"

Parashat Shemini

Nisan 29 5775

April 18, 2015

Vol. 23 No. 27

with a respectful counter-argument which Moshe accepts

(10:19-20).
In these two exchanges we find two different responses to
suffering.
In the first, Aharon remains silent, for he can do
by Rabbi Chaim Poupko
nothing but accept the harsh, divine decree against his two
sons. He does not ask for explanations, because he knows he
Parashat Shemini is a more appropriately titled Parashah
will not receive an answer. He expresses Baruch Dayan
than any other. Since the week before Pesach, we have read
HaEmet, that Hashem is the true judge, without having said
the first Aliyah of Parashat Shemini seven times, and with this
a word.
Shabbats Torah reading, the total comes to eight. The
Aharon exemplifies what Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, the
Parashah whose name means eighth is being read for the
Rav, refers to as the man of fate. The man of fate is a person
eighth time.
who can only stand perplexed and confused before the
The eighth reading of the Parashah was worth waiting
greatest of mysteries the mysteries of suffering and why bad
for, since Shemini can help us transition from Yom HaShoah
things happen to good people.
to Yom HaAtzmaut (here in the diaspora, at least, where we
In Moshe and Aharons second exchange, Moshe
are a Parashah behind our brothers and sisters in Israel).
embodies what the Rav described as the man of destiny.
In Parashat Shemini we find two very curious exchanges
When Moshe points out that the sons of Aharon neglected the
between Moshe and Aharon. The scene in which these two
proper procedure for the sin-offering on behalf of the entire
conversations take place is one that is mixed with and tragedy.
community, Moshe is responding to tragedy not with the
These conversations take place BaYom HaShemini, on the
silence of the man of fate, but with action and a sense of
eighth day (VaYikra 9:1). It was the eighth day of the
destiny. The man of destiny is willing to confront the
inauguration of the newly constructed Mishkan. For the first
environment in which suffering is occurring and makes every
seven days, the Kohanim practiced setting up and running the
effort to find a path through the suffering. He finds a way to
Mishkan, and on the eighth day, which was also Rosh
cope with it so that the victims can move past the silent
Chodesh Nisan, the Mishkan was finally opened. Chazal
existence of the man of fate. He does not ask why the
explain that this day was as joyous as the day in which
suffering happened, because he is more concerned with how
Hashem created the heaven and earth (Megillah 10b). Amidst
to react to the suffering. Unlike Aharon, who remains silent
this incredible joy, tragedy suddenly strikes as Nadav and
and accepts the tragedy, Moshe takes action and draws the
Avihu, the sons of Aharon, are abruptly killed for bringing a
Kohanims attention to their failing to consume the Korban.
foreign fire into the Mishkan amidst this celebration (10:1-2).
By doing so, Moshe is teaching the Kohanim that despite (and
During this scene, marked by both celebration and
because of) the suffering, they must find a way to continue
mourning, Moshe and Aharon have two exchanges. In the first
living, learn from the tragedy, and use those lessons to benefit
exchange, which occurred immediately after Nadav and
the community.
Avihus deaths, Moshe tells Aharon that Hashem referred to
The Rav used the two concepts of fate and destiny to
Nadav and Avihus deaths when He told him that He will be
understand the relationship between the Holocaust, which we
sanctified by those who were close to Him (10:3). In response
commemorated this past Thursday on Yom HaShoah, and the
to this, VaYidom Aharon, and Aharon remained silent
establishment of the state of Israel, which we will celebrate
(10:3).
this coming week on Yom HaAtzmaut.
In the second exchange, after Moshe instructs Aharon and
Responding theologically to the Holocaust is
his family not to observe the typical mourning rituals and to
monumentally difficult. Many religious people respond to the
instead continue with the Mishkan service (10:6), Moshe
Holocaust like the man of fate; they accept this tragedy and
discovers that the Kohanim, the sons of Aharon, chose to not
understand that they will never comprehend why it
eat one of the sin-offerings as they were instructed. Instead,
happened. They understand that this dark moment in our
they burned it on the altar. Moshe asks the Kohanim why they
history leaves us without explanation or answers. Instead, we
did not consume the Korban Chattat, and Aharon responds
are beset by confusion, bewilderment, and silence. However,
rising from the ashes of the Holocaust came the building of
the state of Israel. By responding to suffering by searching for

