Yehuda said. for she covered (khista) her face. Yaakov had ‘recognized’ his son’s bloodstained cloak. forces him to wrestle with himself and ultimately to acknowledge his misdeeds. behold. my son. so too in Yehuda ‘recognizes’ his own fault. Yehuda assumes responsibility for his actions. Until now he has evaded responsibility for his own actions. and it is he who assumes responsibility for all that happens to the brothers in Egypt. he also takes responsibility for his neglect of her over the course of so many years: "And Yehuda recognized. She has been more righteous than I. the Torah creates a clear connection between the two narratives. what shall we speak and how shall we justify ourselves? God has found the transgression of your servants. Peretz is ultimately the progenitor of the royal dynasty of the House of David. What shall we say to my lord. "What profit is there if we kill our brother and cover (ve-khisinu) his blood?" He prefers that they adopt some other course of action that will not necessitate the covering of blood. . in the wake of this episode. while refusing to accuse him openly. thereby also alluding to their thematic connection. despite the shame that this entails. And they sent (va-yeshalchu) the coat…" (37:31-32). Tamar has misled Yehuda in a similar way: "She covered herself (va-tekhas) with a veil… and he thought her a prostitute. In the previous chapter. we are servants to my lord – both we and him with whom the goblet was found." (44:16) The climax of his transformation comes. so as to save his father additional pain. for I did not give her to Shela. Not only does he acknowledge that Tamar has not prostituted herself. Yehuda's entire personality changes from this point onwards." (verse 26) Just as in the previous chapter. However. at the end of the episode. withholding levirate marriage from his daughter-inlaw through false excuses. Yehuda is depicted in a positive light. Let us note. probably from Shiloh. one of them "a Levitical priest.” the other a member or supporter of the royal house of David. at the outset.[15]but this is a most unsatisfactory resolution of the problem.[12] On the basis of Friedman's attribution of these two chapters to two sources. and therefore possibly descended from Moses. It teaches of the importance of taking responsibility. which clearly belongs to the second source. mistaking her for a harlot? . It is specifically Yehuda and his descendants who are blessed by Yaakov to rule amongst the people of Israel: "The staff shall not depart from Yehuda. Rabbi Akiva sums up the message of the plain text as follows: "Why was Yehuda granted royalty? Because he acknowledged [his guilt] concerning Tamar."[11] This literary analysis seems to suggest itself clearly enough from a review of the verses and also arises from the way in which various midrashimapproach this episode. the tendency of biblical critics to view biblical narratives as agenda driven leads them to ignore the possibility that this profound and complex story was written in order to teach the important lessons that it contains. this narrative teaches of the dangers of evading responsibility through "white lies" and misleading others. and abandoning her to her bitter fate? Would someone seeking to glorify Yehuda really describe him engaging in relations with his daughter-in-law. of the possibility of repair. how are we to explain the episode of Yehuda and Tamar. they describe events from a subjective point of view that serves the interests of their respective loyalties. accordingly. preferring the assumption that it was created by people who sought to further their own views by disseminating it.[13]according to his approach?[14] Some scholars have argued that since. write a narrative such as this one. that some scholars regard the "J" and the "E" sources as having been composed during the period of the kingdoms of Yehuda and Israel.[10] Ultimately. depicting Yehuda as leaving his family. Why would a "member of the royal house of David. this narrative should be viewed as supportive of him. and of the power of repentance. nor the lawmaker from among his offspring" (Bereishit 49:10).after Yehuda himself had been responsible for the first terrible blow to Yaakov.” seeking to emphasize the superiority of the tribe of Yehuda. with all the difficulty involved. Is this indeed the message of the story? Would we not expect. The story of Yehuda and Tamar is a fascinating episode that conveys important. comes to justify marriage with foreign – even Canaanite – women. could it not be conveyed without all the complicated details of Yehuda's exploits? This example illustrates the unfortunate situation in which seeking the bias in biblical narratives may sometimes itself be biased. it is a narrative that puts Yehuda – patriarch of the tribe. Whoever placed chapter 38 at the heart of the story of Yosef. instead of ignoring the issue of her lineage altogether? If this were indeed the message of the story. who was a Canaanite. This theory is problematic from the very outset – first and foremost. patriarch of the house of David – to shame. Zakovitch writes: "The story of Yehuda and Tamar is an anti-Judah narrative. although he could have chosen to avoid admitting his guilt? Why is Yehuda rewarded with the birth of sons. sought to diminish Yehuda's stature.Indeed. Amit argues[17] that the central theme of the story is the controversy surrounding foreign women – a dominant issue during the Persian period (Second Temple Period). from the literary point of view. According to her theory. but also problematic insofar as it leads one . and why does he eventually become the progenitor of the Davidic dynasty as a result of this story? Other scholars have read the story as pointing towards a completely different lesson. Y. leading scholars to misunderstand and misrepresent meaning of a story and its messages. Subservience to the assumption of bias in Tanakh is not only mistaken in its own right. the fact that Tamar. accepted upon herself the customs of Yehuda's family. Thus. if there were the slightest kernel of truth to this claim. this prompts the opposite question: why would someone who seeks to put Yehuda to shame present him as ultimately acknowledging his misdeeds. that the story would at least mention Tamar's Canaanite origins. for example. after chapter 37. scholars not blindly committed to this view could suggest a completely different interpretation. objective messages. An objective search for bias in this story would lead nowhere – and the extreme differences between the respective conclusions of those undertaking the search suffice to prove this."[16] Of course. Y. the characters of the Tanakh are always complex. assertions of bias in Tanakh are suspect and would seem to arise themselves from biased motives. Thus. considering the norms of the Ancient East… Why did he invent a story about Shaul. which no king would have any interest in publicizing. when we consider the fact that they receive no inheritance in the land. but all of this pales into insignificance. of course. This phenomenon is inconceivable in terms of ancient cultures. the sale of Yosef). While our argument has been based on only one narrative. Anyone who reads the Tanakh cannot fail to notice that it shows no favoritism. which appears for the first time Devarim ch. By contrast. David. and. Would any nation in the world invent a past that involved slavery and hard labor. despite the theological difficulties that this story raises? The invention of these stories makes no sense.17. is set forth in the Torah with strict limitations. in terms of interests. Yaakov's theft of the birthright from Esav). as part of his imaginary tale. the king chosen by God before David.[20]The idea of the monarchy. such that Bible study loses all independent value. In ancient cultures. but rather to Shlomo? All of this stands in complete contrast to what we would expect. Moshe (Mei Meriva).to ignore the messages arising from the narrative. the complex picture comprising the description of the royal house of David – all of this is recounted in a manner that nullifies any vested interest on the part of the writer. the same idea arises from the most cursory familiarity with Tanakh as a whole. . like the story of the exodus? How could any writer during the period of the monarchy criticize some aspects of the king's behavior so sharply as the examples we find in the Book ofShmuel concerning King David?[18] "Why did this author invent the story of David and Batsheva? Why did he seek to present David. as a robber living off 'protection money'? Why. The Kohanim and Leviim do receive many "priestly gifts" and serve in important positions. at the beginning of his career. and never free from criticism: the forefathers (the "you are my sister" episodes. the outstanding successes of the rulers are generally given much attention. the stories of the fathers of the tribes (the slaughter of Shekhem."[19] Likewise there is no entity or group with a vested interest in dissemination of the Torah. does he attribute the building of the Temple not to the founder of the dynasty. only at some later time were they joined together to form a single work.' And anyone who praises Yehuda is in fact a blasphemer. there is a complex and nuanced message arises specifically from appreciation of the juxtapositions and contradictions." . and concluded that the Tanakh is a unique and unprecedented work insofar as it shows no favoritism towards anyone. but rather the opposite: "Rabbi Meir said: the term botze'a is mentioned only in connection with Yehuda. we noted a phenomenon that developed in the wake of the documentary hypothesis.” according to which the duplications and contradictions arise from the fact that the Torah is made up of four main documents. 'Yehuda said to his brothers: what profit (betza) is it if we kill our brother…. Translated by Kaeren Fish [1] Chazal note this and emphasize that the sale of Yosef was not a positive act on Yehuda's part. Concerning this it is said. and they arrived at the "documentary hypothesis. each composed in a different period and possessing its own characteristics. Biblical scholars discovered that in many instances the contradictions are systematic. the documentary hypothesis did advance the study and understanding of the Torah in a new direction. Throughout the generations. without attending to the more general question of why these phenomena exist and why the Torah was written in this way. there is no need to explain every contradiction on its own terms upon a first reading. 'The compromiser (botze'a) blasphemes and renounces God' (Tehillim 10:3). which seeks to detect bias in the various narratives and units of the Torah. According to the "aspects approach" developed by Rabbi Mordechai Breuer. We have discussed some of the difficulties posed by the documentary hypothesis. We negated this view through a review of one narrative unit. the general approach was to address these instances individually and locally. At the same time. Rather. suggesting that the Torah itself was written in such a way as to include multiple perspectives. Finally. as it is written. Summary The Torah contains many instances of duplication and contradiction. on both the historical and the literary levels. and we noted the growing reservations among biblical scholars of the last generation towards this hypothesis in its classic form.I. ) [6] It should be noted that these are the only two instances in Tanakhwhere this expression occurs. the absence of any article from the verse indicates that the recognition taking place was on a deeper. 1034).. behold. 'See now' your Creator: they belong to you and your Creator. hence the degrading procedure to be followed by a person who chooses it. and twice the Torah mentions that Yehuda is a guarantor (arev) for Binyamin (43:9.e. 'See now'" (BereishitRabba.18. [10] There is a linguistic connection between chapter 38 and Yehuda's declaration in which he takes responsibility for Binyamin: the root "a-r-v" (guarantor. p. when her son dies. but he had not yet responded. Tamar now tells you. Despite the severity of Onan's behavior. [12] A summary of this approach can be found in the popular work by Richard Elliot Friedman. ‘He recognized it’). following the encounter with Yosef – the viceroy of Egypt – who demands that the brothers bring Binyamin down to Egypt. How does Reuven arrive at such a peculiar idea? It seems that he sought to hint that someone who does not bear responsibility towards his brother is deserving of losing two sons – as indeed happened to Yehuda. Lieberman edition. Chazal comment on the connection between the two narratives. [5] The first part of the verse is formulated in the past perfect tense – "ve-hi shalcha" ("She had sent word") rather than "va-tishlach. 'See now. [8] As Yehuda himself had previously said: "Let her take it herself.[2] The son born of a levirate marriage is considered the child of the deceased brother: "And the firstborn that she bears shall succeed in the name of his deceased brother.) A connection between the sale of Yosef and the death of Yehuda's two sons is drawn already in the midrash: "Rabbi Yehuda son of Rabbi Simon [son of] Rabbi Chanan taught in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: A person who does part of a mitzva but does not complete it. 85:25). [7] This too is noted by Chazal: "God said to Yehuda: You deceived your father with garments of the goat. From whom do we learn this? From Yehuda: 'And Yehuda said to his brothers. 1043). the Torah does not mandate the death penalty for his sin. [4] This may be what the Torah alludes to at the beginning of the chapter: "She conceived yet again and she bore a son and she named him Shela. Reuven pledges. more profound level (in contrast to 37:33.20). she tells him. and its effect on Yehuda: "He sought to deny it. "Do not lie (tekhazev) to your handmaid" (Melakhim II 4:16).lest we be shamed. Vilna edition. The seemingly redundant mention of the name of the place may hint at the deceit (kazav) and illusion that Yehuda practices in relation to this son. specifically. (It must be remembered that at this stage Reuven already had four sons [46:9]. What profit…' – [i. The connection between keziv and shela is highlighted once again in the story of the Shumanite woman: at first. Do not deceive (tashleh) me" (Melakhim II 4:28). Theodor-Albeck edition. she answers. by your life. I sent this kid. Berakhot 4:18. "Slay my two sons if I do not bring him to you" (42:37). and he was at Keziv when she bore him" (verse 5). [11] Tosefta. will bury his wife and his sons. When Yaakov initially refuses. where the verse merely says [regarding Yaakov]. Thus it appears that their death is related to Yehuda's own sin – especially since the sin of the father and the sin of the sons share a common background. Tamar will deceive you with garments of a goat" (Bereishit Rabba 85:9. (See commentary of Rabbeinu Bechaye ad loc. What happened to him [Yehuda]? He buried his wife and his sons" (Bereishit Rabba85:3. [9] Although at first glance. or pledge) appears only five times in the Torah – three times in chapter 38 we find the word "eravon" (a pledge) (verses 17. You said to your father. the intention of the verse would seem to be that Yehuda recognized the belongings as his own. This idea is also echoed in Reuven's words to Yaakov. p. but you have not found her" (38:23). to whom the signet belongs' – Rabbi Yochanan taught: God said to Yehuda. 'See now. later.' by your life. Who Wrote the Bible (1987). but left him to die of hunger and thirst while] he should have taken him back to his father. The Torah demonstrates awareness of the natural aversion to this situation and therefore permits chalitza– a ceremony of exemption – although this is clearly regarded as the less preferable option." This suggests that she had already sent messengers to Yehuda with the seal and the wicks. "Did I not say. is not coincidental. he sufficed with saving him from active murder. 23. but she said to him. when Elisha promises that she will bear a child. 44:32). [3] It would seem that their fate is not the result of their actions alone. so that his name will not be wiped out from Israel" (Devarim 25:6). The book is written in an approachable style and with . p. Theodor-Albeck edition. such that the emphasis on twosons. p. and they ate their portion which Pharaoh gave to them. Zakovitch and A. therefore I have said to them.L. at most. 31-32. pp. Rofe. And he purchased the plot of land where he pitched his tent" (33:18-19). proposing that chapter 34 is an "independent document". the connection between chapter 34 and the "J" source is entirely unclear. it is certainly not deliberate. 86-87. he makes no attempt to explain this most unusual phenomenon. pp. 11-25. vol. 219-220. Furthermore. The first asserts that the land was paid for. 2. Proceeding from the assumption that the narrative does indeed mean to convey support for the house of Yehuda – and thus. [13] Verses 7-10 mention shem Hashem (the name of God attributed to the J source) three times. Amit. for the royal house of David – she is left only with the question of why David himself is not mentioned in the text (!). Chapter 33 states clearly that Yaakov purchased a plot of land close to the city of Shekhem – "He encamped facing the city. pp. In other words. [16] Y. in this regard. [19] Y. As one example (aside from our discussion of Yehuda and Tamar). it speaks of the killing of its inhabitants. chapter 34 says nothing about seizing the city itself. I have given to the Leviim to inherit. Ha-Pulmus al ha-Emet ha-Historit ba-Mikra. 1995). Mazar (eds. although (or perhaps because) it is highly problematic in light of his theory. in contrast to the rest of Egypt. since God's Name does not appear in this chapter at all.Ma’aseh Yehuda ve-Tamar (Jerusalem. at greater length. Y. Amit argues that the Torah is not devoid of anachronism – as evidenced in the unit of Layish and Dan. XX. could make explicit mention of someone who would live hundreds of years later. in Sefer Semuel. See also. The author of the second source. it testifies to a lack of attention on the part of the writer. "Historia. The Torah uses similar language in describing the status of the tribe of Levi – but with precisely the opposite meaning: "For the tithes of Bnei Yisrael. Mikraot be-Eretz ha-Mar’ot (Tel Aviv. nor does he draw any conclusion from it. First. of course. Levine and A. This suggests that the author of the first source was from the kingdom of Israel. regardless of one's religious or ideological position. he writes positively of Shekhem. presents a negative picture. which they offer as a gift to God.). In describing Yosef's regime in Egypt during the years of famine. 39). Friedman's explanation is based on two mistaken assumptions. this represents evidence of two different sources attesting to the origins of the city. pp. [18] Even Friedman (see above) notes that the writing describing the kingdom of David. while many of his arguments are unfounded and even misleading. Friedman argues that there is a contradiction in the text concerning the question of how the city of Shekhem came to belong to Yaakov: at the end of Bereishit 33 (verses 18-20) we are told that Yaakov purchased a plot of land from the sons of Chamor. Second. naturally.great self-confidence. It is specifically because the Leviim receive their food from God that they receive no inheritance . from the kingdom of Yehuda. see also ibid. [17] See her article (above. The second documents a conquest through massacre. since it is one of the major cities of Israel. [15] See Y.55. a practice that is all but unknown among ancient Near Eastern kings" (p. Hoffman. for example. the father of Shekhem." in: Y. A. and the reference there in n. is simply untenable. 5752). the Torah states: "Only the land of the priests he did not buy. Amit's view raises many questions. is "remarkable because it openly criticizes its heroes. However. [14] Friedman pays no attention to this episode in his book. 15). [20] It is interesting to note the literary manner in which the Torah emphasizes the difference between Kohanim in Israel and the priests of other nations. baseless. which is clearly oriented towards the nation of Israel on the verge of entering the land. Jerusalem 5761. The idea that the Torah. Mitos u-Politika." Shenaton le-Cheker ha-Mikra ve-ha-Mizrach ha-Kadum. since even according to those who maintain that the phenomenon of anachronism does exist in Tanakh. for the priests had a portion assigned to them by Pharaoh. many scholars maintain that this chapter is not part of the "J" source: see. among Bnei Yisrael they shall receive no inheritance" (Bamidbar 18:24). Indeed. 199-201. Zakovitch.therefore they did not sell their lands" (Bereishit 47:22). the fact that they received their food directly from the king was an expression of their status – and for this reason they are not required to sell their inheritance. while in chapter 34 we read of the rape of Dina and the revenge of Shimon and Levi. In Friedman's view. the very claim that there is a contradiction in this regard is unfounded. n. Shinan. This argument is. "Pulmusim Semuyim be-Parashat Yehuda ve-Tamar. 5770. as we discussed in a previous shiur. pp. the matter is fairly simple: the text is written in the first person. and [the book of]Shoftim. Ezra wrote his book and the genealogy of Divrei Ha-yamim up to himself (or 'up to lo'). z”l.'"[3] (Bava Batra 14b-15a) . The Men of the Great Assembly wrote [the Book of] Yechezkel and the Twelve [Minor Prophets]. Nadler. David wrote Sefer Tehillim. we encounter a problem similar to the one faced in addressing the Five Books of the Torah.in the land. Shmuel wrote his book. for God's servants must engage in their labor for the sake of heaven.Daniel. and are in agreement concerning most of them: "And who wrote them? Moshe wrote his book and the episode of Bil'am. especially among the Later Prophets. Chizkiyahu and his companions [2] wrote Yishayahu. Yosef ben Yechezkel Tzvi ********************************************************* Shiur 5a: Authorship of the Books of the Prophets and Writings A. Yehoshua wrote his book and eight verses [at the end] of the Torah. with no personal interest.[1] and Iyov. the picture is somewhat clearer when it comes to the Prophets (Nevi’im) and Writings (Ketuvim).Mishlei. including the contribution of ten elders… Yirmiyahu wrote his book and the Book ofMelakhim. and Megillat Esther. "And who wrote them?" In contrast to the complexity surrounding the question of the writing of the Torah. by the prophet himself. and the text itself gives no direct indication of the author's identity. since they too are written in the third person. such as the Early Prophets. With regard to some other books. In the case of some books. Chazal address the question of the authorship of these books.   ********************************************************* Dedicated in memory of Joseph Y. as discussed in previous chapters. Shir Ha-shirim and Kohelet. and Lamentations [Eikha]. and [Megillat] Ruth. with the exception of some introductory verses which indicate some editorial activity. had burned in the fire. Thus Yirmiyahu is identified as the redactor of Sefer Melakhim. such as Yirmiyahu and Ezra. and gave it to Barukh. the son of Neriyahu. king of Yehuda. set forth in chapter 36 of his book. in the book. Chizkiyahu and his companions as the redactors of Sefer Yishayahu and the Wisdom Literature attributed to Shlomo. while the Men of the Great Assembly are considered to be the redactors of the later Books of the Tanakh. Yirmiyahu is the only one of the later prophets to whom Chazal attribute the authorship of the Book named after him. and he wrote in it from the mouth of Yirmiyahu all the words of the book which Yehoyakim. Tell us now: How did you write all of these words from his mouth? And Barukh said to them. edited. and concerning all the nations." (verse 32) This would seem to suggest that the other prophets did not record their prophecies. until this day" (Yirmiyahu 36:2) as well as its fulfillment in Yirmiyahu's words to Barukh ben Nerya (36:4). The beraita in Bava Batra continues with clarifying several points: . and works which were compiled.From the beraita it would seem that there are two categories of authorship: works wholly attributed to the prophet himself. the scribe. as well as many other words in the same spirit. and therefore Chazal regard the redaction of their works as having taken place after the period of these prophets. and concerning Yehuda. and the detailed description by Barukh himself: "They asked Barukh. and put into their final form at a later date than the events or prophets that the books describe. from the day I spoke to you in the days of Yoshiyahu. The reason for this would seem to be the extensive detail in the documentation of Yirmiyahu's prophecies. He dictated all these words to me. and I wrote them with ink. saying. This chapter records the Divine command: "Take a scroll and write in it all the words which I have spoken to you concerning Yisrael." (36:17-18) The chapter ends with the testimony: "Then Yirmiyahu took another scroll. Later on. Some opinions maintain that. Up until. 'Shmuel died' (Shmuel I 28:3)! This was completed by Gad. recounting the death of the prophet after whom the book is named. 'Yehoshua bin Nun. God's servant. while in relation to the Books of the Prophets and the Writings many commentators have no objection to stating openly that a certain verse was added by the redactor. 'He that scattered Israelwill gather them up' (Yirmiyahu 31:9). and Natan the prophet. says God. Chazal make further observations concerning the authorship of these books. or with the return from the Babylonian exile. but the discussion in the gemara includes other opinions as to the time when the book was written: the various views place this work during the period of the Shoftim. Such a position can be supported . like the Books of Yehoshua andShmuel. With regard to the Torah."[4] In other words."'Ezra wrote his book and the genealogy of Divrei Hayamim until lo' – and who completed it? Nechemia. in the time of Achashverosh. very few medieval commentators – and sometimes even then only through allusion – speak of the existence of verses added at a later date. while the other says. 'Yehoshua wrote his book' – but the text says. 16). as the plain meaning of the text would seem to suggest. One opinion says. the visionary. Elsewhere. Theberaita attributes it to Moshe. the gemara records a disagreement as to the identity of the author of the Book of Iyov. but rather only up to a certain point. Yirmiyahu himself did not write his entire book. son of Chakhalia. the questions concerning the authorship of the Books of the prophets are less critical and sensitive than the question of the authorship of the Torah. "Up to what point is Yirmiyahu's prophecy recorded? Rav Yaakov and Rav Abba disagree with Rabbi El'azar and Rabbi Yochanan. and your children will return to their border' (ibid. Up until. 'Shmuel wrote his book' – but the text says. died' (Yehoshua 24:29)! This was completed by Pinchas. Shmueland Divrei Hayamim were written by more than one prophet. the Books of Yehoshua."[5] Clearly. 'There is hope for your future. a different prophet was needed to complete what the main prophet had written – especially for the ending. Moreover. at the end of the period of the Judges. In his introduction to the Early Prophets he argues against the identification offered in the beraita concerning the early prophets. too. the commentators on Tanakh offer additional possibilities as to the identities of the various authors. rather. Likewise we find. he writes: "Upon examining the verses I perceived that the view maintaining that Yehoshua wrote his book is extremely unlikely – not only because the end of the text notes that 'Yehoshua died' (and this issue in fact gives rise to the discussion in the gemara). Shmuel the prophet wrote his book [Yehoshua]. as any faithful editor would do. This is decisive evidence that the text could only have been written many years after Yehoshua's death. that the text specifies." . the text says. as well as Sefer Shoftim… And do not be surprised that I differ in this matter from the view of Chazal. Of particular note is the view of Abravanel. but also because of other places in the text which indicate that they were not written by Yehoshua. seemingly indicating that they were written in a later period. concerning the inheritance of the tribe of Dan. to propose a more logical explanation in keeping with the verses and their sense. 'And the border of Dan was too small for them. 'And they remained there to this day' (Yehoshua 4:9)…[6] If Yehoshua wrote all of this. and there are dissenting opinions as to whether it was Moshe who wrote Sefer Iyov. so the children of Dan went up to fight against Leshem' (Yehoshua 19:47) – but we know that this [fight] took place at the time of the statue of Mikha. inter alia because of the expression "to this day" which appears in these books. and whether Yehoshua wrote the final eight verses of the Torah. it is not so far-fetched for me. Concerning Sefer Yehoshua.by theberaita we have cited above which claimed that most of these books did indeed have redactors who could well have added clarifications as necessary. 'to this day'? For he wrote close to the time of the events. how could he say. and hence Yehoshua could not have written it… And on the basis of all of this I conclude that Yehoshua did not write his book. In setting up the stones in the Jordan River. And since Chazalthemselves question the authorship in some cases. while the expression 'to this day' necessarily implies that it was written a long time after this happened. for even in the Gemara. Chazal are not unanimous in this regard. Here. Abravanel offers a more moderate possibility: "If you wish to say that Yehoshua wrote his book. he concludes that the question of identifying the authors of the books of Tanakh must continue to be discussed and decided on the basis of the text itself and the indications that it supplies. A similar phenomenon occurs with regard toSefer Shmuel.Abravanel proves." According to this approach. concerning the verses that describe the conquest of Kiryat Arba and Kiryat Sefer (Yehoshua 15:13-19). Rashi writes in his commentary (ad loc. too. Yehoshua did indeed write the great majority of his book. or Shmuel. Hence. as Chazal maintain. we find the expression "to this day" appearing in several . Later on. making additions as they saw fit with their Divine inspiration. gathered these narratives and put them together into a book. as we read in Sefer Shoftim. and is thus recorded in Shoftim. Rashi and Radak likewise maintain that the reference is to an event that occurred during the period of the Judges. from the various disagreements that are apparent already in Chazal's discussion. that the beraita is not based on a longstanding tradition. but rather on logical deduction from a review of the verses of the text. mentioning the battle of the children of Dan at Leshem." Concerning the verse that Abravanel cites.