Fundamental Issues in the Study of Tanakh

By Rav Amnon Bazak

*********************************************************

This weeks 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

questions regarding a number of periods: the period of the

forefathers, the Egyptian servitude, the conquest and settlement of
the land, and the period of the monarchy of David and Shlomo. This
section reviews the questions arising from the existence or absence
of various findings, and discusses the general relationship
between Tanakh and archaeology. 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, both in prose and in legal units. I discuss here the
significance of these discoveries.
Section 7 addresses the precise wording of the biblical text
itself (nusach). We will look at the accuracy of the Masoretic text,
over the course of its development, present other manuscript
versions of the Biblical text, and examine the significance of the
variations in nusach for various exegetical possibilities.
The next two sections deal with the fundamental question of
the study of Tanakh on the plain, or literal, level (peshat). Section 8
addresses the relationship between the straightforward interpretation
of the text and midrashei aggada,[2] and presents the approach of the
medieval commentators, who noted the importance of drawing a
distinction between the various levels on which verses can be
understood. Section 9 discusses the relationship between the
straightforward reading of the text and midrash Halakha,[3] and
presents different models for explaining the discrepancy that
sometimes exists between these two realms, with an examination of
the fundamental questions pertaining to Halakha and the ways in
which its rulings are determined.
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. We will look at the position of Chazal and the medieval
commentators on this subject, and also discuss the theoretical and
educational questions arising from these positions.
Obviously, the material related to these questions is endless,
and within the limited scope of this series I shall not be able to
address every detail and every aspect of every topic; I aim to cover
only the central points. It must also be noted that the vast majority of
the discussion here, and the fundamental approaches and positions
set forth, were stated long ago by the classical Jewish thinkers and

sages. If there is anything new in my presentation, it consists of the

gathering of these various topics into a single collection, with the aim
of presenting a summary of the relevant problems and the various
ways of dealing with them, in accordance with the approach
described above that values engaging with, rather than hiding from,
challenges to our faith. At the same time I wish to emphasize that
different people address every subject in different ways, and the
responsibility for what I have written here rests with me alone.
Translated by Kaeren Fish

[1]

Iggerot ha-Reaya, vol. 1 (Jerusalem 5722), letter 134, p. 164. Rav Kook writes in a similar
manner elsewhere, too. For example: "All the words and paths that lead to the ways of heresy
themselves lead, fundamentally, if we seek out their source, to a greater depth of faith, 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, vol. 2 [Jerusalem 5724], p. 547); "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, 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, vol. 2 [Jerusalem
5745], letter 255, p. 20).
[2]

Chazals interpretations of the narrative sections of Tanakh.

[3]

Chazals interpretations of the legal sections of Tanakh.

*********************************************************

This weeks shiurim are dedicated by Leonard Balanson

in memory of Rose Balanson zl
*********************************************************
Shiur #02a:
Composition of the Torah according to Tanakh and Jewish Tradition

Part 1
A.

What is "Torah"?

In general, the books comprising the Tanakh may be divided

into two categories: those composed by an author whose identity is
known to us, and those composed by an author whose identity is not
explicitly stated. The first category includes, among others, some of
the Later Prophets, which are written in the first person, with the main
character talking about what happens to him and about his
prophecies. The second category includes the books that describe
events from the perspective of an anonymous narrator, without
disclosing his identity. This group includes, among others, the Five

Books of the Torah, which are written from an external perspective

rather than in the first person.
Surprising as it may sound, the Tanakh itself does not deal
directly with the question of who wrote the Five Books of the Torah,
nor does it describe the way in which they were written and conveyed
to the Jewish people. 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. This
week and next, however, we will undertake a (largely technical)
examination of what the word Torah means in the Bible.
I.

Torah in Chumash

The term "Torah, and even "Sefer Torah, appears many times
in Tanakh, but in most cases the plain meaning of the text is not
referring to the Five Books of the Torah. The word "Torah" actually
has multiple meanings in Tanakh, and only in some instances does
the word refer to a written text. It appears for the first time
in Shemot (12:49), and its meaning throughout this Sefer, as well as
in Vayikra andBamidbar, is a law, or collection of laws, on a specific
subject. We see this in verses such as the following:
"This is the law (torah) of the burnt offering, of the meal
offering, and of the sin offering, and of the guilt offering, and of
the consecration offering, and of the sacrifice of the peace
offering." (Vayikra 7:37)
"This is the law (torah) for every tzaraat, and for the patch"
(Vayikra 14:54)
"This is the law (torah) of jealousies: when a wife strays from
her husband, and is defiled." (Bamidbar 5:29)[1]
In other instances, the word Torah is a synonym for
commandments, statutes and judgments. [2]
II.

Torah in Sefer Devarim

By contrast to the preceding examples, in Sefer Devarim, the

word "Torah" refers to a text which, on the one hand, is clearly
extensive, but on the other is more closely defined and limited than
the way in which we use the term today.

A review of the appearances of the word shows that the

corpus referred to as "Torah" is, in fact, Moshe's main speech
in Sefer Devarim, which is conventionally known as "the speech of
the mitzvot. This speech, occupying chapters 5-26, is one
continuous, uninterrupted monologue containing an extensive list
ofmitzvot.
At the beginning of this speech we read,
"This is the Torah which Moshe placed before the Children of
Israel. These are the testimonies and the statutes and the
judgments which Moshe spoke to the Children of Israel when
they came out of Egypt." (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.[3]
At the end of the "speech of the mitzvot, 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."
(ibid. 27:3)
On the plain level of the text, this command, too, would seem to refer
to the writing of the "speech of themitzvot" i.e., the same "Torah"
that was just concluded.[4]
It is only in Sefer Devarim that we find, for the first time, any
mention that the "Torah" was also committed to writing in a book.
This book is mentioned for the first time in a very specific context,
concerning the king:
"And it shall be, when he sits upon the throne of his kingdom,
that he shall write for himself a copy of this Torah (mishneh hatorah ha-zot), in a book, from that which is before the Levite
priests." (ibid. 17:18)
The conventional explanation of the term "mishneh torah" is a copy of
the Torah (see Targum Onkelos and others), but from the verse itself
it is difficult to define what the term actually includes.
Towards the end of Sefer Devarim we are told explicitly:

"And Moshe wrote this Torah, and he gave it to the kohanim,

the sons of Levi." (ibid. 31:9)
What is included in this "Torah"? Rashi and Ramban explain that it
refers to the Five Books of the Torah, and this is also stated explicitly
at the beginning of Sifri Devarim (piska 1). However, this raises some
difficulties. First, we have already noted that in the previous units, the
word "Torah" refers specifically to the "speech of themitzvot, and not
to the entire Five Books. Second, 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. Moreover, two verses later we find the
command concerning the "hak'hel" ceremony, in which we are told,
"Moshe commanded them, saying: At the end of every seven
years, at the time of the Shemittayear, on the festival of
Sukkot you shall read this Torah before all of Israel, in their
hearing." (ibid. 10-11)
Chazal (Sota 7:8) agree that the command to read "this Torah" does
not refer to all Five Books of the Torah; rather, some major sections
from Sefer Devarim are read, as we shall see below. It seems
reasonable to suggest therefore, as does Abravanel in his
commentary on this verse, 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.
The conclusion to be drawn here is that the book which the
Torah records Moshe as having written did not include all Five
Books, but rather only the central portions of Sefer Devarim.
III.

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 stated, 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,' and'Shema' and 'Ve-haya im
shamo'a' (the second section of Shema), 'You shall surely
tithe,' 'When you finish tithing,' and the unit on the king, and the

blessings and curses, until the end of that entire unit."

(Sota 7:8)
Chazal maintain that the reading also included Moshe's first speech
(Devarim 1-4), as part of the "Torah, and this also squares with the
plain meaning of the text, since the first speech serves as a preface
to the main speech the "speech of the mitzvot.[5]
Chazal also maintained that the "Book of the Torah" included
the unit of the blessings and the curses; this assertion is based on
explicit references in the text. After the end of the "speech of
the mitzvot, at the end of chapter 26, we find, in chapter 28, the unit
on the blessings and the curses, which, in its concluding verse, 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,
aside from the covenant which He had forged with them at
Chorev." (28:69)
A few verses seem to indicate that the blessings and curses,
too, were written along with the "speech of the mitzvot" in the "Book
of the Torah. Inter alia, Moshe warns whoever worships idolatry:
"God will set him aside for evil, out of all the tribes of Israel,
according to all the curses of the covenant that are written in
this Book of the Torah." (ibid. 29:20)
Similarly, concerning Yehoshua we read:
"And thereafter he read all the words of the Torah the
blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in the
Book of the Torah." (Yehoshua8:34)[6]
Hence, the blessings and curses were also included in the Book of
the Torah, as part of the covenant that entails the observance of the
"Torah" which appears in the "speech of the mitzvot.
In between the end of the "speech of the mitzvot" and chapter
28 with its blessings and curses, we find chapter 27, which includes
the commands to build an altar on Mount Eval and to write the words
of the Torah upon the stones. It would seem that this chapter, too, is
included in the Book of the Torah that was written by Moshe, as
described in Yehoshua (8:30-31):

"Then Yehoshua built an altar to the Lord God of Israel, on

Mount Eval, as Moshe, the servant of God, had commanded
the Children of Israel, as it is written in the Book of the Torah of
Moshe an altar of whole stones over which no iron had been
lifted."
This verse represents an almost verbatim repetition ofDevarim 27:45:
"And it shall be, when you have passed over the Jordan, you shall
set up these stones which I command you this day, on Mount
Eval and you shall build there an altar to the Lord your God, an
altar of stones over which no iron has been lifted."
In light of this we may conclude that the Book which Moshe wrote
included at least chapters 5-28 of Sefer Devarim, and perhaps also
chapters 1-4.
IV.

The Book of the Torah in Tanakh

It is interesting to note that with regard to the famous command

in Yehoshua (1:8),
"This Book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth, and
you shall meditate over it day and night,
the midrash comments:
"Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai said: The Book of themishneh
torah[7] was a banner for Yehoshua. When the Holy One,
blessed be He, appeared to him, He found him sitting with the
Book ofmishneh torah in his hand. He said to him, 'Be strong,
Yehoshua; be of good courage, Yehoshua: This Book of the
Torah shall not depart'" (Bereishit Rabba 6:9; TheodorAlbeck edition, pp. 49-50)
According to Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai,[8] the expression "Book of
the Torah" at least in Sefer Yehoshua indeed refers to Sefer
Devarim, rather than the whole of Chumash.
Aside from the verse we have already examined, concerning
the construction of the altar on Mount Eval, in Sefer Yehoshua, the
expression "the Torah of Moshe" also appears elsewhere in Tanakh.