Lessons from Shemini for Yom HaShoah

and Yom HaAtzmaut

To sponsor an issue, please contact: business@koltorah.org

K
O
L
T
O
R
A
H
P
A
R
A
S
H
A
T
S
H
E
M
I
N
I

a path through which the suffering of the Holocaust will have

had a purpose is the ultimate expression of the man of
destiny.
As a survivor of the Holocaust who would become a
Rosh Yeshiva in Israel, Rav Yehuda Amital was a living
embodiment of these two attitudes. In 1985, he addressed his
students at an event celebrating the 40 th anniversary of his
arrival to Israel. He spoke to them candidly about why he
chose to celebrate his salvation from the Holocaust together
with his Aliyah to Israel. He said that he cannot explain why
he was saved whether it was because Hashem directly
intervened and saved him or whether it was because when
Hashem had abandoned the Jewish people to chance, he was
saved merely out of chance. He explained that since he cannot
answer this question, he cannot celebrate his salvation from
the Holocaust alone; he can celebrate it only together with his
Aliyah to Israel.
As Rav Amital said:
These doubts plague me until this day. Clearly, the
answer lies in the hands of God, and because I do not know
the answer, I do not have the boldness to designate a specific
day as a holiday because I was saved. Thus I combine both
focal points of my life, my salvation and my Aliyah, into one
personal holiday. And yet... I still feel that heavy burden.1
In other words, in a demonstration of religious humility,
he left the reason for his salvation as an open question.
Despite his unwillingness to answer the question, Rav
Amitals response going forward was one of action. His
response going forward was to act on behalf of those who no
longer had the opportunities he now had. Despite all of his
unanswered questions, Rav Amital was sure that he had a
responsibility to those who did not survive and that
propelled him to great accomplishment.
In other words, Rav Amital lived the life of a man of fate
and a man of destiny. We can trace his footsteps, in some
small measure, by marking this transition from Yom
HaShoah to Yom HaAtzmaut guided by the observation on
the exchanges between Moshe and Aharon in Parashat
Shemini.

Nadav VeAvihu: Through the Highs and

Lows of Spirituality
by Leiby Deutsch (15)
This weeks Parashah is marked by an unprecedented
mixture of spiritual loftiness and emotional and ironic
tragedy. Nadav and Avihu, the two sons of Aharon
HaKohein, are consumed by a fire and killed instantly in the
Kodesh HaKodashim, the holiest place on earth (VaYikra

http://etzion.org.il/en/forty-years-later-personal-recollection

10:2). The Pesukim, along with the comments of Chazal, tell

us that Nadav and Avihu entered the Kodesh HaKodashim
with Ketoret without permission, all while being intoxicated.
In his commentary on the Torah, Rav Shimshon Raphael
Hirsch quotes a Sifra on Parashat Shemini (Mechilta
DeMiluim 32) which suggests that Nadav and Avihus
conduct was arrogant in nature. According to the Sifra, they
did not even question their actions when they entered the
Kodesh HaKodashim. How could this be? How could two
people do something so bold and something so dangerous, all
while not even muttering a word to each other throughout?
Although Nadav and Avihus actions were arrogant and
obscure, perhaps the motivation behind those actions were
very sincere and can teach us a valuable lesson.
This weeks Parashah marks the end of the eight day
ceremonial dedication of the Mishkan. Imaginably, this was a
time of divine revelations of massive proportions. In his Sichot
HaRan, Rabi Nachman of Breslov perfectly describes what
many people feel when they experience these types of
revelations and realizations about Hashems greatness. In
Sichah Aleph, Rabi Nachman explains that it is very difficult
for people to describe these experiences in words or
expressions, because these experiences are fleeting and do not
last forever. Even Nadav and Avihu, the sons of Aharon
HaKohein, struggled spiritually as the Chanukat HaMishkan
came to a close. Hashem left Nadav and Avihu wanting for
more.
What was wrong with pursuing their seemingly pure
desires and ambitions? The answer to this question can be
found in the next Sichah of Rabi Nachman, Sichah Bet (based
on the interpretation of Rav Moshe Tzvi Weinberg of Yeshiva
University). Rabi Nachman explains that at times, a person
has spiritual ambitions and objectives that he wishes to fulfill.
While those desires and ambitions are very important, there
will be times when uncontrollable circumstances do not allow
him/her to achieve them, and it is at those times that a person
should not fall into despair and frustration. In order to serve
Hashem, sometimes we must do what Hashem wants us to
do, regardless whether or not we want to do it. This is the
hidden lesson of Nadav and Avihus story. Nadav and Avihu
thought that they had to serve Hashem by always being
underneath His limelight. They thought they always had to be
on a spiritual high. Their mistake was in not seeing that even
in a lower spiritual state, they would always have the
potential to serve Hashem. All they had to do was keep an ear
open to what Hashem expected from them.
In introducing the story of the students of Rabi Akiva
(Yevamot 62b), the Gemara says in the name of Rabi Yehoshua
that one who teaches Torah in his youth should also teach
Torah in his old age. Not only does this statement signify the