[7] Abravanel concludes that the author must have been a later figure. then we must posit that Yirmiyahu. could not have been written by Yehoshua himself. For instance. but it underwent later redaction by some other prophet (either Shmuel or Yirmiyahu).) that these verses were written "… after the death of Yehoshua. demonstrably. who likewise point to specific verses in Sefer Yehoshua which were added by an editor at a later stage. Since Sefer Yehoshua includes verses which. Abravanel is preceded in this view by the classical Tanakh commentators. He proposes Shmuel presumably since Chazal also attribute the authorship of Sefer Shoftim to him. and the matter is noted here only because of the division of the land. which according toSefer Shoftim (1:10-15) took place only at the beginning of the period of the Judges. for during Yehoshua's time Chevron had not yet been conquered. but He Who illuminates the world turns darkness into light. as he saw fit. This distance of time is especially apparent in the verse. In the beraita quoted above.places. In other words. and all of these testimonies were gathered together by Yirmiyahu the prophet. Rabbi Yosef Kara[9] notes this in his commentary on this verse: "A person who would be referred to in that generation as a 'navi' (prophet). Chazal maintain that King David wrote the book.' and this explains the verse. would in previous generations have been called a 'ro'eh' (seer). and he joined them together into a single book. which were composed by different people? For the text does not record that the prophets wrote their testimonies consecutively." (Shmuel I 9:9) The writer of this verse finds it necessary to explain Shaul's use of the word 'seer' (ro'eh) in reference to the prophet. stated that Shmuel wrote the book. rather. since the word was already obsolete at the time of the writing. 'Come and let us go to the seer' – for the prophet of our days was previously called a 'seer' (ro'eh). This explains the expression. and he gathered the testimonies of the prophets mentioned in the book – and there is no doubt that he also added comments of clarification. It seems. when this book was written.[8] and here too it testifies to a distance from the time of the events.' because this book was not written in the time of Shmuel… And our Sages. then. the seer was once again referred to as a 'navi. 'to this day." The same approach is adopted by Abravanel. who gathered these texts. For if this was not so. 'In early times in Israel…'" Opinions are similarly divided concerning the authorship of Sefer Tehillim. and turns a twisted path into a straight road.” . each wrote a book in his own right. a person who went to inquire of God would say. and he offers a similar explanation: "What appears correct to me in this matter is that Shmuel. that when Yirmiyahu sought to write Sefer Melakhim. Natan and Gad all wrote their works individually – each writing what happened during his own lifetime. of blessed memory. "through (or 'incorporating') ten elders. "In early times (lefanim) in Israel. he knew that Sefer Shemuel was proximate to it. David." (Shir Ha-shirim Rabba. Midrash Shir Ha-shirim cites other opinions: "Ten people uttered the Book of Tehillim: Adam. which attributes the entire work to David. Concerning the other five there is disagreement between Rav and Rabbi Yochanan. and Asaf. Indeed. there are psalms that were included in Sefer Tehillim after the time of David. First. and Malki-Tzedek. and is one of the five individuals whose identity is agreed upon unanimously. the most famous of them being chapter 137 – "By the rivers of Babylon. but rather that "ten people uttered Sefer Tehillim. parasha 4.” and David is listed as one of them. and Moshe. and Yedutun. and some lived in his own period. and Avraham. Rabbi Yochanan counts Asaf and Heiman and Yedutun as one and the three sons of Korach individually. the general idea is not that David wrote what ten people had said. Rav counts Asaf. some of whom lived earlier than David. the midrash also counts Ezra among the authors of psalms – in other words. David was not only the author of some of the psalms in Sefer Tehillim. since there are a number of psalms which describe exile and destruction. Second. Shlomo – concerning these five there is no argument. Attention should be paid to two central differences between these sources. while others were his contemporaries: "Adam. and Ezra. Moshe. for they lived before him. but also the redactor of the book.and the list includes ten individuals. Heiman. and the three sons of Korach as one. and the three sons of Korach. Yedutun individually." Rashi comments: "He wrote the things which these elders had said. some in his own generation. awarding no status to the ten elders mentioned in the beraita: . collating psalms that had been uttered by others – some in previous generations." According to Rashi. and Ezra. 4). according to the midrash above. Avraham."[10] A third opinion concerning the authorship of Sefer Tehillim appears in Rav Sa'adia Gaon's commentary. and Heiman. this would seem to be borne out by the text itself. 1. or the record of his actions. and others – one must know that it is not so. (To be continued) Translated by Kaeren Fish [1] The commentators question the need to specify the story of Bil'am. . our discussion will be conducted on the basis of the text itself. and Moshe the man of God. Yedutun is mentioned along with David in some places only to tell us that that psalm was a prophecy of David. Sefer Tehillim in its entirety was composed solely by David. In any event. and Heiman. and was uttered through prophecy. pp. just like all the rest of the Torah. in addition to David – such as Asaf. and also amongst medieval commentators. in order that they could sing it…" (Rav Sa'adia Gaon's introduction to his Commentary on Sefer Tehillim. The impression arising from these sources is that the beraita in Bava Batra does not represent a tradition that was accepted unanimously. did not regard the view of the beraita quoted above as binding.[11] 'A prayer unto Moshe the man of God.J. likewise." Rashi notes that this comes to tell us that Moshe included this episode "even though it did not serve any purpose of Moshe. and the sons of Korach. Rather there is nothing in it that was not of David… And since this is clear. But the psalm. too. and that there are authorities who differed – both in later sources amongChazal. While this opinion is certainly representative of and integral to a broader philosophical context. and Eitan. for that was written by God.' is a song that was conveyed to the sons of Moshe who lived at the time of David. and Heiman – all the participants in the name of that psalm declare it and sing it together." See A. it is a document in its own right. 435-437. and will attempt to address in depth the questions surrounding the redaction of the various Books. which Moshe wrote in greater details. since it is part of "Moshe's book. Torah Min HaShamayim be-Aspaklaria shel ha-Dorot. in many sources it is attributed to him… And even though one might think that it also contains prophecies or psalms of others. Rather.[12] it is clear that Rav Sa'adia Gaon. Heschel.Kapach edition. and Yedutun. yet named after Yedutun."The entire Book is a prophecy that was prophesied by David. and it was in their [Chazal's] possession." The Ritva raises a different possibility: "Some say that this does not refer to the story of Bil'am that is recorded in the Torah. or his teaching. London and New York 5725. 28-29) In Rav Sa'adia Gaon's view. pp. just as the entire Jewish people unanimously refers to it as the 'songs of David'. Yedutun is a partner together with Asaf. this interpretation is difficult to accept. Arba Gishot le-Sefer Tehillim – miRaSaG ve-ad Ibn Ezra. why would Chazal have written "until 'lo'" if the word as it appears in the verse is actually "ve-lo"? Maharshal takes a completely different view of the Gemara here. [4] This final statement would seem to be based on the penultimate verse (29:29) of Divrei Ha-yamim I: "The acts of King David. This suggests that the redactor treats the preeminence of Chatzor as a fact that had been well-known in the past.. "These.). Buber edition. [10] Rashbam adopts this approach in his commentary on Tehillim. actually refer to the Book of Ezra. 6:8. that Yishayahu himself was not the sole author of the work . king of Israel" (Divrei Ha-yamim II 21:2). [7] In addition to the verses cited by Abravanel we might add. which was only recently discovered. 281. already at that early stage. "And he had (ve-lo) brothers. and parts of which were published by A. king of Yehuda" (Mishlei 25:1). "Al Gilui haPerush ha-'Avud' shel Rashbam le-Sefer Tehillim. See ibid. since it is not clear why Ezra would end his account specifically at this point [interestingly. 30:25. and he killed its king by the sword. Ramat Gan 5742." Tarbiz 79 1. of course. p. As noted in the previous shiur. Shmuel II 4:3. for Chatzor had previously been the chief of all of these kingdoms" (Yehoshua 11:10).' in the verse. "evidence for his own lineage in Sefer Ezra.' but rather 'ed (a witness) to him' – i. Yirmiyahu. pp. and not the Book of Divrei Ha-yamim. too. 27:6. as the Tosafot point out (ad loc. such as chapters 120 and 123. [11] Psalm 70. Seraya ben Azarya (Ezra 7:1)." He goes on to propose that the words of the Gemara that we will quote below. 18:18. In addition. The Maharsha proposes that the reference is to Ezra's father. 20. 6:18. However. 130. Mondshein in his article." [5] Eikha Rabba. are written in the book of Shmuel the seer and in the book of Natan the prophet and in the book of Gad the visionary. from beginning to end.[2] The basis for the attribution of Sefer Mishlei to Chizkiyahu is.) [6] Here Abravanel adds other instances in Sefer Yehoshua where the same expression appears.e. The Book of Yishayahu The Book of Yishayahu (Isaiah) is a central issue in the discussion of the authorship of the books ofTanakh. the verse. 133. or at the beginning of the Second Temple Period. "And Yehoshua turned back at that time and he captured Chatzor. 5770-5771. pp. (The midrash is also cited in Yalkut Shimoni. [9] We will be examining Rabbi Kara and his exegetical approach in detail in chapter 8. "up until his own lineage. [12] As part of his dispute with the Karaites. [3] The commentators are divided as to the meaning of these closing words. pp. This would suggest that Ezra concluded his writing with the end of the life of King Yehoshafat. but that the contemporary audience needs reminding of. all of these were the sons of Yehoshafat. He maintains that the words should not be read as 'ad (until) lo. Rashi explains. Rashbam argues that some of the "songs of ascent" (shirei ha-ma'alot). Inter alia. the Talmud attributes the authorship of Yishayahu to Chizkiyahu and his colleagues – thereby hinting. are the proverbs of Shelomo which were copied by the men of Chizkiya. 17-24. Rabbeinu Chananel writes that what Chazal mean is that he wrote up until the word 'lo. 91-141." but the later commentators point out that Ezra is not mentioned anywhere in Divrei Ha-yamim. the sons of Yehoshafat – Azarya and Yechiel and Zeckharyahu and Azaryahu and Mikhael and Shefatyahu. Petichta 34.   Shiur #5b: Authorship of the Books of the Prophets and Writingss B. [8] See Shmuel I 5:5. were composed in Babylonian exile. who is mentioned in Divrei Ha-yamim I 5:40. testifying that the end of the Book was written by Nechemia. Simon. the Ritva seems to have understood that the individual referred to in the verse as Azaryahu was actually Ezra himself!]. See U. and do not remember iniquity forever. it is clear from the prophet's language that he is crying out over a reality that exists in the present. from chapter 40 onwards. familiar fact. from the habitation of Your holiness and Your glory – where is Your zeal and Your might? Your acts of compassion and Your mercies are withheld from me… Why. O Lord. Will You restrain Yourself at these things.). where our fathers praised You. Tzion is a wilderness.E. and hardened our hearts. whilst the land and its cities lie in ruin and desolation. 1. for fear of You? For the sake of Your servants. see. O Lord? Will You hold Your peace and afflict us so severely?" (Yishayahu 64:8-11) "Look down from heaven and see. Our holy and beautifulTemple. Moreover. In the first part (chapters 1 to 39). . asking God to have mercy on His people in exile: "Do not be exceedingly angry. whilst in Yishayahu it is described in the past tense.C." (ibid. behold.C.our enemies have trodden down Your Sanctuary.E. O Lord. long before the destruction of the Temple in 586 B. Your holy cities have become a wilderness. have You caused us to stray from Your ways. The basic claim that we will examine is that the second part of the Book. and who describes a reality very different from the one depicted in the first part. In several places in the second half there are verses that describe the Destruction of the Temple as a known. but in the second part (chapter 40 onwards) he seems to be addressing the nation in exile. 63:1518) Many of the prophets mention the Destruction of the Temple. and all our pleasant things have been laid waste. leading the prophet to cry out in supplication. has been burned with fire. Yishayahu addresses the nation who are ruled by the kings of Israel.Jerusalem is a desolation. Let us review the main elements of this argument. bring back the tribes of Your inheritance. we pray You – we are all Your people. but rather by another prophet who lived long after the Destruction of the Temple.. The people of Your holiness possessed it for only a short while. was not written by Yishayahu (who lived in the 8th century B. but they speak of it in the future tense.that bears his name. the name of a future king as part of a prophecy. some two hundred years before the time of Koresh.[1] In general. Even in the eyes of the prophet Yirmiyahu. and shall perform all that I desire. "Go forth out of Babylon. and saying toJerusalem. One example is "all flesh" (which appears only in 40:5. and I will bring them all down as fugitives…" (43:14). your Redeemer. the exile of Israel is depicted as an established reality. so he did not regard the future destruction as a certainty. even though nowhere in Yishayahuis there any prophecy that foretells exile.Likewise.E." (48:20) To this we must add that during Yishayahu’s life no decree of destruction had yet been passed forJerusalem. to Koresh.1). . flee from the Kasdim. He is My shepherd. whose right hand I have held. that I might subdue nations before him. spread it to the ends of the earth. the king of Persia who conquered the Babylonian empire in 539 B. who lived after Yishayahu. tell this.C. and they do not speak in such specific detail as to include names of people not yet born. and loosen the loins of kings. that I might open before him doors and gates which shall not be shut. and to theTemple. despite the fact that he lived approximately two centuries after Yishayahu: "[He] who says of Koresh. "So says the Lord." (45:1) It is not easy to understand why Yishayahu would mention. is mentioned twice in the second half of the Book. and decreed that the exiles could return to their homeland (see Ezra ch. 49:26. Koresh. the prophets did not speak of matters that would take place so far in the future. 2. destruction and exile were seen as events which it would still be possible to avert. You shall be rebuilt. There are various expressions that appear numerous times in the second part of the Book. the Holy One of Israel: For your sake I have sent to Babylon. but are entirely absent from the first part. Yaakov. declare in a voice of song. 6.[2] 3. say: The Lord has redeemed His servant." (44:28) "So says the Lord to His anointed one. Your foundation shall be laid. The structure of Sefer Yishayahu likewise reflects quite clearly the division into two parts. It turns out that the first person to suggest the idea that the second part of Sefer Yishayahu was not actually written by Yishayahu. 42:1. 49:3. These chapters are. 43:10. If the repetition of the chapter from Sefer Melakhim represents the conclusion of Sefer Yirmiyahu. 21. 46:8. while the final chapter – 52 – is a repetition of a chapter in Melakhim II (chapter 25). 44:1. his relations with the prophet Yishayahu. in the second part of the Book his name is not mentioned at all. 57:1. 52:13." which appears repeatedly as a central motif in the second part of the Book (see 41:8. a repetition of chapters 18-20 ofMelakhim II. Avraham ibn Ezra. 19. and his failure in dealings with the king of Babylon. 9. it seems reasonable to suggest that the repetition of the chapters from Sefer Melakhim in Sefer Yishayahu represent the same phenomenon. they shall obtain joy and gladness. but is altogether absent from the first part. 23. was R. and come to Tzion with song and everlasting joy upon their heads. In his commentary to the beginning of chapter 40. 53:11).[4] 4. Finally. 24). "And the ransomed of God shall return. ending with the words. another is "to heart" (al lev) (42:25. his illness. in which the actual prophecies end in chapter 51.66:16. 47:7.[3] In terms of content. 2.11). there are conspicuous differences between the two parts of the Book. One of the best known examples is the subject of "God's servant. while sorrow and sighing shall flee. to a great extent. A parallel phenomenon exists in Sefer Yirmiyahu. too. 5. he writes: "This unit was joined [to the preceding prophecies] because it is mentioned previously that all of the king's treasures. we note that while Yishayahu's name is mentioned 15 times in the first part of the Book – of which 6 appearances occur in the section of the actual prophecies (chapters 1-35) and 9 times in the appendix that parallels the chapters from Melakhim II (chapters 36-39). 45:4." (Yishayahu 35:10) Following this are four chapters (36-39) that focus on King Chizkiyahu: his war against Ashur. as well . By contrast. The first section of Yishayahu's prophecies concludes with the prophecy of consolation in chapter 35. and he who is wise will understand. pp. as I shall explain. And know that while Chazal said that Sefer Shmuel was written by Shmuel – this is only true until 'And Shmuel died' (Shmuel I 25:1)… and proof of this is the verse.[5] but his general meaning seems clear." Ibn Ezra formulates his words in a rather obscure fashion. To this we might add that Chazal themselves note explicitly that there are verses in Sefer Yishayahuthat were not written by Yishayahu himself. as is his custom when it comes to sensitive subjects.as his children.. for Koresh allowed the exiles back. and a clear allusion to the Book. Consult the mediums' (Yishayahu 8:19).' this does not refer to the entire Book. However. that 'Shmuel wrote his book. 'Kings shall see and arise. but rather was completed by someone else. in a general way. so they were included in Sefer Yishayahu.[7] but they were not sufficient to comprise a Book in their own right. It must be noted that the unity of the Book of Yishayahu goes back to antiquity. And these first consolations from the second half of the Book." (Vayikra Rabba 6. . And these are they: 'And when they say to you. too. and princes shall prostrate themselves' (Yishayahu49:7) . concern the [building of the] Second Temple.[6] Ibn Ezra maintains that this unit was "joined" to the preceding chapters. 6. and draws a distinction between the two sections of the Book in terms of content. but only up to the point where the text explicitly notes his death. 142143) Even if we are to accept that the second half of the Book is of later authorship we must still explain how it came to be joined to the first part. He then immediately goes on to note that despite the fact that the beraita states. and therefore this is followed by the consolations. while to my view it is all meant concerning our own exile. It seems quite likely that Ibn Ezra mentions this here because he believes that Sefer Yishayahu. would be exiled to Babylon.. but rather by a different prophet: "Rabbi Simon said: There were two verses that were prophesied by Be'era. but within the Book there are matters of the Babylonian exile. likeSefer Shmuel. was not written in its entirety by the prophet after whom the Book is named. the matters in the latter part of the Bookconcern the future. as a memorial. according to the opinion of Rabbi Moshe haKohen. Margaliot edition. and the following verse (8:20). Due to Yishayahu’s influence on the later prophet. Some examples include "yomar Hashem" (the future form of "says the Lord" –Yishayahu1:11. and others.. and comforted the mourners of Tzion. as we have seen. 33-34.[11] In view of this. "orach mishpat" ("the path of judgment" – 26:8.18. All of the above could have been easily agreed upon and accepted in our generation. as a single work is found already in the Book of Ben Sira. dating to the mid2nd century B. 40:14). 42:9.C. Segal edition. 33:10. 57:15).C. in the Septuagint translation of Sefer Yishayahu. Likewise. He told eternal hidden matters before they transpired.including both parts. 334) These verses of Ben Sira clearly refer to the prophecies in the second part of the Book (see. 61:2-3).[10]"ram ve-nissa" ("high and elevated" – appearing only twice in all of Tanakh: Yishayahu 6:1.. the idea that Sefer Yishayahu is composed of the prophecies of more than one prophet arises from a simple reading of the second half of the Book. for – as we have seen is the case concerning many other books – the attribution of authorship may apply to most of the Book but not its entirety. alongside the differences in language and style noted above.E. the expression appears nowhere else in the Books of the Prophets). who attribute the redaction of the Book to Chizkiyahu and his colleagues. dating to the 2nd century B. This in no way contradicts the view of Chazal. p. 66:9." (Ben Sira 48. the two collections were brought together to form a single unit.E. Hence. for instance. the opposite phenomenon also exists: expressions – including some that are unique to Sefer Yishayahu – that appear in both parts of the Book. the Book appears as a single unit. likewise shows no division between the two parts.[8] which offers the following comment on Yishayahu: "He foretold the end with a mighty spirit. he also developed his own style and introduced ideas that had not appeared in the first part. and was influenced by it in terms of both content and style – although. we can assume that the prophet who wrote the prophecies in the second part ofSefer Yishayahu was well acquainted with the first part of the Book. and also 41:21.[9] Interestingly. The "Complete Scroll of Yishayahu" discovered at Qumran. and Sefer Yishayahu in . with the widespread popular reengagement with Tanakh study in general. historical approach that seeks the prophet within the background of his prophecies. the argument of the Bible critics shifted the discussion from the question of whether the character of the prophecy.” Their main argument in support of this conclusion was that the second part describes a reality that did not exist in Yishayahu's time – the Destruction and Babylonian exile – and therefore whoever wrote it must have lived at a later time.particular.[16] the controversy over the essence of prophecy features prominently: "The idea of the division of the Book arises from a realist. The approach of the Bible critics caused great agitation among the Torah scholars. According to this approach. but rather by someone they refer to as "Isaiah II" or “Deutero-Isaiah. Prophecies concerning the future are often presented in this sort of language. the early Bible critics[12] arrived at the same conclusion – that the second part of the Book was not written by the prophet Yishayahu. who were quick to reject their hypothesis. while maintaining the assumption that a prophet of God can know the future. it suggests that a prophet could not describe events that would happen in the future. depicting future events in general terms. leads us to conclude that it was a different prophet who wrote the second part of the Book. in his letters[14] and in his commentary on Sefer Yishayahuhe rejects this view with great vehemence. in which she rejects the various arguments for to the later authorship of the Book. along with various specific elements as discussed above. but rather as an overview of reality as it is unfolding. is a very different approach to the one presented above. of course. Thus.[15] In these works. as noted above.[13]Despite his extensive academic scholarship. Yet the engagement of Bible Criticism with Sefer Yishayahu has deflected the discussion in a different direction. This. the prophet stands at the very point where the events that he is . The modern biblical commentator Rachel Margaliot devotes an entire book to this subject – Echad Haya Yishayahu. as well as in works by other prominent Jewish scholars. which is based on analysis of the style and content of the text. to the question of whether the prophet – any prophet – is capable of knowing the future. This approach does not view prophecy as a vision of the future. One of the great Torah scholars who addressed head-on the claim that there existed an "Isaiah II" was Shadal. but not in detail. Hundreds of years after Ibn Ezra's hinted allusion. Rabbi Shmuel David Luzzatto (1800-1865). Implicit in this argument is a denial of the concept of prophecy. knows what is going on politically. It was this. as well as the conspicuous absence of any mention of Yishayahu himself from chapter 40 onwards.[19] The positing of the existence of two separate prophets is certainly compatible with a religious world-view that is willing to address the text itself. too. we can discuss the matter without trespassing into the territory of fundamental Jewish beliefs. when he wrote his commentary to chapter 40 ofSefer Yishayahu. This view led the scholars to reject any prophecy that was not within the scope of the prophet's natural vision. Such a position represents a denial of the whole concept of prophecy. In any event.[18] and on simple. clear proofs from the style and structure of the text. insightful politician who observes the reality around him. regardless of one's position on the question of whetherSefer Yishayahu is a single work or two separate ones brought together. on this point there is a fundamental different of opinion between the secular. altar. and the religious view."[17] Indeed. who will profane the altar that Yerav'am has established in Beit El: "And he said. the substantial arguments that we have cited against seeing Yishayahu as a single work are valid and compelling. He might be described as a talented publicist who dares to guess what is going to happen next. Altar. and senses what awaits just beyond the horizon. that caused the great controversy concerning "Isaiah II. There is no doubt that these considerations were borne in mind by Ibn Ezra. so says . then. they are based on the content of the prophecy itself. then he will obviously regard as illegitimate the view that a prophet is simply an eloquent and insightful member of the general population with no real ability to discern the future." However.[20] Translated by Kaeren Fish [1] Admittedly. As we have seen. critical view ofTanakh. completely independently of discussions to do with the prophet's status and abilities. based on accumulated information as to what is happening now. The prophet is a sort of conscientious. If a person believes that the Tanakh possesses sanctity and that the prophet receives his messages from God through prophecy and Divine inspiration.prophesying about are unfolding. there is one such instance in Tanakh – in the prophecy of the man of God who tells Yerav'am son of Nevat that a king is destined to arise from the house of David. Rav Yaakov Medan. inter alia. Sefer Ben Sira ha-Shalem. rather than to the king whose promise to facilitate the rebuilding of the Temple concludes the Tanakh. 64. pp. Yadin. 5751. [12] This hypothesis was first suggested in 1775 by Johann Döderlein in his Latin commentary on Sefer Yishayahu. would the text testify. 170-171. Vargon acknowledges that Shadal polemicizes against those who deny that prophets can foretell the future. according to the beraita cited in the previous shiur) who was writing later. and then Eliyakim ben Chilkiyahu (22:20) – rather than as a general thematic motif of "God's servant. p. Ha-Megillot ha-Genuzot mi-Midbar Yehuda. pp. king of Persia. but the inability of the kings of Yehuda to completely eradicate the practice of idolatry postponed its fulfillment to the days of Yoshiyahu. "yomar kadosh" (40:25). He also notes that Shadal did not view in the same light all arguments against unified authorship of Yishayahu. Segal. "yomar melekh Yaakov" (41:21). but in these instances it refers to a specific person – first Yishayahu himself (20:3). p. see M. "And there had never before been a king like him who returned to God with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might. See Margaliot ad loc. "Emdato shel Shadal be-She'elat Achduto shel Sefer Yishayahu. We might add that Sefer Yishayahufeatures other similar expressions which are likewise unique to this Book: "yomar Elo-heikhem" (40:1). the prophecy was meant to have been fulfilled much earlier. 3). and has since become universally accepted by all biblical scholars. See M. Segal.N. concerning the "secret of the twelve. in his article "Mavo le-Ma'amaro shel C. [4] The expression "My servant" (avdi) does appear twice in the first part.. nor did any like him arise afterwards" (Melakhim II 23:25)? Conceivably." [6] Concerning the meaning of his words see. Why. However. and below. 323. 