In most instances it is meant as a general expression for observance

of the commandments, and we may therefore assume that it refers to
the same "Book" that we have discussed above.[9] In some cases, the
reference is to a specific subject, and as we have seen in the
example from Sefer Yehoshua, in the other instances too it is verses
fromSefer Devarim that are concerned. Concerning King Amatzia,
the text tells us:
"But he did not put to death the children of the murderers [of
his father, King Yoash], according to that which is written in the
Book of the Torah of Moshe, whereby God commanded,
saying: Fathers shall not be put to death for children, nor shall
children be put to death for fathers; rather, each shall be put to
death for his own sin." (IIMelakhim 14:6)
Here, too, 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, nor shall children
be put to death for fathers; each shall be put to death for his
own sin." (Devarim24:17)
In Sefer Daniel (9:11), we find mention of "the curse and the
oath which is written in the Torah of Moshe, the reference being to
the unit on the blessings and the curses, as noted above.
In Sefer Melakhim we read of the discovery of a Book of the
Torah in the days of Yoshiyahu:
"And Chilkiyahu, the Kohen Gadol, said to Shafan, the scribe: I
have found a Book of the Torah in the house of God."
(II Melakhim 22:8)
Here, too, it seems most likely that reference is to Sefer Devarim, as
suggested in the commentary attributed to Rashi[10] on Divrei Hayamim (II Divrei Ha-yamim34:14).[11]
In this shiur, we have seen therefore that the word Torah has
multiple meanings. Throughout much of Chumash, it refers to various
statutes or laws, whereas in Sefer Devarim, and at various points
throughout Tanakh, the plain reading of the text appears to refer to
large portions of Sefer Devarim written by Moshe.
(To be continued)

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. The Mishna in Sota (7:1) states that the entire
Torah was written on them i.e., the entire Five Books, and since the verse
also adds "very clearly" (ba'er hetev, 27:8), we conclude that it was also
written in seventy languages.
However, the Mekhilta Devarim also cites the view of R. Shimon ben
Yochai, which sits better with the plain meaning of the text: "They only wrote
the repetition (or copy mishneh) of the Torah by Moshe."[12] This approach is
based on the verse describing the fulfillment of the command, in the days of
Yehoshua: "And he wrote there upon the stones the repetition (or copy) of the
Torah of Moshe, which he wrote in the presence of the Children of Israel"
(Yehoshua 8:32). 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, but also with the
assertion that the Torah was written in its entirety; he maintains that
only Sefer Devarim was written on the stones.
The Mekhilta also cites a third opinion, which limits the inscription on
the stones even further, to include only those texts pertaining to the other
nations, such as the unit, "When you besiege a city for a long time, to wage
war against it" (Devarim 20:19).
The commentators raise other possibilities. Ibn Ezra writes, in the
name of Rav Sa'adia Gaon, that the inscription includes only a list of the
commandments in brief. He seems to posit this in order to explain how it
would have been possible, in a natural manner, to write "all the words of this
Torah" upon stones. Radak comments, in his commentary on Yehoshua ad
loc., "And this is well said, 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."

Ralbag, on the other hand, takes the view that the text
inscribed on the stones is just the unit of the blessings and curses.
(See also his rejection of the possibility that it was only the Ten
Commandments that were written; this idea had been raised by
Rabbi Yosef ibn Kaspi, in his commentary Mishneh Kesef.) For
extensive discussion of the entire subject, see M. Bar Ilan, "Ha-Torah
ha-Ketuva al ha-Avanim be-Har Eval," in Z.H. Ehrlich and Y. Eshel
(eds.), Mechkerei Yehuda ve-Shomron 2, Kedumim-Ariel, 5753, pp.
29-42.

[1]

There is one verse in these books that seems to be an exception: "God said to Moshe:
Come up to Me, to the mountain, and be there, and I shall give you the tablets of stone, and
the Torah, and the commandments which I have written, [for you] to teach them"
(Shemot 24:12). Here it seems that the word "Torah" refers to something broader than a
specific collection of laws, and also that it refers to a written corpus. However, the
commentators note that the reference cannot be to such a written corpus, for "God did not
write the Torah; rather, Moshe wrote it, at God's word" (Ibn Ezra). Therefore, they (Ibn Ezra,
Rashbam, Ramban and others) conclude that the word "katavti" (I have written) refers only to
the two tablets. Ramban interprets the word "Torah" as a general term, referring to different
teachings, just as the word "mitzva" refers to various commandments, 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). We might also cite the verse, "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).
It should be noted that, according to Ibn Ezra, the word "Torah" here refers to the first and
fifth of the Ten Commandments.
In any event, once we examine the verse it seems clear that it cannot be referring to the Five
Books of the Torah, nor to any other written corpus.
[2]
See Bereishit 26:5; Shemot 16:28; Yirmiyahu 44:10, and elsewhere.
[3]
As Rashi comments, "'And this is the Torah' that which he is going to set forth after this
unit."
[4]
Regarding what was written on the stones, see the appendix to this shiur.
[5]
The main purpose of Moshe's first speech is to arrive at the conclusion that one must obey
God and fulfill His commandments. In chapter 1, Moshe reviews the failures of the first
generation, which did not enter the land because they rebelled against God. In chapters 2-3
he describes the second generation, which did obey God. The conclusion to be drawn from
this brief historical review is summed up nicely in the concluding chapter of the speech: "And
now, Israel, 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). Once this conclusion has been established, it is possible to go on to
teach Bnei Yisrael the statutes and the judgments, as Moshe indeed goes on to do in the
"speech of the mitzvot." In light of this, I raise the possibility that the "Book of the Torah" did
indeed include the opening chapters, which serve as an introduction to the main speech.
[6]
There are additional verses which mention the blessings and curses as being included in
the Book of the Torah:
"Also every sickness, and every plague which is not written in this Book of the Torah,
will God bring upon you, until you are destroyed" (Devarim 28:61);
"God will not spare him, but then the anger of God and His jealousy shall smoke
against that man, and all the curses that are written in this Book will lie upon him"
(ibid. 29:19);
"And God's anger burned against that land, to bring upon it all the curses that are
written in this Book" (ibid. 26).
[7]
I.e., Sefer Devarim, which Chazal refer to in many places as "mishneh torah."
[8]
Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai is consistent with his own view, discussed in the appendix to
this shiur, in that with regard to the writing of the Torah upon the stones, too, he explains that
what was written was only the "mishneh torah."
[9]
Examples of such verses include Yehoshua 23:6; I Melakhim 2:3; II Melakhim 23:25.
[10]
As is well known, the commentary that appears as Rashi onDivrei Ha-yamim was not
written by him. For extensive discussion of this commentary, which was written in Germany in
th
the 12 century, see A. Weisel, Ha-Perush ha-Meyuchas le-Rashi le-Sefer Divrei Hayamim, Jerusalem 5770.
[11]
I shall address the matter at length in the third section, as part of the discussion of the
writing of Sefer Devarim.

[12]

See S.Z. Schechter, "Mekhilta li-Devarim Parashat Re'eh," in M. Brannan and Y.M.
Elbagen (eds.), Tiferet Yisrael Sefer ha-Yovel Likhvod R. Yisrael Levi, Jerusalem 5732, pp.
189-192.

Shiur #02b:
Composition of the Torah according to Tanakh and Jewish Tradition
Part 2

B.

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, there is no way of
knowing how, when, and by whom the Five Books of the Torah were
committed to writing and transmitted to the Jewish People. However,
in the later books the picture changes somewhat, and we find explicit
mention of the existence of a "Book of the Torah" that is more
extensive than just Devarim. For instance, in the Nechemia we read:
"All the people gathered themselves together as one man to the broad place that was
before the water gate, and they spoke to Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the
Torah of Moshe, which God had commanded to Israel. And Ezra thekohen brought
the Torah before the congregation, both men and women, and all who could hear
with understanding, on the first day of the seventh month. And he read from it in front
of the broad place And they read from the Book of God's Torah, distinctly; and
they gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading And on the
second day the heads of fathers' houses of all the people, the kohanim, and
the leviim, were gathered to Ezra the scribe, to study the words of the Torah. And
they found it written in the Torah which God had commanded by the hand of
Moshe, thatBnei Yisrael should dwell in sukkot during the festival of the seventh
month; and that they should publish and proclaim in all their cities, and in Jerusalem,
saying: 'Go forth to the mountain, and fetch olive branches, and branches of wild
olive, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of thick trees, to
make sukkot, as it is written.' And he read from the Book of God's Torah day by
day, from the first day until the last day; and they observed the festival for seven
days, with a convocation on the eighth day, as prescribed." (Nechemia 8:1-18)
In these verses Ezra reads verses about the festival of Sukkot from the "Book of the
Torah of Moshe," which is also called "the Book of God's Torah." Here we cannot posit that
the "Book of the Torah" refers to solely to Devarim, 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, the observance of the festival in the seventh month, the
observance of the eighth day as a "convocation" (atzeret), or even the bringing of species. All
[1]
of these details do, however, appear in Vayikra (23:33-43). Hence, the Book of the Torah
that was read in the days of Ezra included at least Vayikra, and it is defined as the Book of
[2]
Moshe.
We find a similar phenomenon in Divrei Ha-yamim, 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, according to the Torah of
Moshe, the man of God; the kohanim sprinkled the blood, which they received from
the hand of the leviim." (Divrei Ha-yamim II 30:15-16)