importance of Talmud Torah, but it also signifies the

importance of Avodat Hashem as a whole. We must serve
Hashem throughout our entire lives both during spiritually
high moments, as well as during moments in which we are
lacking in our spiritual connection to Hashem.

The Hebrew Calendar and its Missing

Years- Part One

and whether Seder Olam was intended to be a definitive

history or something else entirely.
In this article, we intend to follow Seder Olams
chronology and explain how it reaches its conclusions, using
an internally consistent methodology. Beyond this, we hope
to demonstrate how Seder Olams inconsistency with outside
sources is not a flaw; rather, it serves a tremendous purpose
in the Rabbinic period.

by Reuven Herzog (13) and Benjy Koslowe (13)

II. Seder Olams Count

Seder Olam Rabbah is a Tannaitic work generally
Kol Torah is enormously proud to present a landmark attributed to the mid-2nd century Tanna Rabi Yosi ben
article written by TABC alumni Reuven Herzog '13 and Chalafta. A Midrashic commentary on Jewish history, it
Benjy Koslowe '13, themselves former Kol Torah editors- chronicles and exegetes the stories of Tanach and a little
in-chief. This article was originally delivered as a Shiur at beyond, using the historical narratives as a springboard for
Chazals teachings and messages, similar to other Midreshei
TABC's summer of 2014 Tanach Kollel.
Aggadah. In fact, Seder Olam can be thought of as similar to

The article presents an intriguing solution to a very wellknown issue regarding the compatibility of Chazal's Seder
Olam and the commonly accepted historic chronology.
Although dozens of articles address this issue, we believe
that this article is the best article written on this subject
published to date.

the Midrash Rabbah collection, a History Rabbah4, in that its

goal is not to explicitly comment on historical facts, but rather
to use stories as an educational tool.
In building its timeline, Seder Olam uses two primary
sources, both stemming from the Tanach. The first and
dominant source is explicit references from the books of
Tanach to specific years and periods of time, combined via
This article is based on a series of Shiurim given by Rav
simple arithmetic intuition. These references are plentiful
Menachem Leibtag at Yeshivat Har Etzion.
and clear enough to write the timeline almost entirely, from
Adam HaRishon to the Churban of the first Beit HaMikdash.
I. Introduction
The Hebrew calendar counts the current year as 5775 (The dating of Malchut Yehudah is slightly cloudier; we will
deal with this later.) The second source is implicit references
Anno Mundi2. However, many adherents to this calendar may
and inferences used to fill in the gaps where Tanach is more
not realize that this year stems from Seder Olam Rabbah, a late
ambiguous. These are primarily used in the works postTannaitic work. Detailing important dates and years in Jewish
Churban HaBayit, where dates of certain events are given,
history, Seder Olam establishes a timeline from Adam
but there are no large blocks of time recorded.
HaRishon to the end of the Bar Kochba revolt, and it became
the ubiquitous dating convention in the Jewish community II-A. From Adam HaRishon until the Beit HaMikdashs
around the turn of the second millennium CE.
Destruction
A challenge with regards to the Hebrew calendar is that
The first section of the timeline is incredibly easy to
the year 5775 may not be so precise. Seder Olam records that construct, taken almost directly from lists found in Sefer
the time between the destructions of the two Batei Mikdash BeReishit. After the conclusion of the Gan Eden narratives
lasted 490 years. However, secular history records that the there is a list of Adams descendants, including how long
Churban of the first Beit HaMikdash took place in 586 BCE, they lived, and more significantly how old they were when
and that the Churban of the second Beit HaMikdash occurred the next child on the list was born. As an example (BeReishit
in 70 CE; this leaves us with a period of 655 years3. Thus, there 5:12-14):
is a discrepancy of 165 years between Seder Olam and secular
history!
The missing years are a puzzling element of the Jewish
Mesorah. They beg the question of what happened to them
2

VaYechi Keinan Shivim Shanah VaYoled Et Mahalaleil.