7-27. Mavo ha-Mikra. who lived in the period of Yishayahu. whom we know as the king who declared the Jews of Babylon free to return to the Land ofIsrael." Mechkarei Morashtenu I. 225-242. Z. pp. London 1873. for it is reasonable to suppose that the words. with a perspective that included having witnessed the fulfillment of the prophecy. the suggestion that there were two different kings named Koresh is itself revolutionary. and he shall slay the priests of the high places that burn incense upon you. likewise rules out the possibility of the prophecy about Koresh presenting specific details about a person not yet born." were not uttered in the original prophecy. arguing that Yishayahu was not speaking of Koresh. However. "Yoshiyahu by name. Chefetz al Malkhut Paras u-Maday. father of Hoshe'a. [8] rd nd The Book of Ben Sira was written at the end of the 3 or beginning of the 2 century B. and they shall burn bones of men upon you" (Melakhim I 13:2). Krochmal. [13] Rabbi Luzzatto was head of the rabbinical school of Padua. according to all of the Torah of Moshe.the Lord: Behold.Z. 101. Perush Rabbi Avraham ben Ezra al Yishayahu. Concerning Shadal's position on this subject see S.C. p. the prophet seems to be speaking of Yoshiyahu by name about three hundred years before this king will be born and the prophecy fulfilled – as described inMelakhim II 23:15-16. In some versions the midrash does indeed read "Be'eri. who was also a prophet – as the midrash goes on to explain. Segal (above. He proposes a different solution to the problem. p. Jerusalem-Tel Aviv 5718." [5] As we saw previously. but rather of his grandfather. then Yoshiyahu's repentance in the wake of the discovery of the Sefer Torah was actually planned and foretold by God in advance. Here too. but rather were added later on by the redactor of the Book (Yirmiyahu. pp. and beyond this. [11] For more expression appearing in both parts of the Book. . [9] See Y. n. [3] For a partial list of such expressions. Yoshiyahu by name. Vargon. then. [10] It appears not as a rhetorical expression but as a regular future-tense verb in Yirmiyahu 42:20. Friedlander. [14] Published in Kerem Chemed 7. 114. 3-6. in the prophet's appellation of Koresh as "God's anointed" it seems most unlikely that he would be referring to some king about whom we know nothing. in 1883. If we understand the words "Yoshiyahu by name" as being part of the original prophecy.Z." Megadim 14. [7] The midrash refers here to Be'eri. n. a child will be born to the house of David. Italy. this does not seem to represent any proof in our case. Jerusalem 5737. M. 6. Jerusalem 5713. Lemberg 1851. Prague 5603." but this version points to an identification of Hoshea's father as Be'era.E. [2] My rabbi and teacher. Moreh Nevukhei haZeman. R. see M. prince of the tribe of Reuven (Divrei ha-Yamim I 5:6). It was later publicized by Johann Gottfried Eichhorn. intensive and dense language. Tel Aviv 5717. gentleness. but rather whether there is any point in the prophet knowing. See ibid. Redundancies and contradictions in the Books of the Prophets We have already addressed at length the phenomenon of seeming redundancies and contradictions in the Books of the Torah. was written by Yishayahu son of Amotz.Z. the British Chief Rabbi. n. or of the human conditions of the Jewish people that they have in view” (Hertz Chumash. Jerusalem 5714. the argument from language does not support the traditional view that the second part. pathos and enthusiasm. 17. 1938. while the prophecies of Yishayahu. magnanimous and flowing. Y. "Divrei ha-Navi Menachem – Hatza'a le-Limmud ha-Yechidot ha-Nevuiyot bi-Yishayahu 40-66. Yaakobson. 323-324: "In general. reached a conclusion similar to the one above: “This question can be considered dispassionately. too. or also explicitly. p. 14). even Margaliot acknowledges: "Certainly. whether only in obscure metaphors. 9. the name of a person to be born in the future. In the second part the language is lyrical. A. Y. and the "aspects approach" of Rav . 64. inter alia from the perspective of midrashei Chazal.   Shiur #5c: Authorship of the Books of the Prophets and Writings C. Margaliot (above. [19] As Rabbi Y. Rosenson. 47. p. 1. and stating. full of softness. pp. 5766. Cherlow points out in his Yir'eh la-Levav. moreover. and pp. whether a prophet can prophesy only concerning the near future. Margaliot. [15] R. p. 79-88. p. p. 53-55. expressed a legitimate view. and the similarities in style could be evidence of the influence of Yishayahu's prophecies on those of the prophet who composed the second part. "Emunat ha-Mada – Yishayahu ha-Sheni ke-Mashal. Chazon ha-Mikra II. referring to someone by name two hundred years before he is to be born. HaKohen. when this name in no way adds to or detracts from what he is saying. pp. 942). 5758. rather than evidence of Yishayahu having written all of it – as intimated by M. Ararat's article. pp. our discussion does not concern the question of whether or not the prophet could know Koresh's name." Sha'anan 11. argues that from a scientific point of view there is no absolute truth concerning the authorship of the second part ofSefer Yishayahu. in the first part of the Book.he recognized that Chazal. n. p. and. n. as well as two different approaches to explaining them: the documentary hypothesis. does not materially affect the understanding of the prophecies. Segal. "Ha-Omnam Echad Haya Yishayahu?" Derekh Efrata 10. as set forth above. 5760. as we have seen. 246. Tel Aviv 2007. 5760. 99-105. Echad Haya Yishayahu. Hence. [17] R. Most of the book is devoted to a review of the linguistic style that is common to both parts of Sefer Yishayahu. Many years ago. p. London: Soncino. treats the question at length. who arrived at the same conclusion on the basis of different premises. It touches no dogma. The following are some of the sources that address the issue: Z. 52." Once again. pp. there is a great discrepancy between the two parts in the stylistic qualities of the language. but he too believes that both positions are legitimate in terms of a religious world-view. are conveyed in elevated. "Yichudo. Margaliot. 179-202. Achduto uMurkavuto shel Sefer Yishayahu – me-Hashkafot Chazal al Yishayahu." Derekh Efrata7. though. 20. voices a strong protest against the silence of the Religious-Zionist world concerning the legitimacy of the view that Sefer Yishayahucomprises the writings of two prophets. Okashi. in our times the question is discussed without the passionate emotion that surrounded it in previous generations. [20] Indeed." Derekh Aggada 3." [16] For other works rejecting the division of Sefer Yishayahu. since the linguistic differences contradict this view. there are also stylistic differences. is not a regular vision encountered in the Books of the Prophets… We cannot pretend to know the power and depths of prophecy. or any religious principle in Judaism. see R. [18] Concerning the nature of the prophecy. However. A review of further sources may be found in N. 25 and n. or also concerning more distant events. Joseph Hertz. " This suggests that during the latter period of Shmuel's leadership. and he shall save My people from the hand of the Philistines. No. with contradictions between chapters. Shaul came after the herd from the field. The people of Yavesh Gil'ad ask for time in order to see if anyone will help them: "We shall send messengers throughout the territory of Israel. Nevertheless. king of the children of Ammon. for their cry has come to Me. Israel. and Shaul said: What ails the people. and you shall anoint him as prince over My people. we see a series of contradictions in the chapters describing the establishment of the monarchy in Sefer Shmuel (ShmuelI. for I have looked upon My people. that they weep? And they told him the news of the people of Yavesh" (ibid. And behold. How is it possible that after Shaul . For instance. and all the people raised their voices and wept. 1. However. 4-5). 'Long live the king!'" (verse 24). and subsequent events create the impression that Shaul's coronation never happened. you said to me. Chapters 8-17). Let us examine some of them. let a king rule over us" (12:12). and if there is none to save us. too. the Philistines were no longer an enemy that threatened Israel. and it is only by chance that Shaul happens to arrive and hear of what is going on: "Then the messengers came to Giv'at Shaul. In 7:13 we read. we read of the attack by Nachash the Ammonite on the inhabitants of Yavesh Gil'ad. and God's hand was against the Philistines all the days of Shmuel. as well as within literary units themselves. When they reach Giv'at Shaul they bring their message to the inhabitants. he describes the nation's request for a king as resulting from a threat that emerged from a completely different direction: "And when you saw that Nachash. came against you. the phenomena exist in these Books. in 9:16 God tells Shmuel: "Tomorrow at about this time I will send you a man from the land of Binyamin. Chapter 10 concludes with a description of Shaul's coronation by all of Israel: "And all the people shouted and said. and they told these things to the listening people. but rather travel throughout the land. "The Philistines were subdued and came no more into the territory of Israel. 2. in Shmuel's parting speech." The situation becomes further complicated when later on.Mordechai Breuer. Is this discussion relevant also to the prophetic literature? Clearly. we will come out to you" (11:3). immediately afterwards. The messengers do not head directly for Shaul. which He commanded you. in the war against Amalek. His servants propose that David be brought to play on the lyre. despite the explicit command that he had received to wait for the prophet to arrive. and that he "loved him greatly"? . I do not know. when Goliath is taunting the Israelite camp. with the head of the Philistine in his hand. Furthermore. and God says. In chapter 16. David presents himself before Shaul and Shaul does not recognize him. whose son is this youth? And Avner said. Yishai. You have acted foolishly. God has sought Himself a man after His own heart. And Shaul said to him. for now God would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. By your life. and God has appointed him as a prince over His people. Whose son are you. The son of your servant. and a strong connection is forged between them: "David came to Shaul and stood before him. no one comes directly to him to tell him what has happened? How is it that he is out herding his cattle in the field? 3. O king. and he became his armor-bearer" (verse 21). And the king said: Inquire as to whose son the young man is. "I regret that I set up Shaul as king. Afterwards. But afterwards. you have not observed the command of the Lord your God. of Beit Lechem. Shmuel rebukes Shaul and tells him that the monarchy is to be taken from him and given to someone else: "Shmuel said to Shaul." Shmuel's response is surprising: "It grieved Shmuel and he cried out to God all night" (15:11) – even though he himself had previously given Shaul exactly the same message! 4. Shaul offers the sacrifices before Shmuel arrives. when Shaul fails again to observe a Divine command. since you did not observe that which God commanded you" (verses 13-14). an evil spirit torments Shaul. lad? And David said. to dissipate his mood. the captain of the host: Avner. Avner took him and brought him before Shaul. But now your kingdom will not endure. In chapter 13. however." How is it possible that Shaul does not recognize David if we were previously told that he was his armor-bearer. and has not performed My commandments. and he loved him greatly.becomes king. And when David returned from smiting the Philistine. the end of the chapter records Shaul as asking about the identity of the soldier who defeated Goliath: "And when Shaul saw David going out against the Philistine. he said to Avner. for he has turned away from following Me. accounts. and he shall save My people from the hand of the Philistines. Shaul's appointment is presented as a decision originating with God Himself. Tomorrow at about this time I will send you a man from the land of Binyamin. the text seeks to illuminate different dimensions and perspectives on the narratives. For instance. going back as far as the forefathers.The Bible critics maintain that these and other contradictions arise from the fact that the text is actually a compilation of different sources. On the one hand. Without embarking on a lengthy discussion of all the details. for I have looked upon My people. doubts can and have been raised as to the degree to which the attempted explanation of the Bible critics actually solves the difficulties. "For it is not you that they have rejected. we find that God tells Avraham. and sometimes contradictory. they have rejected Me from ruling over them. Who – in the face of the crisis facing the people – decides to save them by the hand of a "prince": "And God had revealed to Shmuel a day before Shaul arrived. the attitude towards the monarchy is a complex one. saying. in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods – so they are doing also to you. In chapter 8. Since I have already discussed at length the "aspects approach" of Rav Mordekhai Breuer to similar literary problems in the Torah itself. and ultimately acquiesces. According to the aspects approach.[2] we may note that these chapters display a dual character. and does so by combining overlapping. for their cry has come to Me. takes a dim view of the demand and tells Shmuel. rather." (Shmuel I 8:7-8) Nevertheless. God does not reject the demand outright. from the day I brought them up out of Egypt. and until this day. "I shall make . in contrast. too. In chapter 9. and you shall anoint him as prince over My people. Israel.[1] yet as we saw in our discussion on the Books of the Torah. there are many instances where the monarchy is viewed in a positive light. Shmuel is adamantly opposed to the nation's demand for a king. According to all the deeds that they have done." (9:15-16) This ambiguous treatment reflects the fact that throughout all the Books of Tanakh. God. with two different perspectives on the monarchy. I will propose here briefly a general solution to the questions above. the concubine in Giv'a).Vayikra 4:22). sexual immorality (ibid. founding a sort of dynasty in which he and his sons will rule over Israel: "I shall not rule over you. with its description of the deplorable level to which Bnei Yisrael have fallen. like all the nations around us' – you shall surely appoint over you a king whom the Lord your God will choose. This reality is explained in a repeated verse: "In those days there was no king in Israel. and kings shall emerge from your loins" (ibid. The danger of appointing a king – i. the concentration of tremendous power in the hands of a single person – is clear: if the king is driven by improper motives. religious. from among your brethren shall you appoint a king over you. the highest office in Israel is that of 'nasi' (prince) (Shemot 22:27. 21:25. you cannot appoint over you a foreign man who is not of your brethren. and murder (ibid. every man did what was right in his own eyes" (ibid. The main idea is summed up in Gidon's words after the people offer that he reign. similarly. We may say that Sefer Shoftim ends on a note of crying out for a king. and kings shall emerge from you" (Bereishit 17:6).. 35:11). and you take possession of it and settle in it. he may cause a complete collapse of the entire nation's Divine service. The same complexity characterizes the unit in the Torah setting forth the appointment of the king: "When you come to the land which the Lord your God gives to you. nor shall my sons rule of you. perceiving the monarchy as a solution to the anarchy reigning in political. as indeed happened under such kings as Yerovam ben Nevat and Achav. 17:6. Yaakov is told. and you will say. God shall rule over you" (Shoftim 8:23). up until Sefer Devarim." (Devarim 17:14-15) . 19. 20-21. and Yoshiyahu. On the other hand. the war against Binyamin). including idolatry (Shoftim 17. see also 18:1. 19:1). 'Let us appoint a king over us. "a nation and a company of nations shall arise from you.nations of you. and moral spheres. Notably in the Torah itself. as did such worthy kings as David. Indeed. Of particular note is the positive attitude towards the concept of a monarchy that we find in the concluding chapters of Sefer Shoftim. Mikha's idol). Yehoshafat. there are other places where the Biblical text warns of the dangers inherent in monarchy.e. a king has the power to lead Am Yisrael in the path of Divine service. The following chapters are divided along the lines of these two approaches. Yehoshua addresses the people and tells them of the miracle that is going to happen when they cross the Jordan (verses 9-13). as it is written. that concerning the other Books ofTanakh. to cut off the descendants of Amalek. seemingly of his own initiative. Let us now examine an example of internal contradictions and redundancies within the same textual unit. emerges from a view of the monarchy as a positive institution which was intended by God from the outset. after they have crossed the Jordan. As part of his speech.[4] Suffice it to note. In chapter 3. Rabbi Nehorai said: This unit [concerning the king] was said only to pacify their discontent. in light of this example. introduces the subject from the point of view that the monarchy is essentially a negative phenomenon and one that is permitted only as a concession to human weakness. Later on. he commands them. 'And you shall say. too.It is not clear whether this is meant as a command to appoint a king. and to build the Temple. In the description of the crossing of the Jordan inYehoshua 3-4. but rather from a deliberate attempt to follow the example of the Torah in presenting a fuller picture by providing different perspectives on the same reality. arising not from diverse sources that have been collated by an editor. starting in chapter 9. starting in chapter 8. there is room to suggest that there is deliberate repetition in some chapters. A monarchy offers both risks and opportunities. take yourselves twelve men of the tribes of Israel.'"[3] We may therefore say that this controversy reflects the two different perspectives presented throughout Tanakh. TheTanakh expresses this complexity by means of a dual presentation of the chapters in Sefer Shmuel pertaining to the monarchy.Chazal are divided in this regard: "Rabbi Yehuda said: There are three commandments which Bnei Yisrael were commanded upon their entry into the land: to appoint a king. "And now. Let us appoint a king over ourselves. The one aspect. 1. God appears to Yehoshua with a command that is formulated in . The second aspect. The scope of our present discussion does not allow for a detailed presentation of this division. with events such as a failure on Shaul's part or an encounter between him and David being viewed from both perspectives. advantages and disadvantages. there are several contradictions. one man for each tribe" (verse 12). or as license to do so. First we read of the kohanim. when the entire nation had passed over the Jordan. emerging from the Jordan: "And the kohanim. and you shall carry them over with you. saying…" (3:17-4:1). saying: Command the kohanim. Bnei Yisrael fulfill the commandment and set up the pile of stones at the lodge: "And Bnei Yisrael did so. Why is there a need for a command to choose men from amongst the nation if Yehoshua had already issued this command prior to the crossing of the Jordan? 2. that the Ark of God passed over. bearing the Ark. stood in the midst of the Jordan… and the people hastened and crossed over. And it was. for the number of the tribes of Bnei Yisrael. And it was. the text returns to the description of thekohanim's exit from the Jordan: "And God said to Yehoshua. in accordance with all that Moshe had commanded Yehoshua. before the people" (ibid.almost exactly the same language: "Take yourselves from the people twelve men. Thereafter. the text reverts to the previous situation: "And the kohanim. Come up from the Jordan. until the entire episode was finished. all the days of his life" (ibid. who bear the Ark of Testimony. twelve stones. and laid them down there" (4:8). when the kohanim. once it appears that the entire episode is over. and afterwards God addressed Yehoshua with the above command: "All of Israel passed over on dry land. one man for each tribe. 10-11). But afterwards. and they carried twelve stones from the midst of the Jordan. who bore the Ark. stood in the midst of the Jordan. The chronology as presented in the text suggests that after Yehoshua's speech to the people. until all of the nation had finished crossing over the Jordan. and let them come up from the Jordan. And Yehoshua commanded thekohanim. who bore the Ark. as God had spoken to Yehoshua. And it was. And command them. Yet. Then we find a closing verse: "On that day God magnified Yehoshua in the eyes of all of Israel. and leave them in your lodging place where you will lodge tonight" (4:23). which God had commanded Yehoshua to speak to the people. bearing the Ark of . and they feared him as they had feared Moshe. from the midst of the Jordan. 14). they did indeed cross over the Jordan. and they carried them over with them to the lodge. as Yehoshua had commanded. from where the feet of the kohanimstood firm. that God spoke to Yehoshua. and the people hastened and crossed over" (verse 10). There is also repetition in relation to the kohanim. saying: Take yourselves from this place. saying. and the kohanim. 3. when all the nation had finished crossing over. that they may know that as I was with Moshe – so I will be with you" (3:7). to convey the different aspects of the miracle. too. which He dried up before us until we had passed over"(ibid.[5] Here. "In order that this might be a sign in your midst. Bible critics over the generations have raised suggestions as to how the various verses represent different sources. that when your children ask in the future. Yehoshua's personal status amongst the people: At the beginning we read. What are these stones to you? Then you shall say to them. The repetition continues with a two-fold explanation as to the need for the twelve stones taken by the representatives of the tribes. saying. arose from the midst of the Jordan. it seems that the aspects approach may be utilized to show how the text endeavors. Later on. after the second description of the kohanim emerging from the Jordan. until you had passed over. . 15-18). What are these stones? Then you shall make known to your children. and the soles of the kohanim's feet were lifted onto the dry ground. That the waters of the Jordan were cut off before the Ark of God's Covenant. The establishment of the monument of stones likewise appears twice (verses 8. by means of overlapping descriptions. 4. When your children ask their fathers in the future. By the end of the dramatic crossing of the Jordan. when it crossed over the Jordan. this aim has indeed been attained: "On that day God magnified Yehoshua in the eyes of all of Israel. and these stones shall be a memorial for Bnei Yisraelforever" (4:6-7). saying. as the Lord God did at the Reed Sea. that the waters of the Jordan returned to their place.God's Covenant. Here again. "in order that you will fear the Lord your God all the days" (ibid. 2. as they did before" (ibid. First we read. saying: Israel crossed over this Jordan on dry land. "This day I have started to magnify you in the eyes of all of Israel. and later on. The consciousness amongst Am Yisrael of Divine Providence: "In order that this may be a sign in your midst… and these stones shall be a memorial to Bnei Yisrael forever" (4:6-7). 21-23).[6] The story itself offers three distinct perspectives: 1. the same description is repeated: "And he said to Bnei Yisrael. the waters of the Jordan were cut off. For the Lord your God dried up the waters of the Jordan before you. and flowed over all their banks. 24). 20). saying. without any such division successfully solving the issue. " Were this not the meaning. These examples demonstrate that the "aspects approach" represents an effective and practical way of understanding textual difficulties in the Books of the Prophets. as an example of "the Torah speaks here only in response to the evil inclination. and in the other instance without any Divine command (3:11. 3. pp. S. for example.Z. the stated purpose is for Am Yisrael. why would the Torah present is as a description of a situation – "you will say. 15-16. however. BarEfrat. he claims." following the view of Rabbi Nehorai ("to pacify their discontent"). 4:11). Sifrei Shmuel. in each instance. and the Rambam (Laws of Kings 1:1).htm [3] A similar difference of opinion exists among the commentators.and they feared him as they had feared Moshe. 6-16. Jerusalem-Tel Aviv 5756. An English version of the extended thesis on the application of “aspects theory” to these chapters in Sefer Shmuel can be found at http://vbm-torah. pp. [2] I heard the essence of this approach from my teacher. our discussion does not allow for an elaboration of the way in which these three perspectives are interwoven in the chapter. 15-16). suggesting that the Torah is hinting here at what will happen in the future: the nation will ask for a king "like all the nations. and I set it forth in detail in my book.org/archive/shmuel/16shmuel. 'like all the . We may. it would indeed be difficult to understand why the Torah presents their request in this way: "For what reason would the Torah say. The message to the other nations: "In order that all the people of the earth may know the hand of God. and. these actions symbolize God's guidance of Am Yisrael. concur that "their integration naturally brings about repetitions which illuminate. at the same time. we see clearly that in both cases the action is presented in one instance as God's command (4:2. the dual description of the monument of stones arises from the fact that the first time. that it is mighty" (verse 24). Jerusalem 1971. all the days of his life" (4:14). Dr. the different aims of this miracle. just as it is in explaining similar difficulties that arise in the Torah itself. If this is indeed an obligation. Ramban understands the unit in Sefer Devarim as representing a mitzva. or for the kohanim to exit the Jordan. which reflects more accurately the language of the command. Abravanel sees the unit as merely giving license to appoint a king. Let us appoint a king over ourselves like all the nations around about us'"? Ramban addresses this question. concurs.[8] Translated by Kaeren Fish [1] See. while the second description is directed towards the nations of the world. in relation to a commandment. Jerusalem 2013. Segal. In the dual descriptions of the command to appoint the twelve men. for example. The plain meaning of the text seems to lend itself more to Abravanel's view. an elevation of Yehoshua's status in the eyes of the people."[7] Thus. Here again. Perush Shmuel I in the Mikra le-Yisrael series. Shmuel I: Melekh BeYisrael. Thus. Mordekhai Sabbato. M. 5 above)." However. and whose own authenticity may in turn be demonstrated by the fieldwork. Mi-Moshe li-Yehoshua u-mi-Nes le-Teva. a similar school of scholarship arose in Israel. Ernest Wright (1909-1974) introduced what became a central endeavor in the field: they sought. The Netziv (Ha'amek Davar).[1]The earliest studies were conducted by American and British scholars such as Edward Robinson (1794-1863) and Charles Warren (1840-1927). See S. and no absolute ideas could be appropriate for every generation. As an outgrowth of this approach. to demonstrate the authenticity of biblical narratives and thereby to disprove the documentary hypothesis (which we discussed at length in the previous chapter). Yadin viewed the strengthening of the bond between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel through archaeology as an important Zionist endeavor. Although nonobservant religiously.nations that are around about us'? ForBnei Yisrael should not learn from them. since such matters are influenced by the circumstances at any given time. who had been dispatched in order to gain a deeper familiarity with the world of the Bible and to find actual traces of the biblical narratives. by means of archaeological findings. “Introducing Rabbi Breuer. this explanation seems slightly forced. [6] Our presentation here is based on Assis's discussion (see n. Carmy. 147.   Shiur #6a: Tanakh and Archaeology A. Jerusalem 2013. Carmy (ed. Jerusalem 5765. specifically because the Torah represents God's direct word. He maintained that this approach was unique to the Torah. Assis. . p. Shmuel I: Melekh BeYisrael. 85-89.” in S. headed by Yigael Yadin (1917-1984). pp. in his commentary on Sefer Devarim. nor envy those who act unjustly. [4] Interested readers are encouraged to examine the analysis in detail in my abovementioned book. [8] It should be noted that Rav Breuer himself preferred not to apply his approach to the Books of the Prophets. Background The relations between Tanakh and archaeology have undergone many changes since the study of the antiquities of Eretz Yisrael began in the 19th century. New Jersey 1996 p. [5] A concise and clear review of the various approaches is presented by E. too. At the beginning of the 20th century.) Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah. 5). pp. [7] Assis (see n. inter alia. religious scholars such as William Albright (1891-1971) and G. explains that the Torah does not issue an absolute command in matters pertaining to national policy. 92-108. the search for testimonies concerning important historical events and the activities of the various kings of Israel and Judea. The assumption guiding these scholars was that the Tanakh should be treated as a historical source which can serve to explain archaeological findings. The efforts included. and that only God could encompass and contain all the contrasting perspectives in a single text. 107. this position is extreme and controversial. . and to view archaeology as an independent discipline dealing with the processes of cultural and social development borne out by the findings. especially the period of Achav (in the first half of the ninth-century B. are stories that have almost no historical basis. and there is no trace of the empire of David and Shlomo. The same approach is held by a certain school of contemporary Israeli scholars. Herzog argued. – see MelakhimI. In a newspaper article that raised a storm of controversy. they maintain.