It would therefore appear that extensive portions of the Five Books of the Torah were
defined as part of the "Torah of Moshe." This Torah is clearly identified with "God's Torah"
later in Nechemia, when the Jewish people commits, at the ceremony of the covenant, "to
follow God's Torah, which was given by the hand of Moshe, God's servant"
(Nechemia 10:30).
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. At the same time, an analysis
of the books of the Prophets and Writings does strongly suggest that they relate to all five
Books of the Torah. This is clearly apparent in two phenomena: first, those instances in which
these Books refer to verses in the Torah, whether openly or through allusion; and second, in
the many chapters whose literary structure is built on stories from the Torah and which serve
as literary parallels to them. Both phenomena are extensive in scope; we shall suffice with
just a few examples of each.
1. 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. For example,
Rachav's words to Yehoshua's spies
"I know that God has given you the land, 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; dread and fear shall fall upon them"
(Shemot 15:15-16).
The reproach of God's angel, at the beginning of Shoftim
"I raised you up from Egypt and brought you to the land which I promised to your
forefathers, and I said, I will never break My covenant with you. And you shall not
make a covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall pull down their altars
for they shall be as snares to you, 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, lest it be as a snare in your midst. But you shall pull down their altars
and break their images..." (Shemot 34:12-13).
The description of God's glory filling the Temple
"And it was, when the kohanim came out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the
House of God, so that the kohanimcould not stand to minister, because of the cloud,
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, and God's glory filled the Mishkan. And
Moshe could not come into the Tent of Meeting, for the cloud rested upon it, and
God's glory filled the Mishkan" (Shemot 40:34-35).
When Yirmiyahu mourns,
"I saw the earth - and behold, it was void and waste; and the heavens and they had
no light" (Yirmiayhu 4:23),

as part of his description of the destruction, he is unquestionably hinting at the descriptions of

the Creation, including,
"The earth was void and waster, with darkness upon the face of the deep"
[4]
(Bereishit 1:2).
There are many other such examples.
2. Literary Parallels in Nakh to Passages in the Torah
Let us now turn our attention to the second phenomenon. In the last generation,
[5]
much attention has been devoted to the literary parallels in Tanakh. For our present
purposes, of special importance is the discussion of parallels between the Books of the
Prophets and Writings and the Books of the Torah. In many dozens of instances, we find
clear connections between the Books in terms of both content and language. Here, too, we
shall suffice with a small number of examples.
The stories of Yehoshua recall the stories of Moshe, in many aspects. (For example,
the sending of spies [Bamidbar 13; Yehoshua2]; the revelation in Jericho [Yehoshua 5:15]
and the revelation at the burning bush [Shemot 3:5]; 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]; the story of Elkana, Chana and Penina [Shmuel I 1] with its
obvious connection to the story of Yaakov, Rachel and Leah [Bereishit 30]; Eliyahu at Chorev
[Melakhim I 19] and the parallel that it creates between him and Moshe; and many more
examples that prove a clear connection between the stories in the Prophets and Writings, and
stories in the Torah. In the great majority of cases, we are able to understand the significance
of the parallel and the literary benefit in writing the stories in this way, so as to emphasize the
messages that the Tanakh is seeking to convey.
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. Let us examine two examples.
1. There is an extensive parallel between the story of David's marriage to Michal and
[6]
the story of Yaakov's marriage to Rachel. In terms of content, the two narratives
contain many common elements: in both cases there is a father-in-law who violates
his commitment to the groom; the father-in-law has two daughters; and the groom
ultimately pays double. The groom in each case flees from the father-in-law, with the
help of father-in-law's daughters. In addition, in the story of David's marriage to
Michal, we find an expression that is difficult to understand: " the matter pleased
David well to be the king's son-in-law; 've-lo mal'u ha-yamim' and the days were
not yet complete" (Shmuel I 18:26). The commentators offer different possibilities for
[7]
interpretation, 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, where
Yaakov uses the same phrase in his words to Lavan: "Give me my wife, "ki mal'u
yamay" for my days are complete that I may come to her" (Bereishit 29:21). This
expression presents no difficulty in the story of Yaakov, since there a specific period
of time is mentioned. It would therefore seem most likely that the author
of Shmuel makes use of this expression, familiar to himself and to the readers,
from Bereishit.
2. There is also an extensive parallel between the story of Ruth and Boaz, and the story
[8]
of Yehuda and Tamar. The deaths of Machlon and Khilyon parallel the deaths of
Er and Onan; the kinsman declines to marry Ruth, just as Onan had avoided giving
seed to his brother; both Ruth and Tamar undertake some activity at their own
initiative in order to reach the patriarch of the family, who ultimately fathers their
child, etc. Megillat Ruth makes explicit mention of the story of Yehuda and Tamar, in
the blessing that is given to Boaz: "May your house be like the house of Peretz,
whom Tamar bore to Yehuda" (Ruth 4:12). In terms of language, there is prominent

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 Moshes role in the writing of the Torah

A further question that must be addressed is whether Moshe

was involved in determining the wording of the Torah, or whether all
its verses were dictated by God. Here, too, the text itself offers no
explicit information. The midrashim take two main directions in this
regard. On the one hand, there is the midrash that we have already
cited:
"This teaches that Moshe wrote down whatever the Holy One,
blessed be He, told him to write, as it is written, 'And Barukh
said to them, He dictated all these words to me'
(Yirmiyahu 36:18)" (Sifri Devarim, piska 357)
According to this view, God dictated the Torah to Moshe, word
for word. Ramban adopts this view, writing in his introduction
to Bereishit:
"Thus Moshe was like a scribe copying an ancient text, and
therefore he did the writing, but it is true and clear that the
entire Torah, from the beginning of Bereishit to 'in the eyes of
all Israel' [i.e., the end of Devarim] was uttered by the Holy
One, blessed be He, to Moshe, in the same way that we find,
'He dictated all these words to me, and I wrote them with ink in
the book' (Yirmiyahu36:18)."[1]
However, in other midrashim, and among the medieval sages,
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. In Shemot Rabba we read:
"An alternative explanation for the words, 'Write for yourself'
(Shemot 34:27): The ministering angels said to the Holy One,
blessed be He: You are giving license to Moshe to write
whatever he wishes; he might say to Israel, 'I gave you the
Torah I am the one who wrote it and gave it to you!' The Holy
One, blessed be He, told them: Heaven forefend that Moshe
would do that, and even if he did, he is trusted, as it is written,
'Not so My servant, Moshe; in all of My house He is trusted'
(Bamidbar 12:7)." (Shemot Rabba, Vilna edition, Ki Tisa 47, 9)
According to this midrash, God did not necessarily dictate the
Torah explicitly to Moshe, but rather trusted Moshe to write in
accordance with His will:

"Even if Moshe would write something in the Torah on his own

initiative, it would not be, heaven forefend, with the intention of
being able to say that he himself had written and initiated that
element; rather, he is 'trusted in all the house' of Torah, and to
him I have handed over all the principles and ways of the
Torah." (Commentary of Rabbi Ze'ev Wolf Einhorn)[2]
We conclude, therefore, that according to thismidrash, Moshe
did indeed write the Torah in accordance with his own understanding,
with God's approval, and with the assumption that God relied upon
his abilities to write the Torah as it should be written.
It
should
be
noted,
however,
that
the Mishna inSanhedrin (10:1) lists, among those who have no share
in the World to Come, one who says, "The Torah is not Divine in
origin." The Gemara provides eight different teachings concerning
this statement. I shall cite two of them, which relate to the writing of
the Torah:
"Our Sages taught: 'For he has despised God's word and has
violated His commandments; that soul shall utterly be cut off'
This refers to one who says, 'The Torah is not Divine.'
Another opinion says: 'For he has despised God's word' this
refers to one who says that the Torah is not Divine, and even
one who says: 'The entire Torah is Divine, except for this verse
which was not said by God, but rather Moshe said it himself'
this is 'for he has despised God's word.' And even if he says,
'The entire Torah is Divine, except for this detail, this kal vachomer, this gezera shava (i.e., Torah laws that are deduced
by means of the hermeneutical rules)' this is 'for he has
despised God's word.'" (Sanhedrin 99a)
These two opinions reflect very different positions. According to
the first view, which accords with the plain meaning of the mishna,
the punishment stated in the verse refers only to someone who
denies altogether that the Torah was conveyed by God toIsrael.
According to the 'other opinion,' the scope of the required belief in the
Torahs divinity is far more extensive and excludes even someone
who maintains that a single verse was uttered by Moshe on his own,
and not from God's mouth; it even excludes someone who denies the
Divine origin of the lessons derived through the hermeneutical laws,
within the framework of the Oral Law.

The second view, established as one of the Rambam's

Thirteen Principles of Faith,[3] appears at first glance to contradict the
view in Shemot Rabbaquoted above. However, this is not necessarily
the case. 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; however,
this does not have to rule out the possibility that God gave Moshe
license to write the Torah in his own words, and that Moshe did not
deviate from the framework of the license given to him.
II.

Moshes role in the view of Rashbam, R. Yosef Bechor

Shor, and R. Yehuda he-Chassid

In any event, several medieval sages of northernFrance held

the view that Moshe had God's permission to formulate the text, as I
shall now demonstrate.
Rashbam, the grandson of Rashi, offers a unique view, arguing
that many units or verses in the Torah were written not for their own
sake, but rather as a preface or background to units that appear later
on in the Torah. The point relevant to our discussion is that Rashbam
often seems to suggest that these antecedents were written by
Moshe, in order to clarify certain points later on in the Torah. For
instance, 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, to explain what God says later, at the time
of the giving of the Torah: 'Remember the Shabbat day, to
sanctify it for [over] six days God made the heavens and the
earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and He rested on the
seventh day' (Shemot 20:8-11). And this is the meaning of the
verse, 'And it was evening and it was morning, the sixth day'
(Bereishit 1:31) that sixth day, which was the conclusion of
the six days of which God spoke at the giving of the Torah.
Therefore Moshe told this to Israel, 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, full of all kinds of
goodness? It was not so; rather, 'In the beginning, God
created...'" (Rashbam, Bereishit1:1)
Elsewhere, Rashbam explains why the Torah records the
stories of Yosef and his brothers:

"All of this was necessary for Moshe to write, for by means of

this he rebuked them 'As seventy souls your forefathers went
down' (Devarim10:22)." (Rashbam, Bereishit 37:2)[4]
A similar approach is also adopted by Rabbi Yosef Bekhor
Shor in his commentary on the Torah. For example, the
commentators discuss Yaakov's instructions to the messengers who
carry his gift to Esav:
[5]

"And you shall say moreover, Behold, your servant, Yaakov, is

behind us for he said, I shall appease him with the gift that
goes before me, and afterwards I shall see his face; perhaps
he will accept me." (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;
perhaps he will accept me" as not being included in the message
that the messengers should recite before Esav, but rather a narration
of what Yaakov is thinking in his own mind. Ibn Ezra, for example,
writes: "'For he said' [this refers to] Yaakov, in his heart; and this is
what Moshe writes." Rabbi Yosef Bekhor Shor adopts the same view,
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,
if his intentions had been evil; but the shepherds did not say
this [to Esav]."
There are other background comments occurring as part of the
Torah narrative concerning which R. Yosef Bekhor Shor explains
using the same approach. For instance, with regard to the verse,
"Yaakov set up a pillar upon her grave; that is the pillar of Rachel's
grave to this day" (Bereishit 35:20), he writes:
"So says the author of the book (ba'al ha-sefer) - that that is the
pillar of Rachel's grave, which still existed until his day."[6]
Another commentator who follows this approach is Rabbi
Yehuda he-Chasid.[7] He maintains, for example, that the final chapter
of the Torah, describing how Moshe saw the entire land, actually
preceded chronologically the writing of the section setting forth
the boundaries of the land at the end of Bamidbar(chapter 34). Were

this not so, he argues, Moshe would not have been able to describe
the land in such detail:
"And God showed him the entire land' (Devarim34:1), and this
was prior to the end of parashat Mas'ei, where it says, 'And
the border shall go down to Zifron,'[8] and likewise concerning
all [the borders], for how could Moshe had written all this if he
had not seen it all from Har ha-Avarim, Mount Nevo? For the
Torah does not follow chronological order." (Commentary of
Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid, 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; hence, the conclusion is that God did not dictate
this to him. Elsewhere in the commentary of R. 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. In his view, the verse, "You shall dwell
in sukkotfor seven days, every citizen in Israel shall dwell insukkot"
(Vayikra 23:42), was written in the first year after the Exodus. The
explanation for this command, which appears in the following verse,
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", and Rav Yehuda he-Chasid suggests that this explanation
was added by Moshe in the fortieth year, and refers to the sukkot in
which the Children of Israel dwelled on the plains of Moav, during the
conquest of the land:
"This verse was uttered in the fortieth year, when they were
encamped on the plains of Moav, and dwelled in sukkot, and
were conquering territories.[9] God had commanded it in the
wilderness of Sinai, 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, and to conquer territory for you."
(Perush Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid, Vayikra 23:43)[10]
III.