VaYechi Keinan Acharei Holido Et Mahalaleil Arbaim
Shanah UShemoneh Meiot Shanah VaYoled Banim UVanot.

Lit: Year After Creation. This title is slightly misleading, as 4 Though this would be an apt title for the work, its real title does
Seder Olam begins its chronology with Adam HaRishon and not denote any connection. The Rabbah suffix merely means
makes no mention of Beriat HaOlam.
big, distinguishing it from a later chronological work also titled
3
The Gregorian calendar does not include a year 0; year 1 BCE Seder Olam (Zuta).
is succeeded immediately by year 1 CE.

VaYihyu Kol Yemei Keinan Eser Shanim UTsha Meiot Shanah

VaYamot.

Name
Sheim5

And Keinan lived 70 years, and he gave birth to

Mahalaleil. And Keinan lived 840 years after giving birth
to Mahalaleil, and he gave birth to many children. And all
the days of Keinan were 910 years, and he died.
The only relevant information for us in this paragraph is
how long Keinan lived before the birth of his son; everything
afterwards is overlap and therefore does not help to create a
contiguous timeline.
Such Pesukim are repeated almost verbatim for the entire
line of Adam to Noach, ten generations in all (plus the birth of
Noachs children, the eleventh generation). The prodcut of
this timeline is a simple calculation of dates for when each
person was born:
Name
Fathers age at time
Year of birth
of birth
Adam
N/A
0
Sheit

130

130

Enosh

105

235

Keinan

90

325

Mahalaleil

70

395

Yered

65

460

Chanoch

162

622

Fathers age at time

of birth
502

Year of birth
1558

Arpachshad

100

1658

Shelach

35

1693

Eiver

30

1723

Peleg

34

1757

Reu

30

1787

Serug

32

1819

Nachor

30

1849

Terach

29

1878

Avraham6

70

1948

After Avrahams birth, the points of reference in the

Torah are more spread out, and often these references describe
large blocks of time rather than individual lifespans. The
Torah informs us that Avraham was 100 years old when
Yitzchak was born (21:5). After Yitzchaks birth, there are 400
years until Yetziat Mitzrayim. This is based on Seder Olams
derivation from the Berit Bein HaBetarim that the 400 years of
Avrahams descendants dwelling in a foreign country begin

with the birth of Yitzchak7. Thus, Yetziat Mitzrayim took place

in year 2448 of Seder Olam.
The next block of time is from Yetziat Mitzrayim until the
Metushelach
65
687
start of construction of the first Beit HaMikdash, a period Sefer
Lemech
187
874
Melachim informs us was 480 years (Melachim I 6:1). We can
therefore establish that the Beit HaMikdash began its time in
Noach
182
1056
year 2928 of Seder Olam.
In order to calculate the duration of the first Beit
HaMikdash, Sefer Melachim records the length of each kings
A very similar list exists in Perek 11, after the Mabul and reign. Adding up the reigns of the kings from Shlomo in
Migdal Bavel stories, listing the generations from Sheim to whose fourth year as king the Beit HaMikdashs existence
Avraham:
began to Tzidkiyahu in whose reign it was destroyed we
have a total of 433 years8. However, because the dating system

The Pesukim are not entirely clear here, stating only that Noach
was 500 years old when he gave birth to Sheim, Cham, and Yefet.
However, in the list from Sheim to Avraham, Arpachshad is
stated as being born when Sheim was 100 years old, two years
after the Mabul (11:10); therefore, we can deduce that Sheim was
born 98 years before the Mabul. The Mabul is said to have been
when Noach was 600 years old (7:6), in year 1656; thus, Sheim
was born in year 1558.
6
BeReishit 11:27 states that Terach was 70 years old when he
gave birth to Avraham, Nachor, and Haran. It is assumed that
Avraham was the oldest brother.
5

This Derashah is based on the usage of the word Zera,

offspring, in the Berit (15:13): Yadoa Teida Ki Geir Yihyeh
Zaracha BeEretz Lo Lahem VaAvadum VeInu Otam Arba Meiot
Shanah, Know well that your offspring will be strangers in a
land that is not theirs, and they will enslave them and torture them
four hundred years. This Zera is identified by Seder Olam to
match with the Pasuk (21:12), Ki VeYitzchak Yikarei Lecha
Zara, For in Yitzchak offspring will be called for you.
8
Yehoachaz and Yehoyachin each ruled for three months, and
are not even given credit for an entire year.
7