[5] In general.C. some new trends appeared which gradually moved themselves further away from the original orientation of biblical archaeology. One of the most prominent representatives of this approach is Zeev Herzog. they are to be considered merely as myths and legends that were created by the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael in order to explain their national and social origins. regarding it as a passing trend. some of the "New Archaeologists" adopted a more extreme approach that tended to negate the historical validity of the Tanakh. along with the Books of Yehoshua."[4] Herzog's popular article led to extensive discussion of these questions. whose views we will discuss here. Second.E. "After 70 years of intensive excavation in Eretz Yisrael. we did not conquer the land. This school is related to some extent to trends among scholarly circles in Europe (especially in Scandinavia). long after the events actually took place. a school that became known as the "New Archaeology" sought to sever itself from the historical context of the Tanakh. since – according to the proponents of this view – the Tanakhwas written with a bias. Hence. and even the beginning of Sefer Melakhim. ch.16). concerning everything up to the period of the divided kingdom. and they contradict the archaeological findings from the relevant periods.[2] and is known as the "minimalist approach. archaeologists are arriving at a frightening conclusion: the 'deeds of the fathers' are a fable.[3] The narratives of the Torah. First. we did not go down to Egypt nor did we come up from there. articles and books appeared in response to the minimalist approach.Shmuel." It argues that the biblical record should not be regarded as historical fact so long as there is no positive archaeological evidence supporting it. and conferences. without reference to any particular events recorded in the Tanakh. and many scholars distance themselves from it.Towards the end of the 20th century. Shoftim. and treat each discovery on its own merits.. We will also look at a number of questions that have been raised by scholars who do not approach archaeological study with a preconceived rejection of the authenticity of the Bible. At the opposite end of the spectrum. but rather approach its findings with an objective view appropriate to scientific enquiry. Clearly. concerning the dating of different findings.[9] For example. the assumptions of the "New Archaeology" are often based on the claim that there have been no findings in support of certain events recorded in Tanakh. there is some doubt as to whether the discipline of archaeology may be defined as a "pure" science: many fundamental assumptions in the field. it must be remembered that the approach that casts doubt on the reliability of the Tanakh is based on the conclusions prevalent in the world of Bible study – a realm which itself is far from offering unequivocal.The argument of Herzog and those like him is not comprised purely of archaeological elements. who have joined together with the "new historians"[8] and follow a political agenda. this research must be approached with appropriate reservations and caution. both in Israel and elsewhere.[7] and it happens on occasion that a finding discovered quite by accident contradicts entire theories constructed previously. Finally. In addition. this argument from absence is a major weakness of the approach: "'We have not found…' is not a proof" (Ketubot 23b). Likewise. as well as the methods of ascertaining their date. One might ask to what extent the questions arising from archaeological research should interest someone who believes in the authenticity and reliability of the biblical account. it is difficult to ignore the bias – sometimes openly declared – on the part of many archaeologists of the minimalist school. Firstly. there are scholars who belong to the "maximalist approach. as we shall see. etc. However. Herzog concludes his controversial article mentioned above with the words." maintaining that everything in the Tanakh should be accepted as historical truth so long as there is no proof to the contrary. but also displays prominently political opinions and subjective world-views. The frequent updating of archaeological approaches likewise contributes little reliability to the findings. . have not been conclusively proven. In this chapter we shall discuss questions that have been raised for the most part by the minimalists and have received some media attention. decisive proofs. just as in the realm of the literary criticism of the Tanakh. as we have seen in the previous chapters.[6] But the majority of scholars are not identified with either camp. no need to be overly agitated about findings that contradict the narrative. as far as possible. and helping to deepen our connection with the world of the Tanakh. it remains just one of the sources for reconstructing history. and does not justify the complete rejection of its findings. the characteristics of the various cultures… Nevertheless. to this view. too."It turns out that Israeli society is partially ready to recognize the injustice done to the Arab inhabitants of the land… but is not yet sturdy enough to adopt the archaeological facts which shatter the biblical myth. In addition. nor should it have to: to 'prove history' or to disprove it… The role of archaeology is to expose the ancient material culture and to depict. Bible scholar Sarah Japhet argues: "Is history limited only to what archaeology is able to attest to? If societies and cultures did not leave behind material artifacts. and it should by no means be entrusted with more than that task… We must remind ourselves that archaeology. The basic assumption is that the Tanakh describes an absolute material reality. is a human science. started out by taking upon itself a task that it could not fulfill. The question of the degree to which archaeological findings conform with theTanakh is. However. did they not exist? … This bitter protest arises from the fact that the archaeology of the Land of Israel. and conversely. a large portion of archaeological discoveries do indeed accord with the biblical narrative. and perhaps of the Ancient East in its entirety. whose data are incessantly changing. a scornful attitude towards the study of archaeology does not solve the questions that arise from this area of study. and there is therefore no need to become too excited over findings that sit well with the biblical narrative. ."[11] These arguments and others have led some parts of the religious world to regard any involvement in or appeal to biblical archaeology – and especially the "New Archaeology" – as unnecessary. and whose conclusions change over time and are certainly not absolute."[10] Countering Herzog's claims. simply a matter of time. with room for working assumptions and for discretion. shedding light on our understanding of various stories. have sought to challenge the accepted version of Israeli and Zionist history. (To be continued) Translated by Kaeren Fish [1] Concerning the various trends in the relationship betweenTanakh and archaeology. Ha-Pulmus al ha-Emet haHistorit ba-Mikra. Ramat Gan 5769. [5] Such as: Al Atar 7. we might note that Jerusalem – one of the main focuses of the controversy concerning the united kingdom. we will then address the question of whether the findings represent a scientific consensus. much has been written on these subjects and we will only present here very briefly some of the central points.. 29 October 1999. [6] Among them is A. p. Zertal.E. the Canaanite king of Jerusalem.We shall briefly examine the discussion in terms of the various Biblical periods that are subject to controversy. pp. "Ha-Tanakh – Ein Mimtzaim ba-Shetach. we will examine the opposite perspective – the correspondence between the archaeological findings of each period and the biblical narrative. as we shall see – is proof of the limitations of th archaeological findings. We lack archaeological artifacts from Jerusalem in the 14 century B. n." [7] To illustrate this point. see Bunimowitz and Faust (above." Haaretz. Levin and A. 5764. in the hope that they may serve as an introduction to understanding the broader discussion. and if so – how they may be reconciled with the biblical narrative. seven letters from this period were discovered which were sent by Abdi-Khepa. for example. p. . The article was translated into English and published in Biblical Archaeology Review and can be found athttp://www. Tel Aviv 2000. Tom Segev and Ilan Pappe.com/focus/news/704190/posts. Levi-Raifer and A. This approach has sometimes been prompted by considerations that are not necessarily scientific and objective. and the arguments for the reliability of the text that arise from these discoveries.). Faust.freerepublic.) [8] This denotes a group of historians aligned with post-Zionism. [2] This so-called "nihilist" approach rejects completely the historical record of the Tanakh. 12: "For most of the biblical descriptions of the nation's origins there exists a real basis. [3] We addressed these claims themselves in chapter 3. Barukh.C. Chiddushim be-Cheker Yerushalayim – ha-Kovetz ha-14. to the king of Egypt. For each period we will first note the seeming contradictions between the biblical account and the relevant archaeological discoveries. 7-23. Benny Morris. Faust (eds. Mazar (eds. Herzog. who. 5760. 1 (176). Thereafter. Jerusalem 5718. Bunimowitz and A. and to what extent they require a new understanding of it. Y.L. S. [4] Z. Jerusalem 5761." in A.). "Ha-Archeologia shel Tekufat ha-Mikra bi-Shenot ha-Alpayim. columns 795-796. A. Obviously. but among the Amarna Letters. 10. Mazar. including scholars such as Avi Shlaim. and for this reason it has attracted vehement criticism. since the 1980s. who writes in his book Am Nolad – Ha-Mizbeach be-Har Eival veReshit Yisrael. 1). both archaeological and topographical. claiming that it was written only in the Hellenistic or even the Roman period. see. "Jerusalem" in the Encyclopedia Mikrait III. testifying to the importance of the city (B. Beit Mikra49. " Beit Mikra 49. 5). 23-25. interdisciplinary regional reviews of Palestine. a leading minimalist scholar in Denmark. Indeed. n.L. when Achav died..C.   Shiur #6b: Tanakh and Archaeology B. 18. Talshir. In Sefer Melakhim we read: "And Mesha. 85-86. Japhet. n." She adds. unmediated encounter with the remains of the concrete reality described in the text. Thompson. 1 (above. 1. Elitzur.E. But it was. with the wool. The overt point of departure is 'on behalf of' and 'for the sake of. and a hundred thousand rams. lending a powerful sense of connection to the world of the Tanakh through a direct. pp." [11] S.[2] It opens . 5). "Matai Nikhtav ha-Tanakh. "Against this background we understand why the history of Israel has recently been taken out of the framework of Bible research and introduced as part of the all-encompassing.E. and therefore scholars acknowledge the basic reliability of the Tanakh’s historical descriptions from this period onwards. onwards. From Achav onwards The latest period in which controversy arises regarding the relationship between the Biblical text and the archaeological record is from the reign of King Achav. [10] Z. pp. in the first half of the 9th century B.C. in the 19th century. p. We shall discuss some of the most famous findings relating to narratives about the Israelite kingdom from the period of Achav onwards.' rather than on study of the history for its own sake. that "current political developments indicate that an understanding of the heritage of Israel is extremely important not only for the academic community. These discoveries are very exciting in their own right." Al Attar 7 (above. king of Moav. that the king of Moav rebelled against the king ofIsrael…" (Melakhim II 3:4-5) In 1868. Its inscription shows that it was established by this same Mesha. was discovered in what is now Jordan. 5)." in: Ha-Pulmus al ha-Emet ha-Historit baMikra (above. n. "Ha-Tanakh ve-ha-Historia. severed from any historical context. notes the statement by T. "Al Ofnot be-Cheker Toldot Yisrael. the discovery of the first relevant findings.[1] Archaeological discoveries dating from this time – which many researchers believe to be the period during which the Books of the Torah and of the Prophets were written – do generally accord with the textual account.[9] For a discussion of this phenomenon see Y. refuted some prevalent critical approaches which had maintained that all the biblical narratives were later creations. and he delivered to the king of Israel a hundred thousand lambs. was a sheepmaster. king of Moav. but also for the community in general. a stele (inscribed stone) dating to the 9thcentury B. then. king of Moav. 3.[4] 2. led by twelve kings. and they afflicted Moav for many days"] and describes at length how he prevailed against Omri's son. the inscription does support the textual description of Achav. saying. son of Kemosh. and also the stream that ran through the midst of the land. Why should the kings of Assyria come and find abundant water?" (Divrei Ha-yamim II 2-4)… . against an engraved image of a king.. king of Israel. and that he intended to fight againstJerusalem. is the earliest external evidence of Moav's battle againstIsrael. for a long time ["Omri. unless the event is considered to have some element that is worth recording for posterity. as recorded in the text. Achav also appears in the Kurkh Monolith (Kurkh is located in south-eastern Turkey). to stop the water of the springs which were outside of the city. was ranged against him. including the "two thousand chariots. king of Israel. "I am Mesha. In any event. So a great many people gathered together. Extensive attention is given to the battle of Karka." and that amongst this alliance against him." (Melakhim II 20:20) The system is described in greater detail in Divrei Ha-yamim: "And when Yechizkiyahu saw that Sancheriv had come. and they stopped up all the springs. and they helped him.C. and of the existence of the House of Omri. as a warrior with a large and significant army.. It records that an enormous army. and brought water into the city.with the words. There is no mention whatsoever of this battle in the Tanakh.E.). The Mesha Stele. ten thousand foot-soldiers of Achav the Israelite. describing the military campaigns of the Assyrian king Shalmanesser III. lending support to the view that the Tanakh is not a history book that records every event (or even every major event). king of Israel. untilIsrael was annihilated.[5] The inscription is written in cuneiform. he took counsel with his ministers and his mighty men. Achav was the king with the largest army. Sefer Melakhim describes the water system devised by King Chizkiyahu[6]: "… and how he made the pool and the aqueduct."[3] Mesha records that the people of Moav were subservient to Omri. which took place in the sixth year of Shalmanesser's reign (863 B. "And this same Yechizkiyahu stopped up the upper watercourse of the Gichon. the period of settlement of the land.C. and brought it straight down to the west side of the city of David" (ibid..E. as we have seen. in the days of David and Shlomo.[11] with the result that the existence of the House of David came to be accepted as historical fact by the vast majority of scholars. He dug into the hard rock with iron. king of Aram).E.[12] We shall now proceed by examining five periods prior to that of Achav in which apparent conflict arises between archaeological findings and the biblical account: the period of the forefathers. but in 1993-1994 fragments of an Aramaic inscription were found by a delegation of researchers headed by Avraham Biran. although not those of the nihilist school. dating to the 8th century B. the main arguments surrounding archaeology and the Biblical text concern earlier periods – from the time of the forefathers until the unifiedkingdom of David and Shlomo.[9] The author of the Tel Dan Stele (apparently Chazael.. describing the final stages of the digging of the tunnel designed to lead water from the Gichon spring. describes his victory over the king ofIsrael and over the king of the "House of David". there is a relative abundance of archaeological material from the period of Achav onwards. including those affiliated with the minimalist school." In 1880 an inscription was found in Chizkiyahu's (Hezekiah's) Tunnel.C. More explicit still is the description in Sefer Ben Sira (48:22-23): "Yechizkiyahu fortified his city by bringing water into its midst. which dates to the 9th or 8thcentury B. There have been scholars of both the nihilist and minimalist schools[8] who questioned even the historical existence of the House of David. and make wells for water.[10]This finding also shed light on the inscription on the Mesha Stele. the Children of Israel in Egypt. and the period of the unified kingdom. (To be continued) Translated by Kaeren Fish . at Tel Dan. verse 30). outside of the city. the conquest of the land.[7] Since. to a pool inside of the city.. this version does not necessarily represent a contradiction: Yehoram.C. Concerning the connection between the content of the Mesha Stele and the "burden of Moav" in Yishayahu 15-16 and inYirmiyahu 48. and acting as his agent. who had performed many acts. 3 (174). see Talshir. [10] The inscription is not intact. "Then Shlomo built a high place for Kemosh. At the end of his discussion he refers the reader to a bibliography pertaining to the inscription. pp. inter alia. the son of a valiant man of Kavtze'el. and it was in these circumstances that he found his death. the king mentions (line 12) his capture ofàøàì ãåãä"". pp. Biran and Y. Tel Aviv 1994. [9] For more on this inscription see A. Yaron. king of Yehuda.M. pp. 112-118). and he does the same concerning Achazyahu. It is therefore no wonder that the king of Aram credits himself with killing Yehoram.Ha-Ketav ve-haMikhtav." Eretz Yisrael 29. Biran. 243. son of Yehoyada. Mikra veArcheologia. Jerusalem 5768. see Achituv (above. 355-373. Samet."Beit Mikra 48. 687 B. 18 ad loc. Olam ha-Tanakh: Melakhim I. Neeman. especially from Eliyahu's prophecy at Chorev: "He who escapes the sword of Chazael shall be slain by Yehu" (Melakhim I 19:17). 302-308). N. Jerusalem 5765. Silverman. haMatzevot ve-ha-Chutzot. killed two lion-hearted [2] . Naveh. lived c. king of Aram. the stele records that Moav conquered some cities in Israel. For this reason. too. pp. but scholars have concluded that. see Y. (See. Elitzur. the abomination of Moav" (Melakhim I 11:7). it should read: "[And I killed Yeho]ram son of [Achav] the king of Israel.A. [4] The inscription includes many other aspects and details of Moav's war against Israel which do not appear in the biblical text. "And Benayahu. 175-182. Many scholars have interpreted this expression. Rothstein. 205-206. Jeursalem 5760. "Ha-Ketovet mi-Dan. [3] Kemosh is well known in the Tanakh as the god of Moav. arguing that the story about Yehu is not historically correct (see. see S. pp. for example. 1). Finkelstein and N. the ki]ng of the House of David. and for a bibliography in its regard. "Woe to you. and Mesha is documented as having taken captives from Israel and making them his slaves who took part in some of his fortification and construction projects. Yisrael ve-ha-Mikra. was indeed wounded in the war against the army of Aram(Melakhim II 8:28-29). [5] For more on the inscription see.) However. as being related to King David. 20. [6] Chizkiyahu. "Mi Harag et ha-Melakhim Yehoram ve-Achazya. may be derived directly from the text. Neeman himself cites scholars who maintain that exaggerated claims of might and achievement are a well-known phenomenon when it comes to royal inscriptions (see also D. "Ketovet Aramit mi-Tekufat Bayit Rishon mi-Tel Dan. p. 5759." This would seem to contradict the textual record (Melakhim II 9:14-27) which attributes the killing of these two kings to Yehu. 39-45. n. O people of Kemosh!" (Bamidbar 21:29). Achituv. but this possibility was rejected outright by paleographic experts. On this subject see E. perhaps meaning "Ariel of David" as a reference to one of David's warriors: cf. pp. 15-20. However. Levi and Y. for example. 739 B. the authors themselves tend towards the view that the contradiction arises from the tension between historical reality and the biblical legend." Kadmoniot 28. to c. Moav! You are done for. David u-Shelomo – Beit Metziut Historit le-Mitos. and destroyed others. 202-204). son of Achav. Even if the completion of the inscription were certain. and I killed [Achaz]yahu son of [Yehoram. Jerusalem 5766. Some scholars have granted greater reliability to the account on the stele than to the biblical account. For example. pp. "HaKetovet ha-Aramit be-Tel Dan be-He'ara Historit. Jerusalem5767. 74-81.E. Binenfeld. and no. S. 3-4 (5754). ch. [11] On the Mesha Stele. this explanation. pp. 1 (5755 – 1995).16 onwards Concerning the inscription and its interpretation. it describes the "vessels of God's House" (apparently a reference to a local temple) being taken as spoils from the city of Nevo and being brought before Kemosh. p." Kadmoniot 26. Inter alia.E. Pirkei Elisha.[1] See Melakhim I. pp. Some scholars of the minimalist school sought to suggest that the inscription was from the Hasmonean period. 99-100. there is no reason to assume that Yehu was connected in any way to Chazael. [8] See the previous shiur. it should be noted that the missing letters are not proven (a significant problem with the proposed completion of the inscription is raised by D. Y. [7] Concerning the inscription. pp.C. with the missing letters. too. king of Yehuda. A. pp. Zakovitch et al. and that the vast majority. many scholars have suggested that the full sentence is meant to read. David Melekh Yisrael Chai veKayam. (eds. The concept was accepted by the early archaeologists studying the Land of Israel. decided that the inscription was a forgery. [12] See. for example.[3] However. Tel Aviv 2003. p. or its epigraphic identity.). Davisproposed impossible alternative readings. of the traditions included in the series of narratives about the forefathers. pp. It is generally accepted that this is not a historical period. Nadav Na'aman writes: "With regard to the era of the forefathers. Z. Silberman. led by William Albright. for example. Yirmiyahu 48:3) was under the rule of the House of David (Achituv. 371372). Following the discovery of the Tel Dan Stele. No other scholar in the academic world has cast the slightest doubt on the reliability of the inscription. pp. the circumstances of its discovery. the inscription records that ""åçåøðï éùá áä áú [ ] åã. summarizes: "The appearance of the House of David as a consolidated political concept represented a real problem for deniers of Ancient Israel."   Shiur #6c: Tanakh and Archaeology C. the minimalist school of Biblical archaeology maintains that the historical and geographical depictions in Sefer Bereishit do not conform to the periods of ancient history they claim to represent. Further on (line 31). Jerusalem 5757. Yitzchak and Yaakov.A. . reflect a reality that is later. They went to great lengths to try to rid themselves of this most inconvenient evidence. Lipschitz. Thus." in: Y. Mikra ve-Zikaron Histori. other than the fact that it deals a mortal blow to a priori claims against the history of the House of David. if not all. Concerning the attempts by the "nihilists" to minimize the significance of the finding."[4] Obviously. There is nothing problematic about this inscription.e." i. see A. Talshir. which no self-respecting scholar would dare to mention. than the beginning of the period of settlement… The narratives include many elements which in no way conform to the ancient dating [attributed to them].men (shenei ariel) of Moav" (Shmuel II 23:20). but rather reflect a far later reality.[2] as essentially equivalent to the Middle Bronze Age. Lemke. despairing of any other solution. " åçåøðï éùá áä á[éú ã]åã" – "the House of David dwelled in Chouranen..[1] We might start out by noting that the very concept of the "era of the forefathers" is contested in itself. Finkelstein and N. which introduces the description of the period of the people of Israel in the Bible. the stories of the forefathers in and of themselves cannot be proved or disproved from an archaeological point of view. "Pulmus 'Beit David' – be-Ikvot haKetovet mi-Tel Dan. there is widespread agreement among scholars. Reshit Yisrael – Archeologia. The era of the forefathers Let us start with the first period that arouses controversy – the era of our forefathers Avraham. 19. to a greater or lesser degree. Y. 9-77. the city (known to us as Choronayim – see Yishayahu 15:5. 135-136. for example. This issue was first raised at the end of the 19th century. nor oxen. was generally motivated by a desire to use archaeology to corroborate the biblical account. In this particular matter. since they lived in peripheral areas of civilization.E. Their claim is that the author of the accounts in the Torah uses some facts and information that he possessed from his own era."[7] . which did not belong to the era that he describes.[5]The theme common to these arguments is that the Torah's description displays elements of anachronism – i.C. with occasional raids on camel-back on settled agricultural territory. as described. but they certainly suggest such an explanation. We shall first examine some of the arguments of those who deny the reliability of the Torah's account of the era of the forefathers. And they encamped against them. as we have mentioned in the past. and for this reason "Our oldest certain evidence for the domestication of the camel cannot antedate the end of the twelfth century B. nomads had depended on donkeys for transport. 1. the projection of various phenomena dating from a later period to the period of the forefathers.The main discussion in this regard therefore centers on the surrounding reality depicted in these narratives. Up until that time. but it received a renewed boost from none other than William Albright. was cautious in suggesting that "These facts do not necessarily prove that earlier references to the camel in Genesis and Exodus are anachronistic. and destroyed the produce of the earth as far asGaza." (Shoftim 6:3-5) Albright.C. for both they and their camels were without number – and they entered the land to destroy it. when Israel had sown.e. and left no sustenance for Israel – neither sheep. One of the best-known claims in this regard – also serving as an interesting example of the scholarly attitude in general – is the question of the domestication of camels. that Midian and Amalek and the children of the east came up against them. in the introduction to the story of Gid'on: "And it was. who."[6] Only at a later stage did nomadism evolve into the form of wandering tribes deep in the wilderness.. Albright noted that the domestication of camels took place only in the 12thcentury B. and they came like locusts for multitude.. however. nor donkeys. For they came up with their cattle and their tents. he argued. admittedly. with the stirrings of a fundamental change in the nature of nomadism. In the story of Avraham's servant and Rivka.[9] There is also evidence of the early domestication of camels – from the 4th millenium B. in northern Syria. the real domestication of the camel was no earlier than the end of the Bronze Age.[11] The accumulation of this archaeological evidence demonstrates that the domestication of camels had. in a document discovered in Alalakh. 30-31)."[8] In excavations carried out in Har ha-Negev (Be'er Resisim).inter alia: "In summary. the Torah mentions "ten of his master's camels" (Bereishit 24:10). mentions "one portion of food for [each] camel. camel bones were found along with bones of goats. many other archaeologists viewed this as absolute proof of anachronism in the descriptions found in Sefer Bereishit. This finding sits well with the biblical account. we have come to know much more about camels.However. with their camels carrying gum balm and ladanum" (ibid. Albright himself indeed changed his opinion later on. but no mention of any camels.. 21).C. 42:26-27. This phenomenon shows the extent to which our knowledge in the realm of biblical archaeology is fragile.. and their numbers were relatively small. In the war of the children of Gad and the children of Reuven against the Hagri'im. although partial and . we find "thirty milk camels with their young" (ibid. We may therefore conclude that camels were not common.[10] and elsewhere.E. and changes in accordance with circumstances. but in a limited way. and were used mainly to carry expensive merchandise. already commenced in these ancient times. we find: "And they captured their cattle. at the end of his life. dating to the end of the third millennium B. in the gifts that Yaakov offers Esav. from the period of the Judges onwards we find a great many camels. only later did the phenomena expand to include large numbers of camels.C. – from the deserts of Iran.. had six thousand camels (Iyov 42:12). in which camels did not play a central role. The camels that Avraham's servant brought with him apparently represented a factor in the estimation of the avaricious Lavan (ibid. and in the account of the sale of Yosef we find a "caravan of Yishme'elim came from the Gil'ad.C. and wrote. 37:25). For example. and elsewhere). In other narratives in the Torah.E. 32:16). Iyov.E. in the spoils seized from Midian we find "sixty-one thousand asses" (Bamidbar 31:34). indeed. [and] of their camels fifty thousand" (Divrei Ha-yamim I. In contrast. until the time of the Judges. dated to the 17th century B. camels are absent: in the descent of Yosef's brothers toEgypt we find only donkeys (ibid. Since Albright's time. "[12] However. The Torah refers to Beer Sheva in two places. and Yitzchak sent them.[15] This argument. until this day. that this ancient city is the place identified as such today." (ibid. and they said to him. And it was on that day that the servants of Yitzchak came and told him about the well which they had dug.