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. Rabbi Tuvia ben
Eliezer, compiler of the Midrash Lekach Tov (also known as Pesikta
Zutreta),[11] in addressing the story of the Creation, explains why on

the sixth day the Torah says, "the sixth day" (Bereishit 1:31), using
the definite article, in contrast to the other days ("a fifth day," "a fourth
day," etc.):
"Another explanation: 'The sixth day' when the Holy One,
blessed be He, gave the Torah to Moshe at Mount Sinai, He
recounted to him the entire act of Creation, from beginning to
end. When the Holy One, blessed be He, said, 'Remember the
Shabbat day, to sanctify it, for in six days God made the
heavens and the earth and He rested on the seventh day'
(Shemot 20:8-11), and Moshe arranged the entire work of
Creation in a book, and wrote 'the sixth day,' the day upon
which there was an end to the labor of the world. Likewise he
says, 'And it shall be on the sixth day that they shall prepare
that which they will bring in' (Shemot 16:5). Therefore he said
'the sixth day' here too in other words, the sixth day of
activity." (Lekach Tov Bereishit 1, 31, Buber edition, p. 16)
According to the Midrash Lekach Tov, God "recounted" to
Moshe all of Creation, and Moshe "arranged" it all in a book, and it
was he who decided on the expression, "the sixth day." This view
conforms with the introduction of the midrash to the Torah:
"Moshe wrote, with Divine inspiration, the creation of the world,
in accordance with all that is written in the book of the Torah of
Moshe, the man of God, from God's mouth, so as to make His
might known to His nation, Israel." (Buber edition, 70a-b)
Moshe heard the story from God, but he was the one who
wrote it down, with his Divine inspiration and in his own words.[12] In
light of this we can also understand the midrashic comment on the
verse,
"And what is the land is it fat or lean; 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." (Bamidbar13:20)
Here, too, we can ask where Moshe's words to the spies end. It
is fairly clear that the final words of the verse, are not part of his
message to them, and this represents Rashbam's understanding of
the verse. TheMidrash Lekach Tov states this slightly differently.
Concerning the comment at the end of the verse, he writes:

"This is a note by the editor (ha-sadran), to speak the praises

of the Land of Israel." (Lekach Tov,Bamidbar 13, p. 210)
This term ha-sadran is used in the midrash to refer to the writer,
or compiler, of the Torah in other places, too.[13]
The same idea also arises in the work of Rabbi Menachem ben
Shlomo, compiler of the Yalkut Sekhel Tov.[14] In five different places
in his commentary,[15]he too mentions the "sadran," in contexts that
are similar in nature to the instances treated in Midrash Lekach Tov.
For instance, concerning the verse, "And Yosef made it a law over
the land of Egypt, to this day, that a fifth part goes to Pharaoh"
(Bereishit 47:26), Midrash Sekhel Tov writes: "'To this day' this is a
comment by the sadran" (Buber edition, p. 298).[16]
Thus, we have seen that there are two main approaches to
understanding the way in which Moshe wrote the Torah. According to
one approach, exemplified by certain midrashim and the Ramban,
God dictated the Torah to Moshe, word for word, and Moshe served
merely as a scribe, having no influence on a single word in the Torah.
The other approach appears in the works of medieval Ashkenazi
commentators such as Rashbam, R. Yosef Bechor Shor and R.
Yehuda he-Chassid, as well collections of midrashim such asLekach
Tov and Sekhel Tov. It can be summarized in a general way as
follows: God conveyed the contents of the Torah, and authorized
Moshe to formulate at least some of the text in his own style, or to
arrange the materials as he saw fit.
E.

Summary

In the last few shiurim we have seen that theTanakh does not
state clearly and explicitly how, and by whom, the Five Books of the
Torah were written. There are references to "Torah" in its narrow
sense, including central portions of Devarim, which Moshe was
explicitly commanded to write. The tradition of Chazal maintains
unequivocally that it was Moshe who wrote all five books, and this
tradition is based on explicit verses inNechemia. In the books of the
Prophets, too, we see extensive use made of the language of the
Torah and its content.
Among Chazal there are different opinions as to how exactly
the Torah came to be written. Among other approaches, 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.e., that the Torah comprises

various parts that were written at different times, some perhaps even
before Moshe's time (such as Bereishit), and it was only at the end
that Moshe joined them all into a single book. Likewise, 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, word
for word, from beginning to end. The other view suggests that Moshe
was given the role of editing/collating, or perhaps even formulating in
his own words, the content he had received from God.
Translated by Kaeren Fish
Appendix Rav Yehuda HeChasid and his commentary to the Torah
Rabbi Yehuda son of Shmuel he-Chasid, of Speyer, was born
around the year 1140 and died in 1217. 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, with its members adopting a
life of asceticism and self-mortification. The students of Rabbi
Yehuda he-Chasid included some of the most important sages of
Ashkenaz, such as Rabbi Yitzchak, author of the Or Zaru'a, and
Rabbi Moshe of Coucy, author of the Sefer ha-Mitzvot haGadol (Semag). Rabbi Yehuda's best known work is Sefer
Chassidim, which includes moral teachings, matters of halakha and
customs, explanations of prayers, and various commentaries. He is
also known for his work Tzva'at Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid, which
includes ten "legacies" and practices, some of which are highly
unusual.
Some fifty years ago, a book entitled Perushei ha-Torah leRabbi Yehuda he-Chasid was published in Jerusalem by Yitzchak
Shimshon Lange, based on two manuscripts as well as various
commentaries which appeared in other books and were attributed to
Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid. The commentary was written by Rabbi
Yehuda's son, Rabbi Moshe Zaltman, who found some of the
material among his father's writings, heard other parts directly from
his father, and gathered additional material from others who
conveyed teachings in his father's name. The book gave rise to
extensive debate, which we will discuss in the next section.

[1]

On the question of whether the Torah was dictated to Moshe orally or whether he copied it
from an "ancient book, see Heschel, Torah Min ha-Shamayim be-Aspaklaria shel ha-Dorot,
pp. 344-347.
[2]
th
One of the greatest of the commentators on the midrash; Vilna, 19 century.
[3]
See Rambam's Commentary on the Mishna, Introduction to chapter Chelek in
Tractate Sanhedrin; Mishneh Torah, Laws of Repentance 3:8.
[4]
For more on this subject see A. Touitou, Ha-Peshatot ha-Mitchadshim Bechol Yom
Iyyunim be-Perusho shel Rashbam la-Torah, Jerusalem 5763, pp. 120-122. Touitou expands
on Rashbam's approach and posits that the entire narrative aspect of the Torah, along
with Devarim, were written by Moshe, of his own accord, while only the halakhic aspects,
including the commandments, were written by Moshe at God's command. The justification for
this expansion is not sufficiently proven, as noted by M. Sabbato, "Perush Rashbam laTorah, Machanayim 3, 5753, pp. 116-117, and A. Kislev, "Va-Ani Lefaresh Peshutan shel
Mikraot Bati,Shenaton le-Cheker ha-Mikra ve-ha-Mizrach ha-Kadum 15 (5765), p. 321.
[5]
Rabbi Yosef Bekhor Shor, a disciple of Rabbeinu Tam, was one of the Tosafists in
th
12 century France. He wrote a commentary on the Torah (a critical edition edited by Y. Nevo
was published by Mossad ha-Rav Kook, Jerusalem, 5754) and on Tehillim, as well
aspiyutim (liturgical poems) and commentaries on the Talmud (see E.E. Urbach, Ba'alei haTosafot, vol. 1, Jerusalem 5714, pp. 132-140).
[6]
For more on Rabbi Yosef Bekhor Shor's approach, see R. Harris, "Muda'ut le-Arikhat haMikra Etzel Parshanei Tzefon Tzarfat,Shenaton le-Cheker ha-Mikra ve-ha-Mizrach haKadum 12, pp. 302-305.
[7]
See the Appendix to this shiur for information on Rav Yehuda he-Chasid and his Torah
commentary.
[8]
Bamidbar 34:9; the Masoretic text reads, "And the border shall emerge (va-yetzei hagevul) to Zifron.
[9]
Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid's argument that dwelling insukkot is related to war,
arises from the fact that in various places "sukkot" appear in the description of preparations
for war. For example, in the words of Uriya ha-Chiti: "The Ark, and Israel and Yehuda, dwell
in sukkot, and my lord Yoav, and my masters servants, are encamped in the field" (Shmuel II
11:11); or in the war that Achav wages against Aram, where we read of Ben Hadad: "And he
was drinking he and the nobles in sukkot, and he said to his servants, 'Set yourselves in
array' and they set themselves in array against the city" (Melakhim I 20:12).
[10]
For additional places where Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid follows this approach, see G. Brin,
"Kavim le-Perush ha-Torah shel Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid, in: Te'udah 3 Mechkarim beSifrut ha-Talmud, be-Lashon Chazal, u-ve-Parshanut ha-Mikra, Tel Aviv 5743, pp. 221-223.
[11]
th
This midrash was compiled in the 11 century, apparently in Greece. Concerning the
midrash (and the source of the name "Pesikta Zutreta, which seems to have been based on
an error), see A. Raisel, Mavo la-Midrashim, Alon Shevut 5771, pp. 370-377.
[12]
It seems that this is how we should understand the midrashic teaching concerning God's
words to Moshe: "Come to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his
servants, in order that I may set for these signs of Mine in his midst. And in order that you will
tell it in the hearing of your children and your children's children, that which I performed in
Egypt" (Shemot 10:1-2). According to the midrash, 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, in order
that he would tell it in the Torah, to make it known to future generations." Here, too, we get
the impression that God dictates the content to Moshe, but leaves the wording to his own
judgment.
[13]
The midrash notes that when Yaakov's sons report Yosef's words to them, they claim that
he told them, "And bring your youngest brother to me, that I may know that you are not spies,
but that you are honest men; I shall deliver your brother to you, and you shall conduct
commerce (tischaru) in the land" (Bereishit 42:34). In the Torah's account of the actual
exchange, there was no mention of commerce at the end (ibid., 16). Midrash Lekach
Tov explains this as follows: "The sadran was sparing with words, for the Torah did not
previously report [that Yosef said], 'and you shall conduct commerce in the land'; yet they
reported to their father [that Yosef had said], 'and you shall conduct commerce in the land'"
(Buber edition, p. 105b-106a). For more on the matter of the "sadran" in this midrash, see: G.
Brin, "Ha-Sadran ve-ha-Mesader, Leshonenu 66, 5765, p. 341-346.
[14]
This midrash was compiled in 1139, apparently in Italy. For more on Midrash Sekhel
Tov see A. Raisel (above, n. 11), pp. 378-382.