then was focused on the king and not on an absolute,

Yoshiyahu
31
3288
continuous calendar (as we mentioned above), the final partial
Yehoachaz
3 months7
3318
year of a kings rule was counted as a full year, and the rest of
that year was also considered to be a full year for the next king.
Yehoyakim
11
3318
Therefore, we can conclude that there was an extra year of
Yehoyachin
3 months7
3328
overlap recorded for each king. Accounting for the 19 rulers7
and therefore 19 years of overlap, our total reduces to 414
Tzidkiyahu
11
3328
years. We also need to remember that construction began in
the fourth year of Shlomos reign. We therefore remove four (Total)
433 (including 3338
years to give the final count of 410 years for which the first Beit
overlap)
HaMikdash stood. Thus, the Beit HaMikdash was destroyed
II-B. Galut Bavel and the Second Beit HaMikdash
in year 3338.
After the Beit HaMikdashs destruction, the records
become
much less comprehensive. There is no book that
Name
Length of Reign
Start of Reign9
details a continuous history or provides dates in a larger
Shlomo
40
2924
context. All of the post-Churban Sifrei Tanach (like many of
their earlier counterparts) give exclusively regnal dates.
Binyan Bayit Rishon 2928
Nothing informs us how long a king ruled, or even who
directly succeeded him.
Rechavam
17
2963
When the second Beit HaMikdash begins to be built in the
Aviyam
3
2979
second year of the Persian king Daryavesh, Zecharyah
retrospectively references a period of 70 years (Zecharyah
Asa
41
2981
1:12). This refers to the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash and
Yerushalayim and the subsequent total exile (with no mention
Yehoshafat
25
3021
of Babylonian rule, as this prophecy comes many years after
Yehoram
8
3045
the Babylonian empire fell)10. Therefore, the second year of
Daryavesh and the beginning of the construction of the second
Achazyah
1
3052
Beit HaMikdash was in year 3338+70=3408 of Seder Olam.
Atalyah
6
3052
Construction took four years (Ezra 6:15), finishing in
Daryaveshs sixth year, year 3412.
Yehoash
40
3057
From this point on everything becomes much murkier.
Amatzyah
29
3096
There are no anchor dates like in Yirmiyahu 2511. The few

Uziyah/Azaryah

52

3124

Yotam

16

3175

Achaz

16

3190

Chizkiyahu

29

3205

Menasheh

55

3233

Amon

3287

The chronology in this table is based on a simple read of Sefer

Melachim. The chronology is actually more complicated, but this
is beyond the scope of this paper. For further reading, see Edwin
Thieles The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (1st ed.;
New York: Macmillan, 1951).
10
Zecharyahs reference is not explicitly about the Beit
HaMikdashs destruction, but from context it is clear that he is
referring to the destruction of the Temple, Yerushalayim, and all
of Yehudah.

dates mentioned after the construction of the second Beit

HaMikdash are only in reference to the king of the time, and
we do not even know for sure the order of succession, much
less for how long each Persian king ruled.
The latest date recorded in Tanach about Daryavesh is his
sixth year, the year in which the second Beit HaMikdash was
completed. The next date we have is that of Ezras Aliyah to
Eretz Yisrael, in the seventh year of king Artachshasta (Ezra
7:7). Seder Olam assumes that these two names refer to the
same king, so these two events are only one year apart12. The

See section IV (Editors Note: This will appear in next weeks

installment).
1212
Seder Olam uses the ambiguous language of Hu Koresh Hu
Daryavesh Hu Artachshasta to show that sometimes multiple
names refer to the same king. The Gra explains this specific
reference to be that Daryavesh is named as Koresh, the
Meshiach Hashem, by Yeshayahu; Daryavesh is awarded these
extra titles because he rebuilt the Beit HaMikdash. (This
association of Koresh and Daryavesh might be another element
of Chazals hiding of the disappointing Shivat Tziyon-era Navi
11