[14] 2. We have found water. is based on two assumptions: a. For example. at Tel Sheva. Following the covenant and the oath between Avraham and Avimelekh. we are told. this argument is raised especially in relation to the city of Beer Sheva – which. "Therefore the called thatplace Be'er Shava. according to archaeological evidence. was not inhabited during the era of the forefathers. for there they both swore (nishbe'u)" (Bereishit 21:31). we find: "And they rose up early in the morning and theyswore (vayishav'u) to each other. which sounds quite convincing at first. and they parted from him in peace. and Rechovot – ibid. The first assumption does not conform with the biblical narrative. b. but rather to an encounter at wells.sporadic domestication may already have existed a few hundred years earlier. these later findings did not deter the minimalists[13] from propagating Albright's outdated theory – which he himself had retracted – that the mention of camels in the Torah represents an anachronism. Thereafter. 26:31-33) Here the Torah notes that the name given to the place was actually the name of the well – like the names that he gave to the other wells mentioned in the same chapter (Esek. therefore the name of the city is Beer Sheva. in the encounter between Yitzchak and Avimelekh. that Beer Sheva is mentioned in the stories of the forefathers as an ancient city. and in both cases it is clear that the reference is not to a city. Sitna. Various scholars have argued that anachronism is also present in the names of different places that appear in the narratives of the forefathers. but which did not exist at that time. nor even during the period that followed. And he called it Shiv'a. 20-22). Only later on was the city called "Beer . [18] This argument was supported by the fact that this location "was suited to large-scale civilian settlement that was constantly growing. Another argument concerns the appearance of ethnic groups in Sefer Bereishit – including the Philistines (Pelishtim). and the Pelishtim referred to during the period of the forefathers.[17] As to the identification of the ancient city of Beer Sheva with Tel Sheva. the claim is that such accounts are anachronistic.e. during the period of the Judges. There is therefore no basis to the argument that the Torah is talking about a fortified city from the time of the forefathers. the Pelishtim appeared in Eretz Yisrael only at the beginning of the Iron Age – i. whose water sources are poorer. How is it.[21] Thus. in terms of proximity to far more accessible sources of water than Tel Sheva. According to Egyptian and other sources.[24] However. in the Negev: . it may be that artifacts from the Middle Bronze Period will yet be found at Bir al-Saba."[19] Artifacts have been discovered at this site dating back to the Early Chalcolithic period. here too there is room for doubt.[22] 3.. it refers to the site of the city at a later period. of which some sort of evidence should logically remain. alternatively.Sheva" – owing to its proximity to the well (be'er) which was called Shiv'a). and these have not yet been exposed. and Hittites (Chittim). the biblical Beer Sheva may actually lie elsewhere.[25] For example. within the boundaries of the Turkish/Ottoman section of the modern day city of Beer Sheva. that they are mentioned several times in Sefer Bereishit?[23] Here. or. it was Na'aman himself who proposed identifying the biblical city with Bir alSaba. but their foundations extend at least two meters further down. again. Ironically. and that the author made a mistake in referring to the Pelishtim who did not exist at that time at all. then. Hivvites (Chivvim). during the earlier period the Pelishtim are located in Gerar. closer examination of the biblical text shows clearly that there are significant differences between the Pelishtim of the period of the Judges. some 5km west of Tel Beer Sheva.[16] rather.[20] but the site has not been fully excavated: there are walls whose top level has revealed remains from the Later Iron Age. and to the Early Iron Age. and which was later adopted by the Pelishtim who lived on the coast. and he dwelled between Kadesh and Shur and he sojourned in Gerar" (Bereishit 20:1). Ashkelon. "The difference between the Pelishtim in Gerar and the Pelishtim of the coastal cities is… absolute and pertains to the very essence (of our understanding of who the Pelishtim are): they are different in terms of their country of origin. (To be continued) Translated by Kaeren Fish . the Pelishtim who appear during the period of the Judges lived in cities along the sea shore – Gaza. and in terms of the historical relations between them and Israel. These Pelishtim were led by "seranim" (local lords). we would have expected to find some overlap between the list of cities of the Pelishtim as we know them from the Books of the Prophets. that the land of these ancient Pelishtim is not included within the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael).[26] In contrast. and their cities in the narratives of the forefathers. while the Torah notes that during this period the coastal areas were under the control of the Canaanite nations (ibid. in terms of their period in history. apparently."[27] This phenomenon of the common name may be explained as an ancient name that first belonged to the ancient Pelishtim. Bamidbar 13:29). In addition. 10:19. in terms of their form of government. Furthermore. the Pelishtim of the earlier period were ruled by a king with a Semitic name (Avimelekh). and not in the Negev region. This represents clear proof that when the Torah was written. Had mention of the Pelishtim indeed been anachronistic. we would expect to find some consistency in their form of rule. the later Pelishtim who would compete with the lsraelites over the inheritance of the land were unknown. the Pelishtim during the period of the Judges are described as a bitter enemy who wages war against Israel over parts of the promised land. likewise. whereas the Pelishtim during the earlier period forged covenants and swore oaths with Avraham and Yitzchak (and it is for this reason. The only thing that they share is the name. in terms of their area of habitation. and Ashdod."And Avraham journeyed from there to the land of the Negev. whom he mentions inter aliain note 30 and in various contexts throughout the chapter. and even these are further sub-divided. 54. pp. 286287. 116-123 notes seventeen archaeological proofs for the domestication of camels in the ancient period. [9] R. [13] Such as Na'aman. line 59. p. Albright. the boundaries of these periods are not absolute. Grand Rapids and Cambridge 2003. Nevertheless. 13. p. p. 2002) as "the very architect of Egyptian chronology. For example… the presentation of the camel as the forefathers' beast of wandering. [5] A summary of most of these arguments is to be found in Na'aman.A. Mi-Navadut li-Melukha.W. R. [15] Na'aman. 52." in: S. and totally misleading… Camels are not anachronistic in the early second millennium (Middle Bronze Age)" (K. [11] Other sources are cited by Y. then.Y. [12] Cited by Grintz. Knohl." In commenting on the approach of Finkelstein and Silverman. Wiseman. "Reshitan shel Chevrot Pastoraliot ba-Levant. p. 287. London 1975. and the Exodus. Ha-Yishuvim be-Har ha-Negev. pp. 'Ration Lists from Alalakh VII..). p. 303." in: N.C. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. or of finding pharaonic monuments mentioning the mass enslavement of the men. Bar-Yosef. Simon. The Camel and the Wheel. This. p.' JCS 8. Na'aman and Y. referred to by The Times newspaper (Oct. 1986. 64." in Ha-Pulmus al ha-Emet ha-Historit ba-Mikra. Beer Sheva 5758. 17. See W. is a manifestly 'prehistoric' period. 287). Ha-Tanakh Min haShetach 1. Since each of these periods lasted many hundreds of years. ibid. n. pp. p. a well-respected scholar of biblical archaeology and Professor Emeritus at Liverpool University. 138). could still write (ibid. and the Iron Age.[1] There are some biblical scholars who declare this ancient period to lie "outside of the discussion. which lies beyond the reach of archaeological research… Concerning this period there is no real possibility of bringing external proofs either in support or as refutation" (U. there has been extensive discussion surrounding the period of the forefathers. Jerusalem 1990. The Archaeology of Palestine. Or Yehuda 2008. the Middle Bronze Age refers to the years 2000-1550 B. Kitchen writes: "On the patriarchal and exodus periods our two friends are utterly out of their depth.F. Achituv (ed. 287. 1959. The Archaeology of Palestine(London.E. L. p. [7] Ibid. Mechkarim be-Arkheologia shel Navvadim ba-Negev u-ve-Sinai. [2] See. [8] . who.C.). "Archeologia Post-Mikrait u-Post Tzionit. [14] Here is it worth citing Kenneth Kitchen. Na'aman. similarly write. [3] The names of the different periods of ancient history are determined by the principal raw material used by man during that period: the Stone Age. [10] Y. middle and late). Jerusalem 5771. doctoral dissertation submitted to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 32." Finkelstein and Silverman.E. 465). although the domestication of the camel for labor and for wandering took place only in the last third of the second millennium B. 207. and about the journey of the tribes of Israel through the wilderness. Y. Obviously. in 1990. the Bronze Age. In general. p. 29. 7-25. the Chalcolithic Age (named for the word "bronze" in Greek). p." since there is "zero chance of discovering artifacts that would testify to the forefathers' wanderings in the land and in neighboring regions. Kitchen.. for example. Resnick. his book. Bulliet. 1949). "Parashat 'Kibbush ha-Haretz' be-Sefer Yehoshua u-va-Metziut ha-Historit. since the transition from the use of one type of utensils to another was gradual. Jerusalem 5743. Finkelstein (eds. [4] N. hopelessly misinformed. and our enquiry is whether the findings that exist support or contradict what we know from the Torah. p. "The narratives contain many elements which are absolutely inconsistent with the ancient date. they are divided by convention into sub-periods (early. Me-Ayin Banu.M. Cohen. Yichudo ve-Kadmuto shel Sefer Bereishit. [6] W. p. "We know that camels were not domesticated for carrying burdens until the end of the second millennium". Grintz. and in the notes ad loc. and indicate that these narratives were indeed written with a profound familiarity with the period.. which pertains to the scope of David's kingdom. This conclusion has .[1] 1.).C. [20] The Iron Age followed the Bronze Age (see above). [19] Y. [23] For instances. 312-313.000 Shenot Hityashvut: Ha-Seridim ha-Arkheologiim bi-Beer Sheva min ha-Elef ha-Shishi Lifnei ha-Sefira ad Shalhei ha-Elef ha-Rishon la-Sefira. In a previous chapter we undertook a linguistic analysis showing that the language of the Torah is a more ancient form of Hebrew. n. ibid. Jerusalem 5768." in: Y. around the year 1000 B. Jerusalem 5732. 5. although their arguments have been rejected (see Y. [17] There is still room to question the Torah's mention of the city at this site. Gilad and P. [22] Gilad and Fabian. [26] The name of the commander of Avimelekh's army. Encyclopedia Mikrait VI. with the division between them paralleling the transition between the period of the Judges and the period of the Monarchy – i. 116. Mazar. See. king of the Pelishtim. As we will see.M. 132. [18] See N. pp. [24] This well-known claim has been raised by many scholars. p. see ibid.. p.Olam ha-Tanakh: Bereishit. Na'aman. Jerusalem 1974. Rosenson. ZDPV96. Jerusalem 5766. Y. 314. [27] Grintz. in the encounters between Avimelekh. Jerusalem 5727. "Fikhol". n. however. there are many findings that do conform to the biblical narratives from the time of the forefathers. since according to archaeological evidence. 139).C. Motzaei Dorot. 311-314 for a summary of the findings from Bir al-Saba. [25] My explanation here is based on Y. 99-129.E.. In a later shiur we will address the conflict over this transition and when it took place. Y. 287. it refers generally to the period from 1200 to 586 B. Al Atar 7. argues that perhaps the biblical Beer Sheva should be identified with Tel Mashosh (Tel Masos). Grintz. 114. "7. pp.   Shiur #6d: Tanakh and Archaeology – The Era of the Forefathers (continued) Let us now consider the evidence that supports. 26). which lies about 12 km east of Beer Sheva. p. not at the time of Moshe. B. p. Some scholars have argued that the name is Egyptian. Kena'an ve-Yisrael – Mechkarim Historiim. with Avraham (Bereishit 21:32) and with Yitzchak (ibid. p. Tel Aviv 2000. Meir-Glitzenstein (eds. 18." Al Atar 7. Jerusalem 5729. rather than conflicts. This question relates to our discussion in chapter 2 of later verses in the Torah. It is conventionally divided into the Early and Late Iron Age. 1980. Finkelstein and Silverman. p. even if the reference is not to a city from the time of the forefathers.[16] See Rabbi Yoel Bin Nun. p. 56. with the depictions of Sefer Bereishit. 116. 'The Inheritance of the Sons of Simeon'. [21] Meitlis. 132-152. p. Lachpor et ha-Tanakh. pp. 136. Fabian. Beer Sheva: Metropolin be-Hithavut. "Sippur Avar – Sifrut ve-Historia be-Tanakh – Stira o hashlama?". p. 54. Fikhol (Bereishit 21:22). column 456). different in several respects from the language during the period of the monarchy. Dotan.e. p. ibid. for which see below. Beer Sheva was settled only at the beginning of the period of the Judges. All of this. HaPelishtim ve-Tarbutam ha-Chomrit. 15. remains of habitation from the Middle Bronze Period have been found there. Gardos and A. p. T. Na'aman. Yellin-Kalai. "Historia u-Mikra – ha-Yelchu Shenayim Yachdav? – Sefer Bereishit. for example.E. Meitlis. assumes that the biblical Beer Sheva is in fact Tel Sheva. also appears to be western-Semite (see Tzadok. C. whereas in the earlier period it was rare. we might reasonably expect to find many names that were more common during that later era. In fact.[3] These laws state explicitly that . explicitly forbade some of these practices. Yehoram. The presentation of the forefathers as people who were active within a socio-legal framework that partly contravened the Torah. The relationship between Sarai and Hagar. a. Yoel. Yehoyakim. the same period identified as the period of the forefathers. as proposed by this approach. Yishayahu. is quite easily understood in light of the laws of the Hammurabi Code.[2] Another specific example is the fact that during the period of the monarchy. Many social and legal phenomena described in Sefer Bereishit conform to what we know today about the laws and practices of various peoples in the ancient Near East – even though the Torah. including some that integrated an element of God's name. the great majority of the names mentioned in the stories of the forefathers do not appear again inTanakh – at least not until the Second Temple Period.. which makes no pretense of presenting the forefathers as operating in accordance with the laws of the Torah. How could the later authors. etc). It is also testimony to the authenticity and honesty of the biblical account. Had the Torah indeed been written during the period of the monarchy.ramifications pertaining directly to the language of Sefer Bereishit. given at a later time. the phenomenon of personal names containing some element of God's Name was quite common (e. have known of the structure and nature of names from the period more than a thousand years earlier? 2. Yirmiyahu. In general. as described in Bereishit 16. these names follow the structure known to us from other cultures dating to the first half of the second millennium B. Let us examine some examples of this phenomenon. the Torah records only two people with names of this sort: Yehuda and Yehoshua. long after even the most revisionist estimations of the authorship of Sefer Bereishit.E. proves the familiarity of Sefer Bereishit with the world within which its characters functioned. and particularly the names appearing in it. which came later. Moreover. Yehoshafat.g. but she may reduce her to bondage and count her among the maidservants. b. her mistress may not sell her for money. a man shall be slain for his own sin" (Devarim 24:16)? It turns out that the Hammurabi Code contains many expressions of the idea that someone who indirectly causes the death of another person's son. and she conceived. he offers a most surprising assurance: "You shall slay my two sons if I do not bring him [Binyamin] to you" (Bereishit 42:37). For instance: "If a builder builds a house for a man and does not make its construction firm. your handmaid is in your hand. and the house which he has built . may God judge between me and you. is punished by having his own son put to death. although no such practice appears in the Torah later on. and that this was the basis for her acting towards Hagar as she did. that Sarai was familiar with the prevailing custom at the time. and when she saw that she had conceived. this law from the Hammurabi Code sheds light on Sarai's attitude towards Hagar: "And he went in to Hagar. and she fled from before her. this shows that the practice of taking a maidservant. in the event that one's first wife did not bear children.' And Avram said to Sarai: 'Behold. nor shall sons be slain for their fathers. I was despised in her eyes. was indeed a known phenomenon. which contravenes the position of the Torah – "Fathers shall not be slain for their sons. her mistress was despised in her eyes. Secondly. and that maidservant bears children and afterwards would take rank with her mistress."If a man takes a wife and she give a maidservant to her husband. deal with her as you see fit. How does Reuven arrive at this very strange idea. and when she saw that she had conceived."[4] Firstly. And Sarai said to Avram: 'My wrath is upon you: I gave my handmaid into your bosom. When Reuven tries to persuade Yaakov to send Binyamin together with his older brothers to Egypt. then.' And Sarai dealt harshly with her." (Bereishit 16:4-6) It seems. because she has borne children. around which nomads wandered. and now one who is born in my house is to be my heir" (Bereishit 15:23). who were nomads. seeing that I go childless. 36:2). c.collapse and cause… the death of a son of the owner of the house. but the very fact that Reuven expresses it arises from the prevalent practice at the time. To these we must add Rav Yoel Bin Nun's important comment: . maintained contacts with the inhabitants of the towns (e. nomadic groups no longer resided in the land. according to which the forefathers. they shall put to death a son of that builder. Avraham expresses his anguish before God at his lack of a son who can inherit from him: "What will You give me. Moreover. These findings sit well with the biblical narratives. to me You have given no seed. first and foremost.[7] These findings indicate that the Middle Bronze Age had its own special characteristics. 34:2. including the Emorites and the Hurrians. In terms of the geographical reality. the story of Shekhem. diverse groups. and people of different ethnic origins dwelled in the land." (Sections 229-230)[5] The Torah objects to this idea. During later eras. These nomads maintained relations with the inhabitants of the villages. such as during the period of the settlement of Eretz Yisrael.[6] 3. These points and others lend support to the reliability of the biblical descriptions of the period of the forefathers. Emorites (ibid. The Torah offers no basis for the idea that the steward of the house inherits. 23:3). including Canaanites and Perizzites (Bereishit 13:7). including. the laws of Nuzi and of Babylon do include several such instances. and Hivvites (ibid. the existence of fortified settlements as well as rural villages. made their way from the north to the Judean mountains. However. the descriptions in the stories of the forefathers accord well with archeological findings. inBereishit 34). and their graves are located at a slight distance from them. 14:13). too. Hittites (ibid.g. and the steward of my house is Eliezer of Damascus… Behold. engaged in historical research of the sort that is undertaken by modern scholars. My commandments. customs and names that had been common and well-known a thousand years previously. from the First Temple Period (or even writers of a later period). Na'aman.[8] according to which all of these data could also have been known to a later author. how could Yaakov establish a monument (matzeva) (Bereishit 28:18). However. and Moshe established twelve monuments (ibid."The argument often offered by scholars. We have presented a few examples representative of this discussion. My statutes. Ramban. even before it was given" (Mishna Kiddushin 4:14). and hinted at by N.Chazal do teach . Chazal interpret the verse. during the period of the monarchy. The first possibility Ramban suggests is that perhaps the reference is only to observance of Shabbat. in his commentary on Bereishit. "Because Avraham obeyed Me and observed My custody. and they offer a basis for an understanding of the nature and limitations of this controversy. 1. 24:4)? And how is it possible that they permitted themselves that which Avraham had forbidden for himself – an act for which God had rewarded him?" Ramban offers several possible explanations. or marry two sisters… and Amram married his aunt (Shemot 6:20)."[9] The scope of our present discussion does not allow for further elaboration on proofs one way or the other concerning the authenticity of the narratives in Sefer Bereishit. questions this: "If this is so. No one. and the assumption common to most of them is that Chazal's teaching here should not be understood literally. and My teachings" (Bereishit 26:5) as teaching "that Avraham observed the entire Torah. is unfounded and unscientific. and no author at that time could have written a book so brimming with details. (To be continued) Appendix Chazal's Understanding of the Forefathers’ Observance of Mitzvot In apparent contrast to the argument we made above. and the commandment of circumcision. pp. enacted at the command of the Babylonian king Hammurabi. the performance of righteousness and justice. 30-38." Beit Mikra 7. it would be easy to claim that such descriptions were anachronistic. 105. in a future chapter we shall discus at length the relationship between the story of the Flood and parallel narratives in the Mesopotamian culture.C. The great similarity between the descriptions – not only in general content. A second possibility is that Chazal refer here only to the Noachide commandments. 4.C." and observance of Shabbat is considered as important as the entire Torah. 13-47. we will address only a few examples.E] onwards … the 'Emorite' names characteristic of the second millennium B. Grintz. 15-17. in all their details. Had the Torah depicted the forefathers as acting in accordance with the laws of the Torah. A stele discovered at the beginning of the 20 century displays 282 laws. Yevin. In addition. According to the plain meaning of the text.E. "Iyyunim bi-Tekufat ha-Avot. pp.E. and especially in the Epic of Gilgamesh. and influenced by trends and beliefs prevalent during the period of the monarchy. A. 2.that Yaakov "observed Shabbat and established set boundaries." [3] The Hammurabi Code is the most extensive legal codex discovered among the legal th systems of the ancient Near East. the verse is not talking about observance of the entire Torah. such as going to Eretz Kena'an and the binding of Yitzchak.M. who lived th during the 18 century B. 3. [2] See Yevin. This last option is adopted by Rashbam in his commentary on the same verse. We will discuss the relationship between the laws of the Torah . notes that "it is unthinkable that there appeared ex nihilo from the seventh century [B. pp. and in contravention of the laws of the Torah that were given at a later time – actually strengthens the claim as to the ancient dating of the Torah. but rather of the specific commands given to Avraham. Mazar. Bin-Nun. The observance of the commandments prior to the giving of the Torah may have been practiced only in Eretz Yisrael: both Yaakov and Amram married outside of Eretz Yisrael. in the narratives of Sefer Bereishit. Translated by Kaeren Fish [1] Our discussion here is based mainly on the following sources: S." in: Ha-Pulmus al ha-Emet ha-Historit ba-Mikra. 5727. p. 4 (16). in certain instances they acted in accordance with the accepted norm at their time. These articles cite dozens of other examples of the phenomena which they discuss. "Ha-Zika bein ha-Arkheologia le-Cheker ha-Historia. Indeed. Y. but even in the more specific details – offers further proof of the ancient authorship of the biblical account. 45-64. there is a certain irony in the fact that the very testimony that the forefathers did not observe the entire Torah – on the contrary..C. Na'aman. 58-59. in the introduction to Sefer Shemot: "Reviews of the events of the past [as recorded] in the Bible recall the exodus from Egypt as a central event in the life of the nation (Yehoshua24. [4] The Code of Hammurabi.[4] . and the responses to them. see sections 116. pp. p. 58." [9] Rabbi Y. doubts as to the veracity of the story of the exodus were rejected out of hand by most biblical scholars in Israel.[1] under "Exodus. p. 117-118. we refer to the Code as evidence that Sefer Bereishit demonstrates familiarity with the world reflected in such findings. Ph. Grintz. for the time being.D.org/wikipedia/en/4/4e/The_code_of_Hammurabi. Translated by Robert Francis Harper. and the exodus. p.http://upload. [6] See Grintz. 287: "These undated elements may belong to ancient periods. Bin-Nun. Tehillim 105-106. Until recently. devoid of any kernel of historical fact. section 146. Meitlis. [8] N." we find: "All in all." The Olam Ha-Tanakh[2] series notes. 54." These two weighty arguments[3] would seem to suffice to remove any doubt in this regard. Slavery in Egypt and the Exodus Let us now look at the next period in Israelite history – the period of slavery in Egypt. for example. The arguments of those who deny the servitude in Egypt and the exodus are based. This refutes the claim that this important event in the history of Israel is nothing but a literary creation. for no people would invent a tradition of subjugation at the very outset of their existence.   Shiur #6e: Tanakh and Archaeology (continued) – The Exodus D. For additional examples. [7] For a discussion on this topic see Y. 209-210. King of Babylon".pdf [5] Ibid.wikimedia. on the following considerations. and elsewhere). but by the same token might also belong to much later periods.and the Hammurabi Code in a later chapter. Shmuel I 12. See footnote 1. there is no doubting the slavery in Egypt and the exodus from Egypt. in theEncyclopedia Mikrait. let us review briefly the arguments that are raised regarding the exodus. Nevertheless. pp. inter alia. Thus. Many of the central theories in the historio-archaeological world arose or were refuted on the basis of chance discoveries. Yet even if no traces were ever to be found of the exodus. Nowhere in this region – including in such locations as Kadesh Barne'a. Here. according to these scholars.[6] the description from the time of the exodus – "and God did not lead them on the way of the land of the Philistines. The name "Israel"[5] has not been found on any Egyptian artifact – walls of temples. had these not been stumbled upon. there is no sign of the wandering in the wilderness of Sinai. we must take into account that kings of the ancient world. too. not their defeats and failures. instances of anachronism are cited: the city of Pitom.1.E. Likewise. according to some scholars. The state of preservation of remains is very uneven… therefore the absence of possible Hebrew campsites is likewise meaningless.C.[8] First of all."[9] As to the absence of any mention of the exodus in Egyptian records.[10] . it must be emphasized once again that theories based on an argumentum ad ignorantiam – "we have not found evidence supporting…" – must be treated with some reservation. 3. or papyrus scrolls. used to construct monuments glorifying their victories and achievements. although it was close by" (Shemot 13:17) cannot be reconciled with the knowledge that the Philistines arrived in the Land of Israel only at the end of the 13th century B. would this constitute an argument that the exodus had never happened? In the words of Kitchen: "It is silly to expect to find traces of everybody who ever passed through the various routes in that peninsula.. the research assumptions would have been quite different. inscriptions on graves.E. including the pharaohs.[7] the Torah records that Moshe sends messengers to the king of Edom (Bamidbar20:14). but the kingdom of Edom did not exist. until the 7th century. was only built at the end of the 7th century B. 2. where the nation encamped for lengthy periods – have there been any discoveries attesting to the ancient encampment of such a large group of people.C. (as discussed in a previous shiur). and especially the sort of details that changed in later times.[11] 1.[12] the record concerning the "Ḫabiru" lends much credibility to the biblical description of the slavery in Egypt: "The biblical account of Bnei Yisrael in Egyptsuggests that their socio-economic situation was remarkably similar to that of the Ḫabiru.”