[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 Moshes 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 Ezras 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

Yehoshua or one of the other prophets. And since we must

believe in the tradition and in the words of the prophecies, what
does it matter whether [this word] was written by Moshe or by
some other prophet, since the words of all of them were truth,
and all were spoken through prophecy"[5]
According to this interpretation, Ibn Ezra maintained that
throughout the Torah there are verses which, like the final verses
of Devarim, were written after Moshe's death, either by Yehoshua or
by one of the other prophets. Rabbi Yosef ben Eliezer explains that
this in no way contradicts our faith, since the entire text was written
through prophecy, and it therefore makes no difference whether a
certain verse was written by Moshe or by a different prophet.[6]
This also helps us to understand the other examples cited by
Ibn Ezra, such as the verse at the end of the story of the binding of
Yitzchak, "And Avraham called the name of that place 'ha-Shem
yir'eh,'concerning which it is said today, 'in the mountain God will be
seen'" (Bereishit 22:14). From the use of the word today, the end of
the verse would seem to refer to a later time, when the place had
already been chosen for the Temple, and was thus called Gods
mountain. Thus, Ibn Ezra appears to view this verse, too, as a later
addition, introduced at a time when the Temple already existed.[7]
Ibn Ezra also mentions the verse,
"For only Og, king of the Bashan, remained from the rest of the
Refa'im; behold, his bed is a bed of iron; is it not in Rabba, of
the children of Amon? Nine cubits is its length, and four cubits
is its width, according to the cubit of a man." (Devarim3:11)
This, too, seems to have been written long after the death of Og; all
that remains, at the time of writing, as testimony to his tremendous
size is his bed.
Finally, Ibn Ezra introduces his far-reaching idea at the
beginning of Devarim, in relation to the verse,
"These are the words that Moshe spoke to all ofIsrael on the
other side of the Jordan, in the wilderness, in the Arava, facing
Suf, between Paran and Tofel and Lavan and Chatzerot and Di
Zahav." (Devarim 1:1)

What appears to disturb Ibn Ezra is the expression "on the

other side of the Jordan" (be-ever ha-yarden), which refers here
and throughout Devarim to the eastern side of the Jordan River.
Since the Children of Israel are still located in that area at the
opening of Devarim, there is surely no need to describe it as the
other side? Ibn Ezras solution is to see the phrase as the later
addition by a prophet who is positioned on the western side of
the Jordan.[8]
It would seem, therefore, that according to the Ibn Ezra, the
Torah was not given as a fixed text with no possibility of future
additions. Even after the Torah was completed by Moshe, it was still
open to some limited degree, and in instances where it was of great
importance to add certain comments into the text, as clarification or
to add depth of meaning, the prophets were not prevented from
introducing them.
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.[9] His views are the best known on the
subject, but the same idea was given explicit expression in Germany,
too surprisingly enough, by Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid.[10] In his
commentary on the Torah, R. Yehuda he-Chasid notes in several
places that certain verses were added into the Torah at a later stage;
however, in contrast to Ibn Ezra, he raises the possibility that these
verses were introduced by the Men of the Great
Assembly![11] According to this view, the authority to add verses of
clarification to the Torah was extended not only to the prophets, who
were able to receive prophecy from God, but also to leaders of the
nation who lived after the period of prophecy had ended, and who
acted on their own Divinely-inspired initiative.
We shall examine three such instances in the coming shiur.

Translated by Kaeren Fish

[1]

I.e., God dictated the whole Torah to Moshe, just as Yirmiyahu dictated his own work to
Barukh. We have seen in previous shiurimthat the image of Barukhs transcribing of
Yirmiyahus 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.
[2]
The second view invites further discussion. The plain meaning would seem to suggest that
according to this view, the unit on the cities of refuge, as it appears in the Torah

(Bamidbar 35:9-34 orDevarim 19:1-13), was written by Yehoshua. The Gemara does not go
on to adopt this conclusion, but rather assumes that the unit on the cities of refuge that is
being referred to is the one in Yehoshua 20; therefore, what the verse means, according to
this view, is "And Yehoshua wrote in his book these things, which are written in the Book of
God's Torah." (Indeed, we might draw the same conclusion from the special introduction that
we find at the beginning of chapter 20: "And God spoke to Yehoshua, saying." This formula is
found almost nowhere else except in the verses of the Torah that record instances of God
speaking to Moshe.) However, if we accept this interpretation, it is difficult to understand why
there is any need to state that Yehoshua wrote this unit, since it appears in his book in any
case. 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);
this would mean that these verses, too, were added to the Torah later on by Yehoshua. See
A.J. Heschel, Torah Min ha-Shamayim be-Aspaklaria shel ha-Dorot, London and New
York 5725, pp. 394-395.
[3]
Other commentators disagree with Ibn Ezra, and unequivocally prefer the approach
of Rabbi Shimon, maintaining that Moshe himself wrote even the last eight verses of the
Torah. For example, Rabbeinu Bechaye ben Asher writes in his Commentary on the Torah:
"However, it is proper to believe, as per the true tradition that we have, that Moshe
wrote the entire Torah, from 'In the beginning' to 'in the eyes of all of Israel'; all from
God's mouth. and it seems to me that there is nothing remarkable about Moshe
having written, 'And Moshe, the servant of God, died there, and He buried him in the
valley,' while he was still alive, for he wrote what was going to happen For all the
prophets do the same in their words, speaking in the past tense instead of [but with
reference to] the future."
th
Rabbi Chaim ben Attar, in the 18 century, was aware of the ramifications of Ibn Ezra's
interpretation, as we shall see further on. In his Commentary on the Torah, Or ha-Chayim, 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. 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. This is the argument of the other
nations that the text was written by some amongst Israel, and that it describes
things that did not happen, or that did not happen in the way that they are described,
and such ideas and their like have become entrenched, and one should pay them no
regard. The main principle is that the entire Book of the Torah was written by Moshe,
as Chazal teach 'Moshe completed it, with weeping.'"
[4]
Commonly and mistakenly, it seems identified as Rabbi Yosef Tuv Elem (Bon-fils). See
M. Wilansky, Mechkarim be-Lashon u-ve-Sifrut, Jerusalem 5738, pp. 344-348.
[5]
The same direction is adopted by other commentaries in explanation of Ibn Ezra. Among
others we may note Rabbi Moshe Almosnino (Greece, c. 1518-1581), who wrote: "Thus, it
cannot be that this was said by Moshe, for in his time [the land] was still in the hands of the
Canaanites; rather, it was uttered by Yehoshua, or perhaps Ezra wrote it. And this is the
'secret' meaning, that it was not written by Moshe" (cited also in N. ben Menachem,
"Tosefet Biur al Divrei ha-Ibn Ezra le-Rabbi Moshe Almosnino," Sinai 59, p. 153). For more
on Rabbi Almosino see N. ben Menachem, Rabbi Moshe Almosnino, Jerusalem 5706.
[6]
Further on, Rabbi Yosef ben Eliezer addresses the statement ofChazal, cited above,
condemning one who claims that even a single verse of the Torah "was not uttered by God,
but rather that Moshe said it on his own initiative." 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, and the assertion that some words in the Torah may have
been added by someone else, through prophecy. 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, as we have explained above, but not concerning the
narratives." In light of this distinction, Rabbi Yosef explains why Ibn Ezra only hinted at his
understanding of the origin of the verses, rather than spelling it out explicitly:
"It is not proper to make this secret known to people, in order that they will not hold
the Torah in scorn, for one who is not knowledgeable will not distinguish between
verses that convey mitzvot and verses that convey a narrative. Also, [the
concealment] is meant for the benefit of the other nations, who tell us, 'Your Torah
was originally true, but you replaced and changed some words' therefore Ibn Ezra

writes, 'one who understands remains silent' for one who understands knows that
this [knowledge] does no harm; only the ignorant use this for attack."
[7]
In his comment on the verse itself in Bereishit, Ibn Ezra merely hints at this. Other
commentators tried to solve the difficulty in other ways. Rashi adopts the view that the verse
is speaking of the future: "That in the times of later generations they would say of it, 'On this
mountain God is revealed to His people.'" Radak writes, "This day it shall be said on the
mountain when God will be seen on it that an altar will be built on it, and the Temple then
it shall be said, and they shall tell about this day, when I came to offer up my son Yitzchak as
a sacrifice."
[8]
Admittedly, this question poses less of a problem, since the appellation here may reflect
the more objective, fundamental situation, in which the tribes of Israel are destined to live
their lives on the western side of the Jordan, 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."
[9]
According to Abravanel, there is one instance in which Ramban also follows Ibn Ezra's
approach. In Bamidbar (21:1-3), the Torah recounts the war waged against the Canaanites:
"And the Canaanite king of Arad, who dwelled in the Negev, heard that Israel were
coming by the way of Atarim, he fought against Israel and took some of them captive.
And Israelmade a vow to God and said, 'If You will give this people into my hand,
then I will utterly destroy their cities.' And God heard the voice of Israel, and He
delivered up the Canaanites, and they destroyed them utterly, along with their cities,
and they called the name of the place Chorma."
When did Israel utterly destroy the cities of the Canaanites? Ibn Ezra notes, at the beginning
of this episode, "Many have said that this incident was written by Yehoshua, and as proof
they cite the verse, "the king of Arad one" (Yehoshua 12:14). However, he himself rejects
this position by arguing that the passages in Bamidbar andYehoshua refer to locations with
the same name, and that therefore the passage in Bamidbar is really referring to an event
that took place during Moshes lifetime on the eastern side of the Jordan.
Ramban (commentary to Bamidbar 21:1) proposes two possibilities. According to the first
possibility, the Torah is indeed telling us here about an event that took place later, after
Moshe's death: "And the text completes its account here, for Israel destroyed their cities
completely, after they reached the land of Canaan, after the death of Yehoshua, to fulfill the
vow which they had made [in the wilderness], and they called the name of these cities
Chorma [= destruction]." According to the second possibility, 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, during Moshe's time, and they called the site of the battle 'Chorma.'" The
simplest reading of the first explanation is that the Torah is recording a prophecy of Moshe,
rather than the record of something which had already happened. However, Abravanel, in his
commentary on this chapter, maintains that Ramban understood this verse as a later addition
in accordance with the view recorded by Ibn Ezra.
Abravanel himself vehemently attacks this possibility: "But our teacher shames himself in
proposing that Yehoshua wrote this verse..,. and Ibn Ezra took this view in its entirety from
the Karaites, who, in their commentaries on the Torah, maintain that this was not written by
Moshe. Ramban tends towards the view of Ibn Ezra, 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. And this being so, they are included in the
category of 'he has despised God's word.'"
[10]
Concerning Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid and his commentary on the Torah, see the
appendix to the previous shiur.
[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, and continuing on into the Second Temple
th rd
Period, until the time of Shimon ha-Tzaddik i.e., 5 -3 century B.C.E.