last reference we have to Daryavesh/Artachshasta is during

the governorship of Nechemyah, in his 32nd year (Nechemyah
Perek 12). This can be calculated to be year 3438 of Seder Olam.
This is the latest concrete date that can be found in
Tanach. However, a hint to later events can be found in a
vision of Daniel. In Perakim 10 and 11, in the third year of
Koresh13, Daniel receives a long, prophetic, colorful, and
obscure description of much of the future political history
from an angel. At the beginning of the history the angel states,
Hinei Od Sheloshah Melachim Omedim LeParas, Behold, three
more kings will stand for Persia (Daniel 11:2); the fourth of
the line14 will be tremendously rich, and he will be conquered
by an extremely powerful king of Greece15. Seder Olam
assumes this king to be Alexander the Great, and thus the king
succeeding Daryavesh/Artachshasta is Alexander. In
addition, Seder Olam twice references that the Persians ruled
over Israel for 52 years, which leads to the deduction that
Daryavesh/Artachshasta ruled for 36 years. (This extra time is
hinted at in Sefer Nechemyah, where Nechemyah mentions
that he was in Persia during Artachshastas 32 nd year, and he
took leave to return to Israel after a long period of time
(Nechemyah 13:6).) Koresh took control in 3390; hence,
Alexanders reign over the Persian Empire begins in year 3442
of Seder Olam.
Seder Olam follows Alexanders reign with a summary of
the rulership until the Second Beit HaMikdashs destruction
(and then to the Bar Kochba (alt. Ben Koziba) Revolt) in a
succinct teaching of Rabi Yosi16: 34 years of Persian rule during
the existence of the Beit HaMikdash, 180 years of Greek rule,
103 years of the Chashmonai dynasty, and 103 years of the
Herodian dynasty totaling 420 years. Bar Kochbas rebellion
was 52 years later.
In the second installment of this essay, we will bring light
to issues that arise when comparing Seder Olams account of
Bayit Sheini chronology with the conventional account of

at the end of Sefer Yeshayahu. By identifying Koresh, who is

prophesied to rebuild the Beit HaMikdash, as Daryavesh, who
actually did, the author removes the problem of a false prophecy.
See section V-B for a further explanation of the hidden Navi.)
Interestingly, the Gra writes that there were three separate kings
of Persia: Koresh, Daryavesh, and Artachshasta. However, he
makes no mention of Achashveirosh, whom Seder Olam
explicitly includes, and makes no attempt to identify him with
one of the three aforementioned kings! Perhaps the Gra means
only that all three of these kings, though Midrashically identified
as one by Seder Olam, are separate rulers in their own right, in
addition to Achashveirosh. This would pose a problem, though,
with Daniels vision (found in Perakim 10-11 of Sefer Daniel) of
the four Persian kings (including Daryavesh HaMadi).
13
The vision begins in Perek 10 and continues in Perek 11,
according to the explanation of Daat Mikra.
14
Presumably this includes a king before Koresh, so the fourth
king in total is the third remaining. Perhaps this earlier king refers

history. We will then hopefully explain how Seder Olams

account consistently employs the methodology of Chazal to
successfully arrive at its conclusions, regardless of outside
chronologies.

Editors-in-Chief: Hillel Koslowe, Yehuda Koslowe

Executive Editor: Yosef Kagedan
Publication Editors: Binyamin Jachter, Simcha Wagner
Publishing Managers: Ezra Finkelstein, Eitan Leff
Staff: Moshe Davis, Zack Greenberg, Shlomo Kroopnick,
to Daryavesh
HaMadi,
who conquered Bavel for Persia.
Zack Lent,
David Rothchild
(Daryavesh HaMadis identity itself is very unclear; perhaps this
Rabbinic Advisor: Rabbi Chaim Jachter
is a reference to the general Gobryas who governed over Bavel
Questions, comments? Contact us at:
for a few weeks after conquering it.) The result is that the four
Kol Torah
kings are Daryavesh
HaMadi,
Koresh,
Achashveirosh,
and
c/o Torah
Academy
of Bergen
County
Daryavesh/Artachshasta.1600 Queen Anne Road
15
A similar vision, thoughTeaneck,
less detailed,
can be found in Perek 8
NJ 07666
of Daniel. Seder Olam cites
Pesukim
both visions.
Phone:
(201)from
837-7696
16
koltorah@koltorah.org
The fact that this history
is entirely Tannaitic and not derived
from Tanach
is incredibly
significant.
After
the mention of
To subscribe
to Kol Torah via
email, message
webmaster@koltorah.org
Alexander, Seder Olam writes, Ad Kan Hayu Neviim
This publication
Torah matter
and VeEilach
should be treated
accordingly.
Mitnabim
BeRuachcontains
HaKodesh;
MiKan
Hat Oznecha
UShma Divrei Chachamim, Until here Neviim would
prophesize with Divine spirit; from here and onward listen to the
words of the Sages. This marks the end of the period of Nevuah
and a monumental transition in the nature of Judaism. The short
section following even has the feel of an appendix to the primary
history, that which is relevant to Tanach.