[13] 2. even if they are not the actual slaves referred to.” If we allow for the exchange of "peh" and "bet" in the Semitic languages. Had the biblical account indeed been written only in the 7th century B. as until now. and all manner of labor in the fields" (Shemot 1:14).” These tribes are referred to. you shall not diminish it" (ibid.C.E. 5:7-8). The responsibility for making the bricks was placed upon the "officers of Bnei Yisrael": . The phenomenon of subjugating slaves for massive building projects.From the opposite perspective. However. it is altogether possible that the "Ḫabiru" may be identified as the "ivrim" (Hebrews) – such that the papyrus is in fact providing an explicit record of the construction of Ramesses by Bnei Yisrael. by the Accadian term "Ḫabiru. But the quantity of bricks that they made until now shall you lay upon them. such as that described in the Torah with regard to Bnei Yisrael. is corroborated in several findings. let them go and gather straw for themselves. with mortar and with bricks. it hardly seems likely that the narrator could integrate such precise details of Egyptian reality some six hundred years prior to his or her own time. "And they embittered their lives with hard labor. in this papyrus as well as in other sources. and later on the situation is further exacerbated at Pharaoh's command: "You shall no longer give straw to the people to bake bricks. The following are some examples. The Torah describes the backbreaking labor forced upon Bnei Yisrael with the words. One of the most important of these is Papyrus Leiden 348. which describes the construction of the city of Ramesses by tribes "carrying stones to build the temple of Ramesses. in the case of the exodus – just as in the case of the narratives about the forefathers – there is proof that the narrator possesses extensive knowledge about the details of the period in question. and the responses of the magicians. "The biblical author makes extensive use of words drawn from the Egyptian conceptual world – the Nile. Many Egyptian papyruses discuss the brick industry at length. and she coated it with tar and with pitch. In the description of the exodus we read: "And it was. he even employs details borrowed from Egyptian social life – a wetnurse. that God did not lead them on the route of the land of the Philistines. who Pharaoh's taskmasters had set over them. Moreover. Discoveries from Ancient Egypt indicate that sedge was used to make mats and boats. and return to Egypt" (Shemot 13:17).. such as the fear of snakes and crocodiles. by binding it with ropes and coating it with pitch. when Pharaoh had let the people go.[18] Indeed."And the officers of Bnei Yisrael.[16] 4. The account of the subjugation in Egypt makes extensive use of words and expressions that are familiar to us from archaeological discoveries. Perhaps the people will change their minds when they see war.”[14] 3. the centrality of the Nile. As to the plagues. For instance. both yesterday and today. although it was near. another notes. in one papyrus a supervisor laments."[15] Egyptian names such as "Moshe" are also familiar to us from other sources.[17] 5. here too there is clear evidence of a close familiarity with ancient Egyptian culture and its characteristics. as until now?" (ibid. were beaten. Why have you not completed your quota for making bricks. and placed it in the reeds by the bank of the Nile" (Shemot 2:3). reeds… and creates an authentic Egyptian atmosphere. sedge. "There are no men to make bricks or straw in the vicinity". and she put the child in it. saying. "they are making the daily quota of bricks. for God said. procedures for adoption and raising a child in Pharaoh's palace – that are suited to the period of the new kingdom. For instance. and they also speak of supervisors who were required to maintain production of a daily quota. in the description of the creation of the box for the baby Moshe. archaeological findings . we read: "She took for him a box of papyrus. verse 14). the description of the Land of Egypt and its inhabitants would resemble that which appears in the writings of the Greek historian Herodotus.E.[21] We may therefore summarize as follows: "Analysis of the relevant Egyptian material indicates that the story includes material from the period of Ramesses… Had the story been a fictitious creation… we would have expected to find elements from a later period mixed up in it.e.. and also shed light on the impossibility of leaving Egypt without Pharaoh's approval.E. recalling how "Israel dwelled in Cheshbon and its surrounding areas. and in all the cities around Arnon. This calculation sits well with Yiftach's words to the king of Amon.C. Bnei Yisrael would be engaged not in making bricks and labor in the field...indicate a route fortified with a network of fortresses.. Since Yiftach was active at the end of the period of the Judges (he seems to have been a contemporary of Shimshon. i. the issue of the date may be summarized as follows.C.C. yet it is somewhat connected. along the northern coast of Sinai. On the one hand. who lived and wrote during the Persian era. the settlement of Bnei Yisrael in the Gilad area would have been some three hundred years previously – around the year 1400 B. but rather would be engaged in commerce.C.. and in Ar'or and its surrounding areas."[22] Appendix: The Dating of the Exodus Our discussion in this shiur is essentially unrelated to the question of the date of the exodus. and since scholars generally agree that Shlomo built the Temple approximately in the year 960 B. and the capital of Egypt would be Sais… Even after the minimalist fashion dies out and passes from the world. the end of the 12th or beginning of the 11th century B. Briefly. dating to the 13th century B.E.E. to be replaced by a different theory. and the exodus was 40 years prior to . for three hundred years" (Shoftim 11:26).E.C. the exodus would have to have taken place in the mid-15th century B. in recording the construction of the Temple in the time of Shlomo.[20] These sources explain quite clearly why Bnei Yisrael did not enter Eretz Yisrael via the shorter route. For example.[19] In addition. a number of papyruses have been found testifying to the very strict control over entry into and departure from Egypt. the tradition of the exodus will still continue to escort us. see Shoftim 10:7). the text notes that it was completed "four hundred and eighty years after Bnei Yisrael left the land of Egypt" (Melakhim I 6:1). inter alia. appears in various places in the Tanakh. which refused to permit Bnei Yisrael to journey through their land. son of Tzadok. would have been undertaken at the order of Ramesses II. Similarly. 5:4-5). based on a calculation of forty years as a generation (as per Tehillim99:10 and elsewhere). "And it was. First and foremost. and they therefore propose that Bnei Yisrael dwelled in Egypt for only 210 years (see Rashi ad loc). which are not meant to reflect their actual value. since the entire period of David's reign was no longer than forty years (ibid. this would then refer to the twelve generations of kohanim from Aharon until Achima'atz. Tel Aviv 5720. However. it must be noted that there need not be a direct contradiction between the dates as noted in the Books of the Prophets and calculations accepted among most of the scholars. The phenomenon of symbolical numbers.E. the pharaoh who ruled over Egypt was Thutmose III. 321). the verse that repeats itself over and over in Sefer Shoftim – "and the land was . located on the eastern bank of the Jordan. did not exist prior to the 13th century (see: N. some argue that the kingdoms of Edom and Moav. In addition. In Sefer Shemot (12:40) we read. the more widely accepted view maintains that the exodus took place during the 13thcentury B. who ruled during the 13th century B. who conquered the land of Canaan and brought Egypt to immense political and military strength. we might note the instance most relevant to our discussion – the length of the subjugation in Egypt. that Avshalom said to the king: Let me go. as recorded in Divrei Ha-yamim I 6:35-38." but Chazal already point out that this verse cannot be meant literally. Without preferring one approach the other. Glick. Yisrael ve-haMikra. The rationale behind this conclusion includes. at the end of forty years. "And Bnei Yisrael's dwelling which they dwelled in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years.C. In addition. in the verse introducing the rebellion of Avshalom we find. the verse cannot be meant literally. in the mid-15th century B. as mentioned in Shemot (1:10). According to this approach.E. (See Y. Me'ever la-Yarden. and fulfill my vow which I vowed to God in Chevron" (Shmuel II 15:7): here too. I pray you.E.C. the verse from Sefer Melakhim concerning the construction of the Temple is viewed as a typological number which may refer to twelve generations (480 = 40 x 12). In the mid-15th century. 51-53). Egyptian documents indicate that the city of Pi-Ramesses was built at that time. pp.that. p.C. the fact that it makes sense to assume that construction of the city of Ra'amses. Elitzur. 467: "Edom did exist [emphasis in the original – A. Here. and perhaps even earlier. Levinstam. p. pp.] as a pastoral. but which was rejected by God for the reason explained in verse 5." In recent years. 12. which would likewise have been a shorter route. [9] Kitchen. dating to the 11 century B. rather than a precise figure. Talmon and Y. and an organized entity dwelling permanently south of the Dead Sea.peaceful for forty years" – indicates that the number forty is used to refer to a generation. p. Resnick. [5] With the exception of the Merneptah Stele. Nadav Na'aman agrees with this specific argument: "Since nomads do not leave remains that scholars might trace. the route that the Torah is referring to is named after the ancient Pelishtim. for example. Jerusalem 5725. see Y. Tented kingdoms may be unknown to dumb-cluck socio-anthropologists. However. as the Edomites entering Egypt prove clearly. column 754. pp. p. U. "Yetziat Mitzrayim. tented kingdom… and th was not a deserted land either then or in the 13 century. Yeivin. pp. from subjugation to redemption. [3] It should be noted that both arguments have been raised by many different scholars. there is no significance to the fact that no remains of nomad-shepherds have been found thus far … archaeology is of no assistance in the [2] . Avishur (eds. [8] This claim is actually baseless. Translated by Kaeren Fish [1] S. 158. "the road of the sea. So Edom was no ghost in Moses’ time. Bazak (ed. p. See. Alon Shvut (forthcoming). Oded. For further on this subject. Be-Chag ha-Matzot. [6] Finkelstein and Silverman. as argued quite passionately by Kitchen." in: S. 106107. 64-83." [4] See. is bound up with Jewish culture in all its shapes and forms. Moreover. Tel Aviv 1993. in his Perush al Sefer Shemot. "Yetziat Mitzrayim. and which speaks of Israel as a nation already dwelling in its own land.E. 467. which we shall discuss below. Cassuto. Meitlis's extensive discussion. which cut through the land of the Pelishtim (thus the term "derekh ha-Pelishtim" here means "through/in the midst of the Pelishtim").A.B.C. this would be perfectly understandable. and not the sea-faring people who would later invade the land.)." in: A. S." which was under strict Egyptian surveillance (see below)."Tarbiz 31. but they are solidly attested in the Near East from of old. "Yisrael be-Mitzrayim – ha-Reka' ha-Histori. It was so much a land with active people that both Ramesses II and Ramesses III chose to attack it militarily. [7] Within the framework of the same discussion we pointed out the distinction that must be made between two different groups called Pelishtim. B. Jerusalem 5718. explains that the verse does not refer to the north-eastern road. the tradition concerning the forced sojourn in Egypt." Encyclopedia Mikrait 3. 5731. and the exodus from there. 330-332. "Li-she'elat Tiarukh Yetziat Mitzrayim. and the very illogic of it serves as faithful proof of the historical veracity of such an account.). 1-7: "If a nation were to invent a fable about a 'golden age' at the dawn of its consolidation. Olam ha-Tanakh: Shemot. to such an extent that the nature and development of this culture over all the generations cannot be understood without it. See Meitlis. but rather the middle road. studies have been undertaken which indicate the presence of copper mines th and a fortress at Khirbat a-Nachas. summarizing the central arguments of the supporters of this view. for example. the recounting of a legend about subjugation and oppression at the dawn of any nation is quite improbable. Finkelstein and Silverman. too. pp. 33-45. pp. pp. 39. pp. Finkelstein and Silverman's argument turns on a fundamental point of conflict between their view and the view of the believing reader of the biblical story.C. we noted Cassuto's suggestion that this verse refers not to the north-eastern road. F. Shopak.Symbiosis.C. 72. and from there to Canaan. which by his own account was the reason why Bnei Yisrael did not take that route. pp. 73-75. the biblical explanation of the name – "for I drew him [meshitihu] from the water" [Shemot 2:10] does not negate the Egyptian meaning of the name. 135). p." If this is so. Na'man. [11] In the last generation. the Swedish consul who purchased them in th 1839.E. "Ḫabiru (Ḫapiru) – Ivrim. p. 33 onwards. Jerusalem and Tel Aviv 5763. her concluding chapter is entitled. p. "If we ignore miraculous intervention.. 98-99. which passes through the ancient land of the Philistines. even according to his interpretation. 95-102. that "the biblical account itself hints that the attempt to escape along the coastal route was dangerous. Shopak. [16] Moshe's name seems to be derived from the Egyptian noun ms." in:Eretz Yisrael 25. 271-288. it is difficult to accept the idea that a large group of slaves escaped from Egypt via the well-guarded border fortifications to the wilderness. M." Megadim15. p. (as they claim) knew of the existence of this network of fortresses. With these words the author summarizes the findings that she cites on pp. pp. [14] See Galpaz-Feller.. p. 5770-5771. 24. and note without any apparent recognition of the contradictory nature of their claim. (Of course. Greenberg. M. [21] In this regard it is puzzling that Finkelstein and Silverman." Tarbiz 79 3-4. 27. meaning "child. 73 n. see N.).E. 84-86. A. the "sea route. see Shopak. it is clear that Am Yisrael could have entered Eretz Yisrael via a shorter route – the "sea route" – had this not been the most dangerous option. 231-235." Encyclopedia Mikrait 6. "Ha-Chamor ha-Mitzri ke-Kli le-Libbun Sugiyat Reshit Yisrael." or from the Egyptian verb msy." but rather the more eastern route. Bin-Nun. pp. Greenberg.E. and what we know of Egyptian culture at the time. Jerusalem – Ramat Gan 1967." Beit Mikra 49 1. p. 360). and then later redacted. Mazar. For a brief review of these see A. and which relate to the reality of the period in question. Na'aman himself believes that the story of the exodus was first committed to writing in the th 7 century B. [12] The question of the connection between the "Ḫabiru" and Bnei Yisrael has been addressed by many scholars. Na'ananJNES 45 (1986). pp. [13] Shopak. 1. [18] Above. Jerusalem 5732. see Galpaz-Feller. They argue. for example. 45. Shopak. during a period of such impressive Egyptian presence. See. Malamat cites additional sources which we have not mentioned here. pp. 9-25. 80-81. 2003. In contrast. Y. where is the conflict between their version of the events and the biblical account? And th how do they explain how an anonymous author in the 7 century B." There are at least three known individuals with this name from the period of Ramesses II. 5752. 71-88. p. Symbolism.) [17] See Galpaz-Feller. Malamat. "Sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim bein Zikaron Histori li-Yetzira Historiografit. Penina Galpaz-Feller discusses these points in her book Yetziat Mitzrayim – Metziut o Dimyon. p. concerning the corroboration between archaeological findings and the biblical account of the exodus. Rainey. "Did the biblical author study Egyptian?" This sums up the essence of her argument that the precision in the description of Egyptian reality and culture must lead to the conclusion that "the exodus from Egypt did in fact take place" (ibid. pp. the discussion relates also to the conquest of Eretz Yisrael and to other biblical narratives. 11. column 50. For more words and expressions that are unique to the story of the exodus. [19] See A. In any event. In any event. "Yetziat Mitzrayim – Makbilot Mitzriyot. p." in: HaHistoria shel Am Yisrael 2. and the Power of the Past. For a discussion of the phenomenon of biblical explanation of names. in: Dever & Gitin (eds. preferring the route via the wilderness of Sinai? In fact. [20] These papyruses are named after Anastasi. "IvriIvrim. and Shopak. [15] Ibid." This is a sentence . several studies appeared that noted a very close correlation between the Torah’s description of slavery in Egypt and the exodus. Jerusalem 5756. "Ha-Ivrim ve-Eretz ha-Ivrim. p. and that it does not reflect the reality of Ancient Egypt. by N. They argue that the remnants of the fortresses indicate the difficulty of escaping from Egypt via the border fortifications. meaning "to give birth" or "to be born. 174-176 for a refutation of this connection.argument of the historical veracity of the exodus" (N. try to use these findings to negate the veracity of the story of the exodus. [10] As noted. for example. Most of them date to the 13 century B.C. of course. except for Chatzor alone.   Shiur #6f:Tanakh and Archaeology (continued) –Yehoshua and the Conquest of the Land E. And he smote all the souls who were in it by the sword. In Sefer Yehoshuawe read about Yavin. there remained no one breathing in it. has nothing to do with any question of archaeology. and effectively ended the Middle Bronze Period. and in fact a more in-depth reading of the relevant chapters likewise leads to a different conclusion. This wave of destruction was explained by Albright and Yadin as the work of the tribes of Israel in their conquest of the land.with which any religious believer can agree wholeheartedly. and especially Albright and Yadin. and the conventional view. which Yehoshua burned. who was the leader of the kings of the north. and he smote its king by the sword. It is important to note that Shopak does not accept the biblical account as a description from the actual time of the events. Nonetheless. is that the process was completed in a short time. based on a superficial reading of the text. she maintains that the story underwent later redactions which included "mythical and legendary elements" (p.[1] The view of the conquest and settlement as a quick transition was accepted among archaeologists of the previous generation. and he burned Chatzor with fire… But all the cities that stood upon their mounds –Israel did not burn them. and about the conquest of the city by Yehoshua: "And at that time Yehoshua turned back and he took Chatzor. 86). as was the subsequent process of the settlement of the tribes ofIsrael. who noted a wave of destruction that swept over Canaanite cities in the 13th century B. 86-88. [22] Shopak. king of Chatzor." or to believe in Divine Providence and God's guidance of His nation. The whole question is whether we are to "ignore the possibility of miraculous intervention.E. for Chatzor had until then been the chief of all of these kingdoms. However. The conquest of the land The conquest of the land of Israel is described at length in Sefer Yehoshua. rather than to archaeological data. This argument.C." (Yehoshua11:10-13) . this again boils down to the question of a theological world-view. One of the most important findings from this period pertains to the city of Chatzor. various archaeological findings cast grave doubts on this view. pp. with thousands of inhabitants. which was destroyed by Yehoshua.’ on the other. with impressive public structures. and the emphasis of the biblical author that Chatzor alone was destroyed by Yehoshua and set on fire. but at the time of the redaction of Sefer Yehoshua. Ben-Tor concludes. The importance of the city is attested to in the archives discovered in the city of Mari. by a delegation led by Amnon Ben-Tor." that "it is difficult to imagine that this definition would have been dreamed up from nowhere by an author in the 7th century. that we have indeed found the Canaanite city of Yavin. more recent developments have made clear that the approach that treats the conquest and settlement of the land as a uniform. Amichai Mazar states."[3] Likewise. The archaeological findings indicated a large city. Both Yadin and Ben-Tor discovered. and which maintained correspondence with various other cities through letters. contradicts the archaeological findings . on one hand. on the basis of this finding. quick phenomenon. and its description in the Bible as ‘the chief of all these kingdoms. among the ruins of the palace.The wording here suggests that Chatzor was indeed a large and important center. concerning the definition of Chatzor as "the chief of all these kingdoms. Yadin writes: "We have evidence that this tremendous city. came to an end with a sudden fire in the second half of the 13th century."[5] However. and again in 1968-1969."[4] The city was excavated again. which was located on the western bank of the Euphrates. Both parts of Chatzor – the lower part and the upper part (acropolis) were excavated by Yigael Yadin. which existed hundreds of years before the conquest by Yehoshua. leave little doubt. to my mind. About twenty of these relate to Chatzor – the only city in Eretz Yisrael with which it maintained such correspondence. that "it is only the settling tribes of Israel that could have been responsible for the conquest and destruction of Chatzor.[2] Concerning the lower city. long after the conquest. starting in 1990. or even later. in the years 1955-1958. the city had already lost its glory. fragments of statues whose heads and arms appear to have been destroyed deliberately. and was not rebuilt… The surprising similarity between the size of Chatzor as revealed in the excavations. Indeed. but destroyed completely all that breathed. throughout the verses detailing the inheritances. no remains of Israelite settlement were found among the ruins of the Canaanite cities.e. and God said to him. these findings offer support for the picture created by a more comprehensive and careful reading of the biblical account of the settlement of the land. as far as Giv'on. and all of their kings. because the Lord God ofIsrael fought for Israel. and all the country of Goshen. and Gezer. and the plain. the text mentions again and again the places not yet conquered (ibid. as the Lord God of Israel had commanded. 16:10. such as Lakhish. Afek. By contrast. where the major settlement revolution at that time took place. yet there remains much of the land still to be possessed. You are old and advanced in age.. serving as an introduction to the period as a whole. the text then goes on to paint a picture that is quite different: "And Yehoshua was old and advanced in age.[7] were still standing. and the slopes." with a string of victories and the complete annihilation of the Canaanites: "And Yehoshua smote all of the hill country. there are few Canaanite sites. in most of the regions of settlement along the mountain range. had Sefer Yehoshua been comprised of only its first twelve chapters. And Yehoshua took all these kings and their land at one time. while the period of settlement in the mountains was already well underway." (Yehoshua 13:1) This is followed (verses 2-13) by a long list of the "land that remains" – i.in several respects. he left none remaining. From the evidence we may conclude that the Canaanite centers were not attacked all at the same time. 15:63. such as Megiddo. And Yehoshua smote them from Kadesh Barne'a to Aza. and the Negev. Actually. also. but rather over a long period. some Canaanite cities. including the problems arising from the fact .[6] In most of the cities mentioned in the process of the conquest. along the coast and in the valleys. A similar and even sharper testament to the partial nature of the conquest of the land is to be found in the first chapter of Sefer Shoftim." (Yehoshua 10:40-42)[8] However. we would have been left with the impression of a "uniform military conquest. places in the land which Bnei Yisrael had yet to conquer and settle. Likewise. 17:12-13). the father of the anak – which is Chevron. Here we find that the city had not yet been conquered. we should regard some of the descriptions in the early chapters of Sefer Yehoshua as referring to events that occurred later on. even though he may have been able to oversee only their initiation. at God's command to Yehoshua – the city of Arba. and all the souls that were in it. in so many areas of the country. and all the souls that were in it. and that the cities were great and fortified. "And they gave Chevron to Kalev. and its king. he gave a portion amongst the children of Yehuda. in the context of the war against the five kings of the south. he left none remaining… but destroyed it utterly. "And to Kalev.[9] Hence. to conquer the Canaanites. In Yehoshua10:36-37. the children of the anak. the text records that Yehoshua conquered Chevron: "… And they took it and they smote it with the sword. if the Lord will be with me. and the 'anakim' were still there: "For you heard on that day that the anakim were there." Likewise we find at the beginning of Sefer Shoftim(1:20). as God has spoken." (verse 12) And later on we read (15:13-14)." ." Later on. however (14:6-15) we read of Kalev's request of Yehoshua that he be given Chevron. and he expelled from there the three sons of the anak. And Kalev drove out from there the three sons of the anak – Sheshai and Achiman and Talmai. The reason for such a literary device that describes events out of chronological order is presumably to attribute these processes to Yehoshua himself.that Bnei Yisrael had failed. and all its cities. as Moshe had spoken. A good example of this understanding may be found in the story of the conquest of Chevron and the inheritance of the 'anakim' (giants) there. in accordance with God's promise following the sin of the spies. son of Yefunneh. perhaps I shall be able to drive them out. [13] Alongside the correlation between the complex picture arising from the biblical description of the process of conquest.[10] apparently after the death of Yehoshua. as part of the general literary aim of attributing the entire process of the conquest to Yehoshua. God's servant. for during Yehoshua's time the city of Chevron had not yet been captured. then. It turns out. and crediting Yehoshua. continuous military conquest. who was involved in the excavations of Tel Yericho in the 1950s. and the archaeological evidence. and especially the miraculous collapse of the city walls.This leaves us with the question: when was Chevron conquered. or was it after his death? It would seem that the original conquest was carried out by Kalev. One depicts the ideal picture – a uniform."[11] In any event. Yericho Sefer Yehoshua (chapter 6) describes in great detail the conquest of Yericho.[14] and this assertion is accepted by many scholars today. concluded that Yericho had not been fortified with a wall during the Late Bronze Period. The other aspect shows the objective reality in which Bnei Yisrael were in no rush to take on the challenges awaiting then. that the two descriptions of the conquest in Sefer Yehoshua express "two aspects"[12]of the conquest of the land. resulting in the processes taking much longer and lasting several years. with the entire process. these verses appear in Sefer Yehoshua too. but Rashi notes there that these verses were written "after the death of Yehoshua. This account appears already in Yehoshua 15. we will now examine two significant issues pertaining to two of the better-known narratives in Sefer Yehoshua – the conquest of Yericho and of Ai. . 1. who led the nation at its start of its presence in the land. as we are told in Sefer Shoftim. Yet the archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon. and the giants expelled? Was it during Yehoshua's time. and the matter is noted here only for the purposes of the division [of the land]. representing God's willingness to give the land to Bnei Yisrael. in view of the fact that Yericho was a central and important city."[15] Other scholars disagreed with Kenyon's conclusions and argued that a fortified city from this period can indeed be identified. and which had access to convenient sources of water . acceptance of such explanations depends on the scholar's point of departure: while Amichai Mazar argues that "in this instance the archaeological evidence should not be used as unequivocal proof to negate the [biblical] story."[18] Zeev Herzog takes the view that such arguments represent "invalid excuses that we would never dream of proposing in relation to any other period in which there are no walls. it rests on one's fundamental view of the reliability of the biblical account. this again is a controversy based on questions that are not purely academic in nature. In excavations carried out in Yericho during the 1930s by the British archaeologist John Garstang."[19] Clearly. According to theTanakh. the abandonment of Yericho may well have caused the erosion and erasing of many traces of the city. and for this reason the hypothesis that attributes the absence of remnants of the walls to the city’s abandonment does seem reasonable. which have greatly influenced the discoveries in Yericho. it would be quite inexplicable. through natural phenomena. when it was reestablished by Chiel of Beit El (Melakhim I 16:34). This is noteworthy.[16] It is also possible that the remains of the later city were slowly eroded. Ai . which had been inhabited for thousands of years. Obviously. and it is possible that a new wall was built atop it. Yericho was completely abandoned under the threat of Yehoshua's curse (Yehoshua 6:26-27). of which nothing remains.[17] or even through human intervention. The peculiar abandonment of Yericho is backed up by archaeological evidence. In our attempt to weigh up the degree of correlation between the archaeological evidence in Yericho and the biblical description. and Kenyon herself agreed that "it is possible that this rampart served as fortification for the city from the Late Bronze Period. 2. rather.[20] and were it not for the biblical record of Yehoshua's curse.the spring of Elisha and the spring of Na'aran. the proofs in support of this view are not unequivocal. In any event.However. and was not re-inhabited until the time of King Achav. as it has been by a number of scholars. fortifications were discovered dating back to the Early Bronze Period. another perspective must also be taken into account. the biblical Giv'on is identified with Tel Giv'on in AlJib.[21] This identification rests on both the topographical conditions and the name of the place – "Tel" – in the sense of mounds of ruins (it is noteworthy that the conquest of Ai concludes with the words. northeast of Jerusalem. this identification is not proven.A different controversy concerns Ai. whose conquest is likewise described at length in Sefer Yehoshua (chapters 7-8). to the east of Beit El" (Yehoshua 7:2)."[23] This claim is based entirely on one single assumption. a desolation to this day" – ibid. to the east of the biblical Beit El (which itself is identified with the village Bittin). with a valley between them and Ai" (ibid. This city was already in ruins during the . 