Shiur #3b:
Verses Added to the Torah at a Later Date:
The Phenomenon and Its Ramifications (continued)

Let us examine three instances where Rabbi Yehuda heChasid attributes verses of the Torah to the Men of the Great
Assembly.[1]
1.
We know that Etzion Gever is situated in
the land of Edom (as we are told concerning Shlomo, IIDivrei Hayamim 8:17), and the Children of Israel were not permitted to enter
the land of Edom (Devarim 2:8). How, then, asks Rabbi Yehuda heChasid (in his commentary on Devarim 2), 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, with the marriage of Meheitavel,
daughter of Matred, to the king of Edom:
"And he was succeeded by Hadar, and the name of his city
was Pa'u, and the name of his wife was Meheitavel, daughter
of Matred, daughter of Mei Zahav." (Bereishit 36:39)
Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid continues:
"But in the days of Shlomo this had already happened;
therefore it (i.e., the verse in Bereishit) was written into
the Chumash in the days of the Great Assembly, so that you
will not wonder how Etzion Gever came to belong to Edom, as
is written in Divrei Ha-yamim."
Therefore, at the time of Israels travels in the wilderness
Etzion Gever was in an area in which they were permitted to travel
(i.e., it did not yet belong toEdom). From his words here, it would
seem that the entire unit regarding the kings of Edom in Bereishit ch.
36 was added at a later stage.[2]
It should be pointed out that Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasids approach is
far more extreme than the approach of Ibn Ezra discussed in the
previous shiur. Where the latter suggested that certain verses which
themselves seemed out of context were later additions, Rabbi
Yehuda he-Chasid answers questions on a verse in one book (in our
case Bamidbar), by positing that verses in another book (Bereishit in
our case), which until now had presented no problems whatsoever,
are in fact later additions.
2.
Concerning the verse that describes Yaakov's blessing to
Efraim and Menashe: "And he blessed them on that day, saying:
With you Israel willbless, saying: May God make you like Efraim and

Menashe - and he set Efraim before Menashe" (Bereishit 48:20), R.

Moshe, son of Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid, wrote:
"My father's explanation [of and he set Efraim before
Menashe] was that this is said not of Yaakov, but rather of
Moshe: Moshe placed Efraim as the leader of one camp,
because Yaakov had said, 'His younger brother will be greater
than him.' And Yehoshua wrote this, or the Men of the Great
Assembly."
This is a startling interpretation even on the literal level of the
text, and it certainly comes as a surprise that Rabbi Yehuda heChasid sees fit to suggest - specifically concerning this verse, which
presents no difficulty in and of itself - that it was a later addition.[3]
3.
There is an even more startling assertion elsewhere in his
commentary, according to which not only were later sections added
to the Torah, but sections were also removed. Thus, for example, 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, and the
crossing of Wadi Arnon. Then this song [i.e., psalm 136] was
created, and it was [originally] written in the Chumash, until
David came and removed Moshe's psalm, and included it
inTehillim."
The publication of this work aroused great controversy, 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.[4]
It turns out, however, that the same views are already cited in
another work from the Middle Ages, written by Rabbi Menachem
Tzioni ben Meir,[5] who offers the same commentary concerning the
Song of the Well, in the name of Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid. Owing to
the surrounding controversy, this book, too, was subject to polemic
and debate.[6] As a result of this controversy, the first edition of Rabbi
Yehuda he-Chasid's commentary, from which the above quotations
were taken, was set aside; a new edition appeared with most of the
controversial excerpts removed.[7] The prevailing view among
academic scholars is that this is indeed a genuine commentary, and

not a forgery. This view is based, inter alia, on sources that we shall
examine later on.
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, R. Shlomo ben Shmuel.[8] As part of his studies
on the commentary of Ibn Ezra, R. Shlomo addresses Ibn Ezra's
understanding of the word "Azazel, which had been expressed as
follows:
"If you could understand the secret that lies behind the
word 'Azazel,' you would understand its secret and the secret
of its name, for it has parallels in the Torah."
R. Shlomo understood Ibn Ezra's intention here as a hint that
this word, too, belongs to the "secret of the twelve. Ibn Ezra, he
explained, knew that the word "Azazel" means "wilderness" in
Aramaic.[9] Therefore, R. Shlomo continued:[10]
"Do not be surprised at the fact that he [Moshe] wrote this
Aramaic word in the Torah, for it was not he who wrote this
verse. And this is the secret that is referred to here that it was
not Moshe who wrote this verse, but rather someone else. And
do not be surprised at what I say that 'someone else wrote it,'
for there are other such instances in the Torah. In other words,
there are many verses which were not said by Moshe."[11]
The most startling aspect of these latter sources is that while
Ibn Ezra wrote his view in very cautious and concealed language, the
pietists in Germany expressed the same ideas quite openly and
explicitly, and even in places where suggesting such interpretations
was not the only way of addressing a textual problem.[12] We may
therefore state that the assertion that there are later verses in the
Torah, based on an objective look at the simple, literal text, has
support in the view of some medieval commentators, who did not
regard this view as representing any contradiction or denial of faith in
the Divine origin of the Torah.
To the verses discussed above we might add several more
which seem to feature the same phenomenon alluded to by Ibn Ezra,
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. As an example, we might point to Moshe's words to the

nation in the first speech in the book of Devarim, which appear to be

suddenly interrupted by a parenthetical statement:
"And God said to me: Do not harass Moav, nor goad them into
battle, for I shall not give you their land for a possession, since
I have given Ar to the children of Lot as a possession. (The
Emim had previously lived there a great and populous and
tall people, like the Anakim; they too were considered Refa'im,
as were the Anakim, but the Moavim called them 'Emim.' The
Chorim had also previously dwelled in Se'ir, but the children of
Esav succeeded them, and annihilated them from before them,
and dwelled there in their stead as the Children of Israel did
to the land of their possession, which God gave to
them.)" (Devarim2:9-12)
According to Ramban, verses 10-12 do indeed interrupt God's
message to Moshe, 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, who were conquered by Avraham, they are nevertheless
destined to belong to the children of Lot and of Esav, owing to their
status as descendants of Avraham. For this reason, the children of
Esav merit to conquer the Chorim in Se'ir. For the purposes of our
discussion, the important point here is to be found at the end of verse
12, according to which the children of Esav conquered the Chorim
"as the Children of Israel did [past tense] to the land of their
possession, which God gave to them." On the level of the plain
meaning of the text, this is a most surprising statement, since at the
time of Moshe's speech, Israel had not yet entered much less
conquered the land.
The commentators offer different explanations: according to
Ramban, this was written as a forecast of future events. Even Ibn
Ezra offers a standard interpretation, 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, which
had already been accomplished. However, if we adopt the same
logic that Ibn Ezra employs elsewhere, it is not unreasonable to posit
that here too these verses might represent a later addition.[13]
(to be continued)
Translated by Kaeren Fish

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, among them Rav
Moshe Feinstein zt"l. In a letter dated 28 Adar I 5736 (Iggerot Moshe,
Yoreh De'ah, part III, siman 114) he expressed vehement opposition
to the publication of the book, and argued that it was clearly a
forgery, since Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid could not have written such
things. Inter alia, he writes:
"One who suggests that Moshe wrote even a single letter on
his own initiative, denies the Torah, and is included in the
category of 'he has despised God's word.' And all the more so
one who says that there is some matter which was written not
even by Moshe, but rather by others, 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.'"
However, 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, David or even the Men of the Great Assembly wrote
these things on their own initiative; 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, and therefore concludes,
"These wicked heretics forged this within a book that is
attributed to Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid, in order to mislead
everyone into the heretical view that Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid
said this, too. Therefore, it is clear that it is forbidden to print
this book; it is even worse than the books of the heretics, which
are [at least] attributed to the heretics [themselves], and many
among even the least learned Jews will not believe them. But
where the name of Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid appears, one has
to take into consideration the possibility that it will also lead
others astray, to deny the Torah."
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, at the end of his responsum (above), writes:
"We do not have conclusive knowledge of who Rabbi
Menachem Tzioni was, and it seems that he copied what he
found in some book with Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid's name on

it, without paying attention. I would say that it is forbidden to

sell or buy Sefer Tzioni, too, since it contains this heretical
statement, and it would also be proper to write this to the
leading authorities in the Landof Israel."
However in the response Mishneh Halakhot (part XII, siman 214),
Rabbi Menashe Klein (the "Ungvarer Rov") expresses surprise at this
questioning of the credentials of Rabbi Menachem Tzioni, 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; rather, it seems to me that some misguided student
wrote it, and included it among his letters after his death. And
the hands of strangers reigned over him and chose themselves
a reputed scholar. For I do not believe that Rav Moshe
Feinstein had never seenSefer ha-Tzioni, which is well-known;
he must surely have been familiar with it."
Further on in the same responsum he writes:
"In truth, in light of this, 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, in
accordance with the Halakha, but this is not their place."

[1]

For elaboration on this subject, see G. Brin, "Kavim le-Perush ha-Torah shel R. Yehuda
he-Chasid," in: Te'udah 3 Mechkarim be-Sifrut ha-Talmud, be-Lashon Chazal u-veParshanut ha-Mikra, Tel Aviv 5743, pp. 223-226.
[2]
It is possible that Rashbam, too, maintained this position. In a manuscript of Sefer Moshav
Zekenim (MS Paris, 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." This view is, however, immediately rejected: "But this raises a difficulty: can there be
a sefer Torah that is deficient, and is read with the name of Moshe Rabbeinu, as
the Sifri asks. But in fact this is not a real question, since there are several verses which
Moshe wrote with reference to the future, as Rashi explains inparashat Bereishit: Kush and
Ashur did not yet exist, but they appear in the text, with reference to the future." As we have
seen, these questions are easily addressed. The explanation here contradicts, however, the
text of Rashbam's commentary that we have today, based on MS Breslau (which was
eventually lost), according to which Rashbam's interpretation accords with that of Ibn Ezra;
both agree that the word "melekh" (king) refers to Moshe. Concerning the relationship
between MS Breslau and other citations from Rashbam, and the possibility that Rashbam did
indeed agree, in other instances, with the view that the Torah does contain later verses, see
the article by my friend Y. Jacobs, "Nussach Perush Rashbam la-Torah al-pi Ketav-Yad
Breslau ve-al-pi Mekorot Nosafim," Iyyunei Mikra u-Parshanut 13.

[3]

For more on this commentary, see Y. Schwartz, "Perush Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid leBereishit 48:20-22," Tarbiz 80:1 (5772), pp. 29-39.
[4]
See appendix.
[5]
Rabbi Menachem Tzioni ben Meir lived in Germany, c. 1340-1410. He wrote a kabbalistic
commentary on the Torah, called Sefer Tzioni, as well as several liturgical poems. For more
about this interesting figure, see Y. Peles, "Rabbenu Menachem Tzion (ha-'Tzioni'),"
inMoriah 11,
5-6
(125-126),
5742,
pp.
9-15;
Y.
Yuval, Chakhamim
beDoram, Jerusalem 5749, pp. 282-310.
[6]
See appendix.
[7]
Not all were removed. Concerning the verse, "You shall not cause the salt of the covenant
of your God to be lacking from your meal offering; with all your sacrifices you shall offer salt"
(Vayikra 2:13), even the new edition included the proposition that this was written after
Moshe's time. Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid actually suggests this in view of the Gemara
in Menachot (21a), stating that the salt referred to here is "melach sedomit" (salt of Sedom).
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, burning throughout the
land, which is not sown, nor does it produce, nor does any grass grow upon it, like the
overthrow of Sedom and Amora, Adma and Tzevoyim, which God overthrew in His anger and
His wrath" (Devarim 29:11-22). How, then, could this have appeared earlier in the Torah,
in Sefer Vayikra? He proposes interpretation here we find, "Perhaps originally the text simply
read, 'You shall not cause salt to be lacking from your meal offering,' and after Moshe wrote
this in [parashat] Nitzavim, they then elaborated on this 'salt' the 'salt of the covenant of
your God'" (Commentary of Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid on Vayikra 2:13).
[8]
R. Shlomo ben R. Shmuel lived in France, c. 1160-1240. His work, Te'amim shel
Chumash, includes commentary and allegories on the Torah, and is still extant in some
manuscripts. Concerning this sage and his approach, see Y. M. Ta-Shma, Kenesset
Mechkarim: Iyyunim be-Sifrut ha-Mechkarit bi-Yemei ha-Benayim 1, Jerusalem5764, pp. 274277.
[9]
It should be noted that in this specific instance, R. Shlomo did not understand Ibn Ezra
correctly. The "secret" that Ibn Ezra refers to here is not related to later additions to the
Torah. Rather, it relates to the phenomenon of he-goats (se'irim) in the wilderness. Ibn Ezra
himself alludes to this, further on: "And I shall reveal to you part of this secret with the hint that
when you are 33, you will know." Ramban comments here that Ibn Ezra is hinting to a verse
that appears 33 verses hence; see ad loc.
[10]
Ta-Shma, see previous mention of his work; pp. 276-277.
[11]
Further on, R. Shlomo notes the relevant verses cited by Ibn Ezra, which we discussed in
the previous shiur. Concerning the verse about Og's bed in the Ammonite city of Rabba, R.
Shlomo raises the possibility that Moshe could indeed have written this verse as a prophecy,
but then goes on to reject it: "And if you say, Even though Moshe had never been in Rabba of
the children of Ammon, he could have prophesied through his Divine spirit and said, 'is it not
in Rabba', 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, if there was some need for it,
but concerning something that need not necessarily be said [since it makes no practical
difference], such as this verse, 'Is it not in Rabba', he would not have received the Divine
spirit. And since the Divine spirit did not visit him, and he had never been in Rabba of the
children of Ammon, where would he know this from? Hence, it certainly could not have been
written by Moshe."
[12]
To the sources we have cited above we might add many more, and various studies have
addressed the scope of this phenomenon. For a summary of these, see Jacobs' article (see
footnote 2 above).
[13]
Two more examples of verses presenting a similar difficulty:
a.
Shemot 16:35 "And the Children of Israel ate the manna for forty years, until they
reached inhabited land; they ate the manna until they reached the border of
the land of Kena'an." 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, in the past, as a parallel
to what we find in Yehoshua 5:11-12.
b.
Devarim 3:14: "Yair ben Menashe took all of the region of Argov, up until the border
of the Geshuri and the Ma'akhati, and he named them, i.e., the Bashan, after himself
Chavot Yair to this day." Here again, the language appears to reflect a description from the
perspective of a later period.

Shiur #3c:
Later Verses in the Torah: The Phenomenon and Its
Ramifications (continued)
We discussed previously the final eight verses of the Torah,
and the possibility raised by Rabbi Yehuda (Bava Batra 15a) that
these were written by Yehoshua. If there is already a view that these
verses were a later prophetic addition, there is room to question
whether it should be attributed specifically to Yehoshua, since two of
these eight verses would seem to have been written from a far
broader and more distant perspective than that of Yehoshua, who
replaced Moshe as leader right after his death. First of all, there is the
sense of great distance in time suggested by the expression, "but no
man knows his grave to this day" (Devarim 34:6); and second, the
text asserts, "There arose no prophet since then in Israel like Moshe,
whom God knew face to face" (Devarim 34:10). The verse does not
say, "No prophet will arise," but rather, "there arose no prophet." This
would seem to reflect a perspective later even than that of Yehoshua,
and if we adopt the view of Ibn Ezra and other commentators, it is
entirely possible that it was added by some other prophet, not
necessarily Yehoshua himself.
Thus, 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. The more widely accepted
approach attributes them to Moshe, who wrote them in a spirit of
prophetic foresight. The other approach, advocated by Ibn Ezra and
some of the sages of Germany, maintained that the Torah contains
verses that were added by prophets at a later stage.
B.

The Origins of Biblical Criticism

Ibn Ezra's approach was both innovative and complex, and for
this reason he was careful not to set it down openly, so as not to lead
into error those who might not understand him properly.[1] However,
his caution lost its effect with time. Some 500 years after he wrote his
commentary, Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), who may be regarded as
the first of the biblical critics,[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 someone else, who lived at a much later time, and that
the book that Moshe wrote was some other [work]."[3]
It must be pointed out immediately that attributing this claim to
Ibn Ezra was unquestionably misleading and a misrepresentation, 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. It is true that Ibn
Ezra alluded, via the hidden wisdom, that there exist in the
Torah a few additional verses from after Moshe's time, 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, aside from having made some errors in his studies,
also unquestionably spoke duplicitously, and in several places
misled his readers, with cunning and guile."[5]
Indeed, even Ibn Ezra himself speaks against broadening the
idea of later additions to the Torah. InBereishit, 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. And Bela, son of Be'or,
reigned inEdom and Ba'al Chanan, son of Akhbor, died, and
Hadar reigned in his stead, and the name of his city was Pa'u,
and his wife's name was Meheitavel, daughter of Matred,
daughter of Mei Zahav." (Bereishit 36:31-39)
This unit, too, could seem to be a later addition, since it is
implies that there is already a king ruling overIsrael. As we saw in the
previous shiur, some of the medieval commentators did indeed view
the unit in this light. Ibn Ezra cites a Karaite commentator named
"Yitzchaki"[6] who does suggest that "this unit was written in the days
of Yehoshafat," but Ibn Ezra rejects his view with great vehemence:
"It is with good reason that he is called 'Yitzchaki,' for all who
hear will laugh at him and heaven forefend, heaven forefend
that the matter is as he says, in the days of Yehoshafat, and
his book should be burned."
Instead, Ibn Ezra proposes a different interpretation:

"And in truth, the meaning of 'before any king reigned over Bnei
Yisrael' refers to [the leadership of] Moshe, as it is
written, 'Vayehi' And there was (or 'he became') 'a king in
Yeshurun' (Devarim 33:5)."
We must ask, why does Ibn Ezra attack Yitzchaki so fiercely for
suggesting that this is a later unit, offering instead a fairly weak
alternative interpretation, 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, but it is possible that he is
willing to accept the idea of later additions only with regard to
fragments or single verses, but not with regard to entire textual units
(with the exception of the conclusion of the Torah, where the addition
does not occur in the midst of the text).[7] In any event, 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.
To address the matter at hand: Spinoza's claim invited the first
critical polemic concerning the period of the composition of the
Torah, and the debate continues to this day. Obviously, the central
point of contention surrounding verses that appear to be later
additions is whether they represent exceptions, as Ibn Ezra and the
sages of Germany understood them to be, or whether they are only a
small sample that is in fact representative of the biblical text as a
whole, as argued by Spinoza and many of the scholars who followed
him.
The debate over this question spills over into the subjective
realm, and is closely bound up with ones fundamental point of
departure. The approach of the medieval sages was based, of
course, on the ancient tradition of the Book of the Torah having been
written by Moshe at God's command, with a willingness in principle to
recognize the occasional later addition. The phenomenon of later
additions exists in almost every ancient text, and there is no need to
bring a list of examples to prove this. 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.
The alternative claim, that the phenomenon of later additions in
the biblical text is not a matter of a few isolated examples, but

rather indicative of a much broader body of later writing, runs as

follows:
"These excerpts are not addenda; they are integral to the
narrative and necessary in their context, and do not bear the
signs of later addenda at all. They do not interrupt the flow of
the narrative; they cannot easily be removed in such a way as
to leave a logical text, and their language and style in no way
differs from that which precedes or follows them."[8]
On this basis, this approach concludes that the entire Torah is
a composition dating to a time later than Moshe. Yet an objective
appraisal of the verses we have discussed until now would seem to
indicate the very opposite. Specifically such fragments as "And the
Canaanites were then in the land," "Concerning which it is said this
day, In the mountain God shall be seen," or "Behold, 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, and they are not integral to the
narrative itself. Therefore, there is no reason not to adhere to the
path set by the medieval sages, and to view these verses as
exceptions which indicate nothing about the origins of the text as a
whole.
C.