8:11). with a valley to its north: "And they encamped to the north of Ai. The site yields extensive remains of a large city from the Early Bronze Age. Grintz argues. and it presents several difficulties. Archaeological research has identified Ai with Khirbat A-Tel.[24] but the area of this mound is about half of that of Khirbat A-Tel. The Tanakh offers a few topographical details that help us to identify the location of Ai "beside Beit Aven. 28). the inhabitants must have realized that their village was built on the ruins of a huge. Such settlement did in fact exist there during the period of the judges. and that is the identification of Ai with Khirbat A-Tel.[25] Moreover. chapter 8. even though the story is filled with topographical and tactical details… In this instance there is no choice but to explain the biblical narrative as an etiological story. there does exist a certain connection between the chronology of A-Tel and that of another city that was located close to Ai – Beit Aven. For example. This led even a moderate scholar like Amichai Mazar to the following conclusion: "The narrative in Sefer Yehoshua. which was destroyed about a thousand years before the story in Sefer Yehoshua. destroyed city. On the other hand. but there are no remains from the Late Bronze Age. is not anchored in the historical reality matching the period of the conquest. "Yehoshua burned Ai and made it an eternal mound [tel]. However. and over time there developed a legend of the conquest of the city.[22]created during a period in which Am Yisrael had already settled in Ai. which was attributed to Yehoshua bin Nun. Grintz proves[26] that there is no connection between the name "Ai" and the word "tel" in the sense of ruins. which is the largest archaeological site in the Binyamin region. and therefore there was no need to conquer it. "Chofrim be-Chatzor.[28] b. p. 145. While neither of these suggestions has been proven.E. Jerusalem 5752. . It is therefore possible that Ai. Chatzor. Ben-Tor. which was indeed located at Khirbat A-Tel during the Early Bronze Age. by the village of Deir Debwan. Yadin. 5756.C. 24). however. Tel Aviv 1975. 105." Grintz offers no alternative location for Ai. Later on." Be-Shevil ha-Aretz. Y. and that it was destroyed not before the middle of this century. Meitlis[29] argues that many regions of settlement during the Middle Bronze Age were spread on a slope.period of Yehoshua's conquest. Weinfeld. 15. how would its authors know of the identity of a city named Ai. see M. is the etiological explanation really preferable to the suggestion that Ai was not actually located at Khirbat A-Tel? (to be continued) Translated by Kaeren Fish [1] For a review of the different approaches concerning the processes of conquest and settlement. it must be borne in mind that the hypothesis that the account of Ai is an etiological story rather than a historical record is also not a simple matter. 18. [3] Yadin. pp. p. [2] See: Y. 2005. p. It is mentioned in the story of the conquest of Ai only for the purposes of marking the site – "Ai which was beside Beit Aven. and was destroyed. Mi-Yehoshua ve-ad Yoshiyahu. and provide such an accurate topographical description? Given this. The small habitation at Khirbat A-Tel from the time of the judges lasted only a short time. Excavations undertaken there revealed a fortified Israelite city from the period of the monarchy. Ben-Tor changed his approach: "We may establish that Chatzor still th existed in the 13 century. At present there is no archaeological evidence as to the identity of its destroyers" (Ben-Tor."Kadmoniot 111. rather than at the top of a hill. [5] A. but several hypotheses have been raised in recent years: a. An archaeological survey at this site produced a pottery fragment from the Middle Bronze Age. p. but further exploration of a section of the southern wall exposed a layer of habitation from the Later Bronze Age. was rebuilt on the slope. If Sefer Yehoshua was indeed written only in the 7th century B. "Ha-Chafirot ha-Mechudashot be-Tel Chatzor. p.. Dec. 54-65. Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun[27] proposes that Ai be identified with Khirbat al-Marjama. [4] Mazar. to the east of Beit El. M. whether they will observe the way of God. See P. Ussishkin. but rather a distinction between military victory and conquest with settlement. "Ha-Mikra be-Mabat Histori ve-ha-Hitnachalut ha-Yisraelit be-Eretz Kena'an. since it was this aspect of the spies' report that so concerned Am Yisrael (Bamidbar 13:28. Ha-Archeologia shel Tekufat ha-Hitnachalut ve-haShoftim. 21:41-42. Digging Up Jericho. and their gods shall be a trap for you" (Shoftim 2:3). [8] The same idea is conveyed by the verses summarizing the inheritance of the land. As a punishment for the sins of the nation during the period of the Judges: "Because this nation has violated My covenant which I commanded to their forefathers. undisturbed – at least in the mountain region. 20-21). 213-228. [14] K." in: Ha-Pulmus al ha-Emet ha-Historit ba-Mikra. London1985. who drives three of them out. ibid. 33.[6] For a summary see Y. Bienkowski. [9] The introductory chapters of Sefer Shoftim offer no less than four different answers to the question of why the conquest was so incomplete: 1. Although the text describes Yehoshua as taking and utterly destroying the other cities. Finkelstein." in: J. the reference there is to military victory. [7] th Lakhish. Yehoshua did not burn Lakhish. was destroyed. To these four reasons we might add a fifth. at least those who did not know of such things previously" (ibid. [15] Kenyon. Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Papers in Honor of Olga Tufnell. A different discussion concerns the very existence of any habitation in Yericho during the Late Bronze Period. except for Chatzor alone. 13-16. Warminster 1986. [11] We have discussed previously the matter of the redaction of the Books of the Prophets. Tel Aviv 1986. [13] Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun. although these victories also prevented other kings from waging war against Israel. It is Kalev son of Yefunneh. too. [10] It is highly symbolic that it is specifically Kalev who drives out theanakim. Following the invasion and the great victories. there were effectively no kings left. Because Bnei Yisrael forged a covenant with the inhabitants of the land and did not shatter their altars.N.E. as set forth explicitly in the Torah: "I shall not drive them out from before you in a single year. pp. As a test of Israel's loyalty: "To put Israel to the test. who never feared the children of the anak from the outset. 2. Tubb (ed. until you grow numerous and inherit the land" (Shemot 23:29-30). Rabbi Bin-Nun arrives at this understanding on the basis of the difference between Chatzor. Kenyon. It should be noted that this view does not necessarily contradict the approach maintaining that Sefer Yehoshua itself presents its descriptions from two different perspectives. [12] We have discussed previously the "aspects approach" to seemingly contradictory sources in the biblical text.). about a hundred years after the destruction of Chatzor. but a later study showed that the city had indeed been inhabited at this time. I shall likewise not continue to drive out from before them any of the nations which Yehoshua left when he died" (ibid.C. Devarim 1:28). D. as indeed is recorded in the text. as their forefathers did. they were punished by God: "I shall not drive them out from before you. 3:2). London 1957. ibid.E. and they shall be as snares for you. and they have not obeyed Me. whose practical resolution may well be in accordance with Rabbi Bin-Nun's explanation. to follow it. least the land become desolate and the wild beasts multiply against you. and allowed the nation to embark on a decades-long program of settlement. which – as noted above – was the only city to be burned (other than Yericho and Ai). The first two reasons express punishments that come retroactively. 3. appears to have taken place during the period of the judges. pp. while the last two represent a pre-planned reality. Jericho in the Late Bronze Age. For this reason.. In order that Bnei Yisrael will learn to fight in the future: "Only that the generations of Israel might know. 11). Little by little shall I drive them out from before you. . "Levels VII and VI at Tel Lachish and the End of the Bronze Age in Canaan. but only during the second half of the 12 century B. which Yehoshua burned" (Yehoshua 11:13). 4. which is actually the first. especially against the kings of the south (Yehoshua 10) and the north (ibid. and the other cities that remained intact: "But all the cities that stood upon their mounds – Israel did not burn them. although it ceased to exist at the th th end of the 14 century or beginning of the 13 century B. 269-275. too. to teach them war. argues that the description of the conquest in Sefer Yehoshua reflects not necessarily different literary aspects. 22). a hundred years later. or not" (ibid. its destruction. pp.C. " in: Ha-Pulmus al ha-Emet ha-Historit ba-Mikra." Mavo le-Archeologia shel Eretz Yisrael bi-Tekufat haMikra. Tel Aviv 5750.. [20] Kenyon. "Ai.C. 62-64. Not only was there no sojourn in. who subjected the burned grain from Jericho IV to th carbon dating. and settled in these new areas. Wood rejects Kenyon's conclusions and brings various arguments in support of the authenticity of the biblical account. without necessarily having any historical basis. [25] I heard this argument raised by Prof. for example. p. [26] Grintz. a story that explains topographical or other phenomena by attributing them to some event that took place in the distant past. starting from the 13th century B. Elitzur's comments ad loc. Mazar..J.).E. [22] In other words.43 [24] See. which in his view was destroyed in an earthquake. 197-198. from around the year 1400 B.   Shiur #6g: Tanakh and Archaeology (continued) – The Era of Settlement F. Egypt. Inter alia. Radiocarbon 37.E. but there is no evidence as to the invasion of . He points to the remains of another brick wall. 63-64. and no exodus from. Encyclopedia Mikrait II.C. Bin-Nun.H. These villages stand out in their modesty and simplicity. 278-289 [27] Y.2 (1995). He also brings many more arguments for the authenticity of the biblical narrative. 43. 44-58. p. [28] Some scholars have questioned this possibility: see Y.C.] [23] Mazar. p. ha-Ai. [Mazar himself provides this explanation in a note ad loc. Mechkerei Yehuda ve-Shomron. 200 [21] See S. as manifest in the establishment of hundreds of small points of settlement bearing a unique character." in: Z. Jeurslaem 5714. Settlement of the land All scholars working in the field of biblical archaeology recognize the existence of a significant process of settlement in the central mountainous region of Eretz Yisrael. 6364.[1] The main controversy among archaeologists concerns the question of the identity of these new settlers. [19] Z. pp. following which the city was burned. with no decorations on the clay vessels and almost no jewelry. the entry for "Giv'on" (written by the editorial board). "Ba al Ayit: Pitaron Chadash le-Zihui ha-Ai. Yoel Elitzur.E." in the Encyclopedia Mikrait VI. Eshel (eds. "Ha-Mahapecha ha-Mada'it be-Archeologia shel Eretz Yisrael. [18] A. [17] See Kenyon. "Tekufat ha-Barzel I. he relies on pottery shards from the Late Bronze Age that were found in clay from Jericho.[16] See B. [29] Meitlis. Jerusalem 5732. Wood. 213-220. they possess a special form of construction of houses. Herzog. columns 417-418. See also H. pp. BAR 16 (1990). pp. The minimalist school maintains[2] that what became known as Am Yisrael was actually formed out of a collection of local nomadic groups who abandoned their villages on the coastal plain or in the Negev. Yeivin. Ehrlich and Y. pp. 57. columns 169192. p. and a number of other characteristics. Ariel 1993.. Bruins. pp. and concluded that the fire took place at the end of the 14 century B. G. the process of settlement described above is a phenomenon that began from within the country. the question of whether the form of settlement is unique likewise depends to some extent on the basic assumptions of the researcher. One of the phenomena which. and thus the majority of theTanakh came into being. The minimalists. who maintain that the Torah would be written only hundreds of years later. whose way of life . by the ancient inhabitants of the land. indicating a specific national identity. as described in Scripture… It appears to me that the material culture that reveals itself at the settlement locations in the mountain region indicates a population with its own unique characteristics. observed the biblical prohibition against pork (Vayikra 11:7). In contrast to the conclusions drawn by Finkelstein and Silverman. Bnei Yisrael. whereby hundreds of points of settlement were established in the mountain region during the Bronze Age I. such as the stories about the forefathers and the Exodus. Amichai Mazar writes: "The settlement phenomenon. rather than on the findings themselves. or whether they are part of a more general phenomenon. Hundreds of years later. is unique to the communities formed in this region. to all opinions. How is this phenomenon to be explained? The simple answer would seem to be that the inhabitants. These settlers slowly invented for themselves an Israelite identity and stories about the origins of their existence. these stories were committed to writing. 1. with similar examples in other places."[3] Moreover. are forced to propose their own explanations. accords with the nature of Israelite society during the period of the Judges. Scholars who disagree with the minimalist school raise several arguments against their approach. reflects a socio-economic structure which. Rather. One of the main questions is whether the characteristics of these settlements are unique. to my mind. We shall examine some of their main points. and ultimately they conclude that the phenomenon arises "from causes that have yet to be properly clarified. is the absence of pig bones – in clear contrast to the other inhabited areas in the land during the same period.the land of Israel by an external population. son of Ramesses II. living in the country already by the end of the 13thcentury B. seems to me a way of evading their obvious identification with the Israelites of the period of the Judges.[7] 3. Yano'am is made non-existent.C. One of the most important findings pertaining to this period is the Merneptah Stele (Israel Stele). 2. the interpretation given to identical material varies dramatically from one researcher to the next.. The term "proto-Israelite.E. which is forced into various different attempts at explaining or evading it. on the northern border of Egypt. but also in other aspects (a common feature of victory inscriptions in the Ancient East). and the (exaggerated) pride of Merneptah upon annihilating it.C.[5] This large stone stele celebrates the victories of King Merneptah. before Israel became a real kingdom.E.. An extensive archaeological . and it includes a list of conquests during the campaign undertaken by the king in the year 1208 B. Gezer has been captured.[6] This indicates that "Israel" was an independent body of some importance. "Israel is laid waste and his seed is not. this claim represents a wild exaggeration – not only concerning Israel." The inscription then goes on to state." Clearly." which is employed by a number of scholars to define this population.cannot be equated with any other Canaanite population group known to us from the Late Bronze Period. discovered in 1896 during excavations in the ancient Egyptian capital of Thebes (the biblical No-Amon). but the important point is the mention of an entity named "Israel". The inscription represents a substantial challenge to the minimalist approach. and this testimony is well suited to the period of settlement."[4] As we have seen many times before. The claim that there are no traces of invasion by an external population and a specific process of expansion is likewise highly contentious. including the following: "Ashkelon has been overcome. as well as with the shifting of the spiritual center of Am Yisrael from Mount Eval to Shilo. or an entry from the eastern side of the Jordan to the western side. including some 450 that were dated to the period of the settlement of the tribes of Israel.C.E.[16] and may even allow an identification of this structure with the altar which Bnei Yisrael are commanded .e. leading to the'sovev' – a foundation wall surrounding the central structure on three sides.[14] The altar belongs to just one period. or any other familiar indications of Canaanite worship sites were discovered. The pottery vessels are rather primitive in the eastern sites. the region through which Bnei Yisrael entered the land. To the left of the ramp there is another ramp. that are very similar to the discoveries on the western side. Within this area approximately 1. the end of the 13th century B. and show increasing sophistication as one with the development of settlement westwards.C. towards the mountain range.E. According to the survey. These data and others correspond almost perfectly[15]with the description in the Torah and the Books of the Prophets regarding the structure of the altar in general."[10] Indeed.[11] 4.). Another important finding concerns the vessels discovered at these sites. These findings accord with the biblical account. No figurines. inter alia. More than 100 sites have been discovered in this region with artifacts dating to the period of settlement (13th-12th centuries B. The survey area included.[8] known as the "Menashe Hills Survey. all belonging to species defined as "pure" in the Torah. the direction of expansion of the Israelite villages was from the east westward. most of them belonging to just a single period. In the 1980s. the strip stretching from Beit Shean to Wadi Petzael. bones of pigs.[12] The only access to the top of the structure is via a ramp that ascends to the center of it. according to Sefer Yehoshua."[9] discovered thousands of previously unknown sites. some signs of settlement have also been discovered on the eastern side of the Jordan.. All of the above suggests "gradual settlement from east to west. not destroyed.000 burned bones of young male animals were found. to the north of theDead Sea. and from the center both southward and northward. archaeologist Adam Zertal discovered a large rectangular structure (7x9 m) at the Mount Eval site. and from Shilo to Jerusalem.survey. and it was left in an orderly state.[13] The findings at the site match the period of the beginnings of the settlement period – i. 310. with three parallel oblong living areas and a fourth area stretching across the back of all three. Na'aman. In concluding our discussion of the conquest and settlement of the land we note a further difficulty presented by the assumptions of the scholarly view thatSefer Yehoshua. and that the reliability of its account is therefore in question. why would the author not include some hint to the future establishment of the Israelite kingdom? The Book conveys an ideal view of reality already in the time of Yehoshua: "Nothing failed of all the good things [of] which the Lord had spoken to the house of Israel. it all came to pass. while the latter asserts. or a dispute over fundamental world-views. as well as various inscriptions. see Finkelstein and Silverman." (21:43) Could such a sentence have been written centuries after the events described. [2] For a summary of this approach. who concludes his discussion of this important finding with the words. 107-128. Had the Book indeed been written from within the perspective of the later Davidic monarchy. the enactment of which is described inYehoshua 8:30-35. says the former.in Devarim 27:4-5 to build. [6] There is considerable historical irony in the fact that the two most ancient archaeological proofs concerning the existence of Am Yisrael – the Merneptah Stele and the Mesha Stele – both describe the annihilation of Israel: "Israel is laid waste and his seed is not". was written in the 7th century. These villages were also characterized by special pottery. pp. [4] A. see Na'aman.[17] These points and others show that there is a wide gap between the claim that there is no evidence of the entry of any external population into the land – itself a weak argument – and the evidence. pp. 106 [5] For more on this stele. and more (see Meitlis's summary. p. 147-150). if the author knew all that was still to happen?[18] (to be continued) Translated by Kaeren Fish [1] The building followed a "four spaces" or "house of pillars" plan. for example. p. "Israel has perished. at the earliest. and its translation. including jugs and cooking pots with an outward-pointing folded rim. pp. We once again come back to the issue of whether this is a genuine archaeological dispute. indicating that their inhabitants were literate. 311-312. p. "Despite the great importance attached to the very appearance of the name 'Israel' on an external document at the beginning of the proto-historic era of the People . 128. the inscription. it has perished forever!" [7] See. along with other Books. Mazar. whose roots have nothing to do with archaeology. [3] Finkelstein and Silverman. However." in: Ha-Pulmus al ha-Emet ha-Historit ba-Mikra. pp. in contrast. Elitzur. pp.   ********************************************************** Dedicated by the Wise and Etshalom families in memory of Rabbi Aaron M. ********************************************************* Shiur #6h: Tanakh and Archaeology (continued) G. 100). speaks of an altar made of "whole stones" that was built for temporary use in the ceremony of the blessings and curses between Gerizim and Eval. since it presents a problem both for Bible critics (as we have seen in previous chapters) and for the minimalists. [12] For an extensive discussion of the subject. [9] The survey. there are some scholars who oppose this identification because the altar at Mount Eval shows initial worship upon natural rock. whose yahrzeit is 21 Tammuz. [11] See also Meitlis. was carried out over a period of thirty years. pp. 14:5). proposed that the site was a "watch tower" (Zertal. measured. Zertal. and despite the temptation to try to integrate this ancient finding into Israelite history. 159. Eliana and Gabi. In any event. Zertal. The Unified Kingdom . Zack and Yael. 296 and more). and dated by means of a careful gathering of the pottery shards found on the ground. p. Ya'acov Ben Yitzchak. The findings of the survey have been published in four volumes to date: A. [10] A. Ezra. published in Hebrew. headed by Adam Zertal." [16] The discovery of the altar gave rise to a great debate. the assumption that this was an Israelite altar from the period of the settlement seems most probable. 190-206). The minimalists.C." [8] An archaeological survey examines a broad area. 79. p. Archaologia ve-Reshit Yisrael. by Ellen and Stanley Stone and their children Jake and Chaya. [14] This conclusion is partly based on the discovery of Egyptian scarabs and pottery." Lifnei Efraim u-Vinyamin u-Menashe. between the years 1992 and 2005 (Tel Aviv-Haifa). in response to the discovery of the structure on Mount Eval. brought as a general mass free-will offering to fill the stone altar or the remains of the sanctified meal inaugurating the site. Yoni. The text. Jerusalem 5745. [15] It should be noted that bones of deer were discovered at the site. pp. the historical sites discovered within it are mapped. 29-30. who date the th texts to the 7 century and deny their historical authenticity.of Israel. upon which the altar was later built (in a similar manner to the development of Shaul's altar in Shmuel I 14:33-35) and used for decades. Zertal also discusses the political motivations behind the resistance to identifying the structure as an altar (ad loc. and there is no explicit prohibition in the Torah against offering a pure animal (see Zertal. Rabbi Yoel bin-Nun ("Ha-Mivneh be-Har Eval ve-Zihuyo ke-Mizbeach.E. The discovery of the Egyptian scarabs also indicates some sort of connection with Egypt.Sekker Har Menashe. ********************************************************* ********************************************************* In loving memory of Fred Stone. [13] It should be noted that the architectural structure of the site is remarkably reminiscent of the description of the sacrificial altar described in the Mishna (Middot chapter 3). Wise. Nevertheless it should be noted that the deer is in fact a "pure" animal (Deut. A”H beloved father and grandfather. see Zertal's Sekker Har Menashe. [17] As Zertal notes.. 137162) argues that the source of these deer bones is "the meal offering of the remains of vessels and meals eaten in a state of purity or as sanctified meals. p.000 square kilometers. "Tanakh. and these are not mentioned in the Torah as animals suitable for sacrifice. it would seem that at this stage of the research it is advisable to avoid attaching to it any sort th of hypothesis as to the nature of the Israelite settlement at the end of the 13 century B. [18] This point is noted by Y. Y'hi Zikhro Barukh. 133. covering some 3. As a result. and Gezer. six-chambered gates. Megiddo. when the transition from the Bronze Period I (identified. All agree that in Eretz Yisrael during the period of the monarchy (referred to by archaeologists as the Bronze Period II). Here. This construction stands out prominently against the background of the meager. Another undisputed fact."[1] However. too. known as the period of the "unified kingdom" (11th-10th centuries B. and since the wall thus dates from a period later than the palace.e. the finding indicates the Bronze Period II. etc. with a new culture growing upon the ruins of the Canaanite cities. with three chambers on each side of the opening. This view rested partly on artifacts discovered at the sites of the excavations of the three aforementioned locations. The classic view of biblical archaeology (known in this context as the "High Chronology") connected this phenomenon with David and Shlomo.) and sophisticated ceramics. scattered construction of the Bronze Period I. whose political and economic power is attested to in Tanakh – most particularly in the extensive construction projects undertaken by Shlomo throughout the country (Melakhim I 9:15-19). these scholars have assumed that the gate. is the absence of any external findings (such as Egyptian. all showing evidence of a centralized government. They argue that additional six-chamber gates have been discovered in various cities (includingAshdod. Lakhish . In each instance.E. Fortified cities appeared.We will now address the final period that we will be reviewing here – the kingdom of David and Shlomo. and scholarly discussion turns mainly upon the interpretation of those facts. along with public structures and water supply systems. pillars. too. Assyrian or Babylonian inscriptions) during this period.[2] The gate at Megiddo is connected to the wall built above the palaces. there are many facts that are universally agreed upon. in recent years this evidence has been rejected by some scholars. This culture is characterized by a higher quality of construction (use of hewn stone.. with significant implications for the entire discussion.). there was a real upheaval.C. as we have noted previously. with the period of the Judges) to the Bronze Period II occurred. including Chatzor. is from a later period. In addition to impressive buildings some identical structures were found at the various locations consisting of large. The main question is when these changes took place – i. these structures came to be known as "Solomon's Gates. Finkelstein and Silverman add further questions about the attribution of the construction in these cities to Shlomo: 1. ruled over his kingdom from a small." and hence there is no archaeological proof that they were built in Shlomo's time. Carbon 14[6] samples from major sites attributed to Shlomo."[7] On the basis of these arguments and others.C.. they claim that the gates attributed to Shlomo cannot be dated. during the time of Omri. the entire area of study is plagued by the objective problem that no archaeological excavation is permitted on the Temple Mountitself. but absolute dating is possible only where there is some objective external datum. Since these scholars cast doubt on the reliability of the biblical narrative. Thus. Finkelstein and Silverman contend that these tests represent the "final nail in the coffin of the theory of the Solomonic period." with a sparse population living around it. However. Admittedly. remote.e. Thus. at the beginning of the 9th century B. which was built during the period of Omri and Achav.E. all the trappings of an opulent and welldeveloped kingdom are stripped from Shlomo's period and . In addition. such as Megiddo and Chatzor. In addition.. which came earlier and which came later). the general impression is one of a "typical mountain-region village. There is a disparity between the construction works evident in other cities. and the paucity of findings in Jerusalem and its environs.and Tel Ira) which were unquestionably later than Shlomo's period. since the archaeological findings provide only a relative chronology (i. they conclude that the beginning of the Bronze Period II must be postponed by a hundred years ("Low chronology").[5] 3. they argue that the text cannot be relied upon for determining the dating of "Solomon's Gates.C. and therefore no evidence can be found supporting any dating of the First Temple. indicate more uniform dates for the destruction of these cities – and hence also for their construction by the kings of Israel. excavations in and around Jerusalemhave not yielded significant findings from the 10thcentury B. these scholars conclude that the construction of Megiddo must also have been undertaken later on.[3] "Can it be possible that a king who built such splendid hewn-stone palaces in the capital city. backward village?"[4] 2. there are many similarities between the palaces discovered at Megiddo and the palace in the city of Shomron.E. This would seem to indicate that they were built around the same time. The first argument."[8] Beyond this objection. yet also affected the region of the Negev.[11] In Divrei Ha-yamim the account is expanded upon. is based on an absence of findings for the reliability of the biblical account. it was admiration for the figures cast by David and Shlomo that led the authors of the Books ofShmuel and Melakhim – some three hundred years later – to transform their small sovereign territory into a legend of a huge united kingdom. An important basis for the discussion is an inscription found at the Temple of Amun at Karnak. sparse and isolated rural society. and sixty thousand horsemen. that "the attempt to draw conclusions from the absence of artifacts is highly questionable. for archaeological and epigraphic findings are sometimes extremely serendipitous.attributed instead to the period of Omri. regarding the disparity betweenJerusalem and other settlements. there is evidence in support of the biblical description that presents the "Low chronology" with some challenges: 1. somewhere around the year 925 B. and he took all. was waged primarily against the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Finkelstein proposes a view of Yehuda as a small.. And he took away the treasures of the House of God. since the campaign is mentioned there explicitly: "And it came to pass in the fifth year of King Rechav'am that Shishak. came up against Jerusalem. in Egypt. describing [9] Shishak's invasion of Eretz Yisrael.C. and thereafter: .E. We read that Shishak came up to Jerusalem "with twelve hundred chariots. The period of David and Shlomo can now no longer be regarded as a "golden age". and the people were without number who came with him from Egypt – Luvim and Sukkiyim and Kushim" (Divrei Ha-yamim II 12:3). and he took away all the shields of gold which Shlomo had made" (Melakhim I 14:25-26). king ofEgypt. and the treasures of the king's house. attributing the entire construction enterprise of the House of Omri to King Shlomo. which brought destruction to several cities. Instead of the tremendous unified kingdom described in Tanakh. Yair Hoffman has noted in this context.[10] This inscription in and of itself represents real proof of the reliability of the narrative in Sefer Melakhim. To his view. The campaign. C. the great majority of them belonging to just one period. This datum sits well with the discovery of dozens of settlements in the Negev. out of concern that a strong Israelite kingdom might harm Egyptian interests.E. each surrounded by a double wall. apparently. to the north of Jerusalem. Such an entity could only have been Shlomo's kingdom. they are promised thatJerusalem will not be destroyed: "I shall grant them some deliverance.[13] the existence of the Kingdom of Yehuda may be deduced from the route of the campaign: "The route of the campaign differs from everything that we know about Egyptian campaigns to Kena'an during the period of the New Kingdom."[14] The inscription about Shishak's campaign also contributes to the discussion surrounding the question of construction during the period of the unified kingdom. Nevertheless. and he came to Jerusalem" (ibid 4). But after Am Yisrael repents.[15] The inscription features about seventy unknown locations in the Negev region. they shall be his servants. Thus. The many sites of uniform pattern would seem to testify to a strong kingdom that existed in the 10thcentury and invested concerted effort in building a network of fortifications in the kingdom's border regions. His campaign is described in Tanakhonly in this context.[12] Although Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Karnak inscription."And he took the fortified cities which belonged to Yehuda. These sites. are similar – in terms of both their architecture and the ceramics used in them – to other sites from the same period in the north of the country. no later than the 10thcentury B. existed up until Shishak's campaign. testifies to the existence of a political entity in the Judean mountains that was of great significance in the eyes of the Egyptians. . and the fact that the campaign reached the region of Kiryat Ye'arim. 7-8). and Shishak's campaign should be identified as an attempt to intervene in the political goings-on in the Land of Israel following Shlomo's death. following the call by Shema'ya the prophet. that they may know My service and the service of the kingdoms of countries" (ibid. which. and My wrath shall not be poured out upon Jerusalem by the hand of Shishak. Shishak suffices with the plunder but does not destroy Jerusalem. p.E. "One may certainly doubt the historical veracity of one verse while accepting as valid a different one" (Reshit Yisrael. regarding them as later legends. but this ratio decreases at a regular rate because the level of C12remains constant. 147. dating the type of ceramic found in them to the 10th century B. At Megiddo a fragment of Shishak's victory stele was discovered.E. The impression that arises here is that Megiddo was indeed built up extensively by Shlomo.For this reason. for it is difficult to imagine that Shishak would have constructed a victory stele in a village devoid of any importance.. plants absorb both forms from the atmosphere (in the form of carbon dioxide). [7] Finkelstein and Silverman. the last of them dating unquestionably to the destruction of Chatzor at the hands of Tiglat Pelasar in the year 732 B. these sites can serve as an archaeological anchor. p.C. for even if one is able to understand the logic underlying the considerations for accepting some or other specific point.[16] (to be continued) Translated by Kaeren Fish [1] The subject is developed by Yigael Yadin. p. for example. attributed to the time of Shlomo. meaning that the fraction of carbon-14 in a sample is halved over the course of 5. 187-205. Finkelstein and Silverman. The dating method is based on the fact that carbon is found in various forms. including the main stable isotope (C12) and an unstable isotope (C14). we would arrive at the conclusion that the layer of construction which Yadin attributed [2] . Amnon Ben-Tor. while the C14 decays. [5] Finkelstein and Silverman. and thus we confirm the connection between the six-chambered gates in these cities and the kingdom of Shlomo. Despite these decisive pronouncements. in fact. 140.David u-Shlomo. it contains a ratio of C14 to C12. Through photosynthesis. while at the same time accepting its reliability concerning the construction of Shomron by Omri) but do not see this as a problem. 331. while rejecting completely all that has been described in preceding chapters. 331). 'Was the "Solomonic" city gate at Megiddo built by King Solomon?'. [4] Ibid. 258. and animals then feed on these plants. and this too indicates the importance of the city during the 10th century. See: D. To their view. see. The ceramics in some of these locations parallel the layers of excavation at Chatzor and at Megiddo which were. This is rather a weak argument. the conclusions that they present are open to question. pp. When any plant or animal organism dies. Carbon-14 has a relatively short half-life of 5. The authors are aware of the internal contradiction in their attitude towards Tanakh (they reject its historical reliability concerning David and Shlomo out of hand. [3] Finkelstein and Silverman.C. and later destroyed by Shishak. has noted that six significant layers of construction have been discovered. as Ben-Tor suggests. pp.730 years due to radioactive decay. p. Thus. Given this. 1-18.730 years. [6] The system of carbon dating was developed in 1950 by Nobel laureate Willard Frank Libby. down to the tiniest details. pp. Ussishkin. p. director of the excavation site at Chatzor. even if each layer represented only 40 years. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 256259. a comparison between the carbon-14 and carbon-12 in any organic matter yields a fairly accurate estimate of its age. it is still very difficult to accept a view that proposes accepting the reliability of one chapter of Tanakh.Chatzor.1980. pp. see A. "Shoshenk's campaign could have been undertaken at th almost any time from the mid-10 century B. until its end. Grossman. pp.” Talelei Orot 8." Ma'ayanot 11 – Hora'at ha-Mikra. [13] Finkelstein and Silverman (n.th to Shlomo does indeed date to the mid-10 century B.ð. "Masa Shishak le-Eretz Yisrael be-Re'i ha-Ketovot ha-Mitzriyot. 166) agree that this "fragment provides. p. ve-ha-Mimtza ha-Archeologi". 72).   ********************************************************* IN LOVING MEMORY OF Jeffrey Paul Friedman August 15. Finkelstein's proposal that the th period of Chatzor begins only in the 9 century. pp. Finkelstein and Silverman's position is also questioned by other scholars. Mazar. 2012 ìò"ð éäåãä ôðçñ áï äøá ùøâà ôééååòì ë"á àá úùë"ç – é' àá úùò"á ú. [8] Y. We shall address this point further later on. p. 16) refuse to accept the biblical record of Shishak having sufficed with the plunder. ha-Mikra. p. Finkelstein and Silverman argue that the reason why Jerusalem and the Judean region in general are not included in the inscription is because Jerusalem was at that time a small.ö. 262." It is difficult to understand why this eminently reasonable hypothesis falls under the category of a "stubborn striving". p.C. 203-205. They attempt to claim that since there is no independent documentation of the chronology of the kings of Egypt during that period (the chronology is determined as per the biblical narrative about Rechavam). Kena'an ve-Yisrael – Mechkarim Historiim. 31. and is therefore not included in the official list of cities that were conquered. 152-156.ä ********************************************************* . [14] A. see Y. 5758-5759. [16] See A. "Archaeologia-Mikra-Historia". p. perhaps.E. Mitos. the earliest corroboration between the external historical sources and the biblical account. For the relationship between Shishak's campaign and the biblical narrative. 70)." Ha-Pulmus al ha-Emet ha-Historit ba-Mikra. In any event. "The stubborn striving to adapt the biblical narrative to the Karnak inscription has led some scholars to hypothesize that Jerusalem was saved from destruction by virtue of a heavy ransom. Jerusalem 5746. even in this context." Nevertheless. pp. [12] It seems that the main purpose of the inclusion of this story of Shishak is to show the damage to the Temple. Yisrael ve-ha-Mikra. 5758. within a Sefer that comes to describe the process leading from the building of the Temple to its destruction (see also A. Ben-Tor." The identity of Shoshenk with Shishak is universally accepted (see Finkelstein and Silverman. [11] Even Finkelstein and Silverman (p. without going up against Jerusalem. N. "Ha-Shimush be-Reka haHistori be-Hora'at Nevi'im Rishonim. Na'aman. would mean that only an extremely short period can be attributed to each layer. 234-244. 247-276. p. Such an example "does not appeal to common sense" (A. 108 [15] The following paragraph is based on Meitlis. Jerusalem 5734. in: Ha-Pulmus al ha-Emet ha-Historit ba-Mikra. 292-294).á. 108. "Historia. Bornstein. p.E. Tzion 53. 23). [10] On the inscription and its significance see B. u-Politika. Mazar.C. and not necessarily during the rule of Rechavam" (David u-Shlomo. Elitzur. Mazar. and see the sources cited in the notes ad loc. [9] In these inscriptions he is called "Shoshenk. p. they find it difficult to accept the reliability of the biblical narrative. They write. 1968 – July 29. Hoffman. "Ha-Im Nifredu Darkei ha-Archeologia u-Mekorot Tanakh? Al haVikuach he-'Chadash' al Mamlekhet David u-Shlomo. sparse mountain village that would not have interested Shishak. Between 2007 and 2012. On this issue there have been significant developments in recent years. a basalt altar and libation vessels. containing gravestones. – the period of David.[4] . and in contrast to Canaanite or Philistine towns.C.Shiur #6i: Tanakh and Archaeology (continued) H. The city is surrounded by a casemate wall – a double-wall with the space in between partitioned into long. excavations were undertaken at Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Ela Valley. one of the fascinating discoveries at the site was an ostracon (an inscribed pottery shard) with five lines of protoCanaanite script. and Michael Hasel. where human and animal figurines are usually found in abundance. Finally.[3]representing the earliest evidence of an inscription with content and meaning in this language. narrow rooms. No pig bones were found among the thousands of animal bones found in the city. c. Sa'ar Ganor. This contrasts with Canaanite and Philistine ritual sites. This sort of planning is familiar to us from other sites – all within the boundaries of the kingdom of Judea. The Unified Kingdom We shall now address the argument concerning the absence of findings attesting to royal construction inJerusalem and Yehuda.[1]Upon a strategic hill at a height of 325 meters. while in the Canaanite and Philistine cultures. just as in the settlement villages. The houses adjacent to the wall include these rooms within themselves. b.[2] Burned pits of olives discovered on-site and sent for carbon 14-testing led to the dating of the city to the early 10th century B. The ceramic style is unique and characteristic of the Bronze Period in Judea. These lines include words that were almost certainly written in Hebrew (there are verbs that are unique to the Hebrew language). further discoveries have shown that the city was unquestionably an Israelite – not Philistine – habitation: a. by a team under the direction of Yosef Garfinkel. e. these archaeologists discovered the ruins of a fortified city occupying an area of 23 dunams. surrounded by an impressive casemate wall. In addition. a double-wall was not common. Three rooms for religious ritual were discovered in the city. it is different from the ceramic usually found at Philistine sites. but no figurines depicting humans or animals were found. d.E. [5] Efraim Stern. Jerusalem and Chevron – arose from its position on the main road from the coastal plain to those cities.E. Eilat Mazar. facing the Philistines. a 'view from the border' serves to establish that over the course of the 10-9th centuries B. most survived for short periods of time and then disappeared without a trace. fortification. represents one such 'fashion'. and from its position on the western border of the Israelite kingdom. with its harsh historical conclusions. apparently the result of a unique . the situation is changing even inJerusalem itself. I believe that the sooner it disappears. and the results of the excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa are indeed aiding in this. There is room to assume that the location of this city – at a walking distance from each of the two central cities of David's kingdom. it became clear that during the Bronze II period the city underwent significant changes. including construction. summarizes as follows: "Over the course of my lengthy involvement in the archaeology of the Land of Israel. one of the most senior archaeologist in Israel. Even if the archaeological evidence of its existence at its seat of power is not yet sufficiently clear. and a workshop for metal processing: "Thus. the traces of its activity in the periphery of the area of its reign can tell us much about it. the better. and that at the time of David's monarchy."[6] The findings at Khirbet Qeiyafa join other discoveries of recent years which indicate the power and significance of the unified kingdom specifically through its manifestations on its outer borders. It seems to me that the approach of the 'minimalist chronology'."[7] In fact. I have seen a great many 'fashions' that arrived from different places. a water reservoir. In excavations undertaken at Tel Beit Shemesh. These new findings have had a significant impact. a central political entity was consolidated in Jerusalem.C. and the supporters of the "low chronology" have been hard-pressed to explain them. fortified cities already existed in Judea. In 2005. discovered a large and impressive stone structure at the top of the mound of the City of David.The existence of a Judean city of this size attests to the fact that the wave of urbanization characterizing the transition to the Bronze II period did in fact occur at the beginning of the unified kingdom. who heads the excavations in the City of David on behalf of the HebrewUniversity's Institute for Archaeology. By contrast. and that the building itself was also only built later. It is relatively easy to find artifacts from destroyed layers of cities. from the Middle Bronze and Late Bronze periods. such that it is difficult to find artifacts from the Bronze and Iron periods. there are no findings from within the city itself attesting to its existence during the much earlier period – the 14thcentury B.[10] Of course. All of this leads her to argue that this is none other than thepalace of King David.C. It is reasonable to assume[12] that this phenomenon is the result ofJerusalem having undergone continuous construction from the Middle Bronze period up until our own times. and masons.E. no buildings whatsoever have been found from the Persian or early Hellenistic periods. with the adherents of the "low chronology" being the first to reject the findings and argue that the ceramic found beneath the building are from a later period. and cedar trees. . Mazar argues. that the famous stepped stone structure located in area G served as part of the supporting wall for this great stone structure.E. and that many other discoveries in the future will provide further evidence of the unified kingdom. "Chiram. and this explains why findings testifying to the destruction of the Second Temple have been discovered. on the basis of the ceramics. were found on the eastern slope of the city – an area that was already abandoned by the Second Temple Period. sent messengers to David. whose construction by Phoenician merchants is recorded in the Tanakh. to the Bronze II period. even though no-one questions the existence of the city during these times. Likewise.E. on the basis of similar data. during the 9th century B. we must address the question of why more artifacts from the period of the unified kingdom have not been discovered to date in Jerusalem. it is entirely possible that these findings are only the tip of the iceberg. and they built David a house" (Shmuel II 5:11)[9] Mazar's findings are contested.construction project of giant proportions.[8] Vessels discovered beneath this structure are from the Bronze I period.C.C.[11] At the same time. while the later additions to the structure have been dated. Most of the artifacts that have been discovered in the City of David. king of Tyre. The ceramic finding in conjunction with carbon dating led to the conclusion that the time best suited to the construction of a large stone building would have been around the year 1000 B. and carpenters. where construction during the Assyrian period was scarce. Summary We have briefly reviewed some of the central points pertaining to different periods concerning which there is controversy as to the integration of archaeological findings with the biblical account. Amnon and Tamar. Two further points should be noted in conclusion: 1. attesting to a high level of proficiency in this material on the part of the author.[13] 2. field conditions. and these make it difficult to argue that the Books of Tanakh were written much later than the events which they record. The main impression arising from the discussion of these points would seem to be that the interpretation of the facts is highly dependent upon one's prior orientation. J. Many archaeological artifacts accord with the biblical account. but to the entire region of Judea. Throughout Sefer Shmuel. including their geographical and strategic aspects. Why would anyone seeking to glorify the royal house of David and Shlomo want to describe all the difficult and complex episodes involving its first two kings? Who gains anything from the stories of Uriya and Bat-sheva. It is very difficult to propose that an author during a later period could have provided these descriptions of events. . The fundamental argument of adherents of the "low chronology" is that the narratives about David were created at a later time. Avshalom and Adoniyah? Why would a later author describe Shlomo as taking foreign wives and building altars for idolatry? To date. no satisfactory explanation has been offered for this phenomenon. with a view to glorifying the founder of the dynasty. and Megiddo.This applies not only to Jerusalem. and roads which were sometimes far removed from the areas where these books are assumed to have been written (Jerusalem or Babylon). This approach utterly ignores the simple fact that there is no character who is criticized so closely and sharply in Tanakh as David. the Judean cities also had continuous Jewish settlement. There are data which appear to point to a profound familiarity on the part of the authors of the biblical narratives with the historical and social background of the periods that they describe. which were almost completely abandoned. Unlike Dan and Chatzor. we find many descriptions of wars. in many cases lasting even through the Second Temple Period. some twenty years ago. . there is an undeniable lack of artifacts that should be able to support the biblical account. However. Without the discoveries on the ground. taking as their point of departure the assumption that the Books are later creations and that they are characterized by a certain bias. it is doubtful whether we would make the proper differentiation. It seems reasonable to assume that further discoveries with ramifications for this sphere of research still await us. between the descriptions of settlement in Sefer Yehoshua and those in Sefer Shoftim. archaeological findings have shed light on the events described in the text. the research on this subject would be in a completely different situation to what it is today. such as the City of David and the Temple Mount. at most. and "had it not been discovered." The amount of material that has been excavated and studied is extremely small. arguing that "no findings that confirm their existence have yet been discovered. quite coincidentally. Those who proceed from a different point of departure may view the lack of artifacts as a situation that will be remedied with time – or. relative to what remains. and this phenomenon may be interpreted in different ways: some scholars. such as the campaign of Shishak and the war against Mesha. view the lack of artifacts as an expression of the lack of reliability of the biblical account. king of Moav.At the same time. for instance. or standing before archeological findings from that period. excavations are highly problematic if not altogether impossible. Archaeological research also influences and deepens our understanding of different parts of Tanakh. and will continue to contribute greatly to our understanding of and appreciation of Tanakh. archaeology has contributed. many scholars today would probably still deny the existence of David and Shlomo. and will continue to interest all those who hold theTanakh dear. The Merneptah Stele is a proof of utmost significance as to the existence at that time of an entity known as "Israel". as a phenomenon that has a logical explanation. and we must also take into consideration the fact that in the most important regions."[14] Had the Dan Stele inscription not been discovered. In addition. A walk through the sites where the stories of the Tanakh took place. Our review has also revealed the transience of some central theories in the world of archaeology. is a powerful and moving experience. 49-50. ibid. Y. Y.haaretz. "Ha-Ketovet ha-Enigmatit miChurvat Keyafa: Tzuratah ve-Sugatah". "The Keys to the Kingdom". 109-110. ibid. "Ha-Ketovet mi-Churvat Keyafa". Y. [5] N. in: A. Haaretz. 5772. [3] The inscription is not clearly legible and is difficult to understand.com/weekend/magazine/the-keys-to-the-kingdom1. Galil. 5770. Chafirot Izbet Sartah ve-ha-Hatnahalut ha-Yisraelit ba-Har. Chiddushim be-Archeologia shel Yerushalayim u-Sevivata 3. This led Garfinkel and his associates to conclude that the city that they uncovered was the biblical Sha'arayim. "Khirbat Kiyafa Enena 'Sha'arayim'!". Ganor. 13-16. This description illustrates the extent to which issues with no bearing whatsoever on science and objective truth become involved in the discussion.. Ganor and M. Katedra 143. pp. for example. Naaman. describe the criticism with the following words: "All of the writers are from Tel Aviv University. For more on the ostracon see Y. "He-Asor ha-Rishon le-Malkhuto shel David bi-Yerushalayim ve-Yechasav im ha-Pelishtim le-Or ha-Mimtzaim ha-Archeologiim ve-ha-Epigrafiim mi-Khirbet Kiyafa Hi Neta'im". S. which is today a hothouse for flourishing minimalism. Y. pp. Demsky. see: H.Chiddushim be-Archeologia shel Yerushalayim u-Sevivata 3. Garfinkel. which took place precisely in this region (Shmuel I 17:52). He proposes that they refrained from eating pork as a way of distinguishing themselves from the Philistines. 5743. Shtull-Trauring. Some have questioned this identification – see. Ikevot David ha-Melekh be-Emek ha-Elah. a more cautious proposal is offered by H. A. pp. Ikevot David ha-Melekh be-Emek ha-Ela. pp. pp. is dated even earlier. 7-44. "Ha-Ketovet mi-Churvat Keyafa". since it proves the existence of an ancient scribal tradition. Hasel. Why have no critical articles been penned to date by scholars based in London. pp. is of great importance. Jerusalem 5772. Finkelstein. On this argument see A.Translated by Kaeren Fish [1] On the findings. Kadmoniot 141. countering the claims of Naaman and others whose argument that biblical historiographic literature was written hundreds of years after the events described is based. 2 above).). "Khirbet Keyafa ve-ha-Maavak bein Pelishtim le-Kena'anim bi-Tekufat haBarzel ha-Keduma bi-Derom ha-Aretz". S Achituv. Levi-Reifer and A. Misgav. 2011. Garfinkel and S. Ganor and M. As proof of this they cite the appearance of this city in the description of the battle between David and Goliat.. Kadmoniot 142. Garfinkel.Katedra 143. Tel Aviv 2012. and that the ostracon discovered on site was inscribed in an as-yet unidentified dialect of protoCanaanite.Paris. argues that the inhabitants of Khirbet Qeiyafa were Canaanites and not Israelites. 28-33. Faust (eds. inter alia. The article also provides an interesting description of the internal power struggles within archaeological circles. 2012http://www. 2171. "Hitpatchut ha-Ma'arakh ha-Yishuvi be-Mamlekhet Yehuda meReshit ve-ad Churban ha-Bayit ha-Rishon". pp. Tel Aviv. pp. and principally between the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (with which Garfinkel is associated) and Tel Aviv University (the academic home of Naaman and Finkelstein). to the period of the Judges. or New York?. Ziv. G. Chiddushim be-Chekker Yerushalayim – ha-Kovetz ha-16. "Ha-Ostrakon mi-Khirbet Kiafa". April 21. 2-12. One suggestion as to the original text is proposed by G. "Arba Onot Chafira Rishonot be-Churvat Kiyafa. For more on the inscription see A.. Eyal. Ir Mevutzeret bi-Shefelat Yehud me-Reshit ha-Me'ah ha-10 Lifnei ha-Sefira". Yedi'at Sefer be-Yisrael be-Et ha-Atika. S. 126-129. apparently as a reading exercise. pp. This inscription. too. pp. Garfinkel . pp. Galil (n. The original minimalist approach was a . Kadmoniyot 141. Garfinkel. Misgav. [4] The Izbet Sartah ostracon. 123-132. 2011. For a discussion of the attempts by adherents of the school of "low chronology" to deal with the findings at Khirbet Qeiyafa.. pp. 111-123. pp. 124-125. 130-132. but its proto-Canaanite inscription consists only of the letters of the alphabet. see A. 5772. Demsky. Hasel. Yardeni. A. Ganor and Hasel (Ikevot David ha-Melekh be-Emek ha-Ela). on the assumption that literacy in the earlier period was extremely rare.360222. [2] The wall displays an interesting phenomenon – the presence of two gates. Y. "Ostrakon mi-Churvat Keyafa". 5770. 65-92. Ramat Gan 5771. discovered in the region of Rosh ha-Ayin. Ramat Gan 5765. Faust (eds. [10] Finkelstein and Silverman. pp. Garsiel. [12] See Meitlis. A. [6] Editorial in Kadmoniot 141. which argued that the ancient history of the Jewish People must be written only on the basis of extra-biblical data. 39-58. Beit Mikra 54. Chiddushim be-Chekker Yerushalayim – haKovetz ha-Shevi'i..     ." It should be noted that it is specifically the minimalists. ‘HaPulmus al HaEmet v’Historia B’Mikra’. "Yerushalayim u-Beit Shemesh: Bein Birah u-Gevulah". p. Lederman.L. who do not necessarily declare the Tanakh to be unreliable. pp. pp. de Garotte. who should have the easiest time changing their position once new findings appear. p. Faust and A. Mazar. in: A. esp. Armon ha-Melekh David – ha-Chafirot be-Rosh Giv'at Ir David. All the approaches that came later… are simply patchwork additions that try desperately to solve difficulties which the earlier paradigm is incapable of addressing. "Tekufat ha-Mamlakha ha-Meuchedet: ha-Edut haArcheologit". in: A. To this view. [11] For more findings supporting Jerusalem's status as a significant city during the period of the unified kingdom. pp. M. and his notes ad loc. however. Chiddushim be-Chekker Yerushalayim – ha-Kovetz haAsiri. but rather weak alternatives that run counter to logic. 29-34. Kahil. Jerusalem 2009.). [13] See Garsiel. 34-35. Levine and A. Surprisingly. p. 46-48. too. 2. in which data are gathered and examined with a view to reaching well-founded conclusions. [9] Prior to the discovery of the large stone structure. Hoffman. 45. "Ha-Ir ha-Ne'elama' shel haMea ha-Asirit Lifnei ha-Sefira. but rather build their archaeological picture on the basis of actual findings (or lack thereof). Mazar. Historia. Jerusalem 5761 pp31-32. [14] J. and whose strength lies in the absence of data and the negation of the value of the biblical tradition as a source of information about the period in question. 248. These patchwork solutions are not the fruit of real research.). [8] See E. pp. Barukh (eds. Mythos v’Politika’. 1 [7] S. see G. 206-214. pp. Ramat Gan 5762. "Shelavei Chibburo shel Sefer Shmuel". Mazar had argued (p. the finding from the City of David accords with the biblical account of the conquest ofJerusalem. they treat them with a suspicion that goes beyond the accepted archaeological norm – all of which calls their motives into question. Bonimowitz and Z. Barukh and A. 21-27.consolidated world-view. ibid. in Y. A. 108 of the work cited above) that the structure with the steps was a supporting wall of the citadel which David captured (rather than of his palace).