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, but also on other arguments, which we will now
examine, drawing a distinction between the different claims and their
degree of seriousness.
One of the main arguments is as follows: if the Torah was
written by Moshe, how is it that Moshe refers to himself in the third
person,[9] writing among other things, "And the man Moshe was
extremely humble, more than any other person upon the face of the
earth" (Bamidbar 12:3)? However, this argument may be rejected out
of hand: the Torah was never presented as Moshe's own book, and it
speaks in the third person for the simple reason pointed out by
Ramban:
"Moshe wrote the lineage of all the early generations, as well
as his own lineage and his actions and the events of his life, in
the third person. Therefore the Torah says, 'And God spoke to

Moshe and said to him' as a narrator talking about two other

characters. This being so, there is no mention of Moshe in the
Torah until he is born, 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, and obviously also the birth of Moshe, as
the Kabbalah teaches it was written in black fire upon white
fire. And thus Moshe is like a scribe who copies from an
ancient book and writes, and therefore he writes impersonally."
(Ramban, introduction to Bereishit)
The Torah cannot be Moshe's own book, since parts of it
describe events that preceded his own birth, while other parts
describe events of which Moshe could not have had any knowledge.
There is also a more fundamental aspect to this question: the Torah
is not Moshe's personal book, narrating the events of his life and his
actions; its importance is derived specifically from the assumption
that it expresses God's word. There is therefore no contradiction
between the fact that the Torah speaks about Moshe in the third
person, and the assumption that Moshe wrote the Torah as the
traditional view has it like a scribe copying from an ancient book.[10]
Let us now examine a far weightier argument which Spinoza
was the first to raise, and which has since been echoed by others.
The problem pointed out by these critics is that in many instances the
Torah mentions places by name, yet those names were given to
those places only after Moshe's time. The best-known example
concerns Avraham's battle against the five kings:
"And when Avram heard that his brother had been taken
captive, he led forth his trained servants, born in his house
three hundred and eighteen and he pursued them until Dan.
And he divided [his camp] against them by night, he and his
servants, and he smote them and pursued them until Chova,
which is on the left side of Damascus." (Bereishit 14:14)
Avram pursues the kings northward, up until Dan, which is in
the region of Damascus. 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, as set
forth inYehoshua (19:40-48). However, the tribe of Dan did not
succeed in conquering its intended inheritance (seeShoftim 1:34),
and was therefore forced to find an alternative portion of land, as
described at the end ofShoftim, in the story about Mikha's idol

(chapter 18). Thus the children of Dan moved to the north,

conquered the city of Layish, and only then gave the city its new
name:
"And they called the name of the city Dan, after the name of
Dan, their father, who was born to Yisrael. But the original
name of the city was Layish." (Shoftim 18:29)[11]
How, then, does Bereishit speak of the city of Dan, 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, and have proposed various explanations.
Radak offers two solutions. The first is that the name "Dan" is written
here with prophetic insight, with reference to the future:
"[Thus named] because of its ultimate destiny, because when
Moshe wrote this it was not yet called by this name; it was
called 'Leshem.' And when it was conquered by the children of
Dan, they called it 'Dan' after Dan, their father."
This interpretation continues the approach maintaining that
some verses in the Torah were written through prophetic vision with
reference to the future, even though they are formulated in the past
tense.[13]Yet this approach is somewhat problematic, for there is no
hint in the text that it refers to a future reality. It is therefore difficult to
understand why the generation that received the Torah was
presented with a place name unfamiliar to them.[14]
We shall continue next week with Radaks second answer.
Translated by Kaeren Fish

[1]

See Rabbi Yosef ben Eliezer in n. 7 below.

Along with Thomas Hobbes, who arrived at similar conclusions to those of Spinoza: see T.
Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. C.B. Macpherson,Baltimore 1968, e.g. p. 418.
[3]
B. Spinoza, "Theological-Political Treatise," Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy,
Cambridge 2007.
[4]
The biblical commentator Rabbi Shemuel David Luzzato (Shadal) (1800-1865) was also a
philosopher, educator, and historian. He headed the rabbinical academy in Padua, and
engaged in every branch of Jewish study, integrating his faith in God and in the Torah with
critical research. I shall cite his approach to various subjects in this series.
[2]

[5]

Concerning Spinoza's distortion of Ibn Ezra, see also M. Haran,Mikra veOlamo, Jerusalem 5769, pp. 546-549.
[6]
Opinions are divided as to his identity, but the prevailing view identifies him as Yitzchak
ben Yashush of Toledo (982-1057). For more on this subject, see: U. Simon, "Yizchaki: A
Spanish Biblical Commentator Whose 'Book Should be Burned' According to Abraham Ibn
Ezra," in M. Brettler and M. Fishbane (eds.), Minha Le-Nahum,Sheffield 1993, pp. 217232
[7]
As R. Yosef ben Eliezer (Tuv Elem) writes: "For if it had been written in the days of
Yehoshafat, then an entire unit would have been added to the Torah, while the Torah itself
stipulates, 'You shall not add to it' (Devarim 13:1). And if someone should raise the question,
Did R. Avraham (Ibn Ezra) himself not hint, at the beginning ofDevarim, 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, to clarify it, is not the same as adding an entire unit;
for a word or a verse is commentary, whereas an entire unit is a textual addition."
[8]
B. Y. Schwartz, "Ha-Torah: Chameshet Chumasheha ve-Arba Te'udoteha," in Z. Talshir
(ed.), Sifrit ha-Mikra Mevo'ot u-Mechkarim, Jerusalem 5771, p. 177.
[9]
Spinoza made a mistake when he argued that only in part of the Torah does Moshe speak
in the third person, while in Sefer Devarimhe speaks about himself in the first person. Spinoza
did not pay attention to the fact that nowhere does Moshe speak about himself in the first
person as the "narrator"; every instance of his use of the first person,
throughout Sefer Devarim, is a quotation from one of the lengthy speeches that he delivers
before his death. 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, and I said' since the beginning of thatSefer states, 'These are the things which Moshe
spoke to all of Israel' and thus the text records his speech in the first person."
[10]
M. Z. Segal (Mevo ha-Mikra, Jerusalem 5737, p. 124) argues that the argument of the
Bible critics is "founded on the norms of secular literature, in which the author highlights
himself. But this is not the approach taken by narrators of the Tanakh, who generally
minimize their own presence." See also n. 13 ad loc. This argument is also made by Robert
Alter (The World of Biblical Literature, ch. 8, New York 1992). Surprisingly, the same baseless
claims are still being propounded in our generation, despite the simple fact that nowhere is
there any suggestion that the Torah is presented as Moshe's own book. See, for example,
R.E. Friedman, Who Wrote The Bible? San Francisco, 1997, p. 24; B.Y. Schwartz (see
above, n. 8), p. 176.
[11]
In the brief parallel description in Yehoshua 19:47, the original name of the city is recorded
as "Leshem."
[12]
The same difficulty arises concerning the verses at the end of the Torah, where we read:
"Moshe ascended from the plains of Moav to Mount Nevo, to the top of Pisga, facing Yericho.
And God showed him the entire land of Gil'ad, up to Dan; and all of Naftali, and the land of
Efraim and Menashe, and all the land of Yehuda, up until the utmost sea" (Devarim 34:1-2).
The impression arising from a simple reading of the text is that the reference here is to "Dan"
in the north. However, in this context at least according to Ibn Ezra's approach this does
not present problem, since according to his view the final eight verses of the Torah were not
written in Moshe's time.
[13]
This traditional approach had been mentioned by Ibn Ezra before he outlined his own
"secret of the twelve."
[14]
The difficulty is noted by R. 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, inparashat Bereishit (10:11), on the verse, 'From that land emerged Ashur'],
this applies only where it had no previous name. Therefore the Torah now names it according
to the way in which it will be called in the future. 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, 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)

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. The specific
example we chose was Avrahams battle against the five kings, in
which he is described as pursuing them until Dan (Bereishit 14:14).
Yet the area near Damascus described in Bereishit only becomes
known as Dan in the days of the Judges, 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). Until that point, the city
had been called Layish or Leshem.
Spinoza claimed that such examples indicated that the Torah
as a whole was written at a much later date than is traditionally
assumed. We saw Radaks suggestion that the Torah calls it Dan
due to prophetic foresight. Many commentators rejected Radaks
position and suggested other possibilities for explaining the
appearance of the name Dan, and it is these suggestions that we
shall review in this shiur. 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.
1)
Radak himself proposed a different possibility: Or perhaps
there was another place which, in those days, was called
Dan.[1] Indeed, despite the general geographic proximity of the
north-eastern region, we have no way of identifying exactly which
place is referred to by Dan in the days of Avraham. It is quite
possible that the Torah is talking about some place other than the
one called Dan during the period of the Judges. It is quite common
for different places in Israel to be known by the same name.[2]
2)
Ibn Ezra addresses this problem as part of a discussion that
includes other verses as well. In the story of the spies we read, And
they came as far as Wadi Eshkol, 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). This seems paradoxical: at first it appears that
the spies arrive at a place which is already called Wadi Eshkol,
while afterwards the text seems to indicate that it is only in the wake
of their visit, and the grapes that they take from there, that the place
is given its name. Ibn Ezra suggests two possible ways of
understanding these verses. As a first possibility, he writes, [these
are] the words of Moshe meaning that the verse is written from the
later perspective of Moshe, while at the point in time when the spies

arrived at this place, it did not yet have this name. More important for
the purposes of our present discussion is Ibn Ezras second
suggestion: Perhaps the same possibility exists here as in the verse,
And he pursued up until Dan as though another name. The plain
meaning of Ibn Ezras alternative seems to be that the place (Wadi
Eshkol/Dan) had been called by the same name in the past, for a
different reason, 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.[3]
This, too, is a common occurrence: the names given to places or
people in Tanakh are not the original reasons for their names, but
rather are provided as midrash shemot, providing new meaning for
names that had already existed previously.[4] Ibn Ezras innovation,
with regard to our present discussion, is that the name of the city of
Dan actually underwent three different stages: at first it was called
Dan; later the name was changed to Layish/Leshem, and the
descendants of Dan eventually restored the original name, naming
the city in memory of their ancestor.[5]
3)
Although Ibn Ezras explanation seems quite clear, some
commentaries understood from his words cited above that he
included this verse, too, within the secret of the twelve, and
concluded that it, too, represents a later addition to the Torah. In one
of the early commentaries written on Ibn Ezra, known as Ot Nefesh,
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, from the time of the
Judges.
Why does Ibn Ezra himself suggest no such thing, despite the fact
that he does in principle recognize the phenomenon of later
additions? Once again, it seems that Ibn Ezra is willing to
acknowledge later additions only when it comes to fragments that
look like digressions, while he pursued as far as Dan is integral to
the story itself. Nevertheless, one could argue that this verse, too,
could have been a later addition, since a close look at the text
reveals that, surprisingly enough, the pursuit is actually mentioned
twice: And Avraham heard that his brother had been taken captive
And he pursued as far as Dan. And he divided himself against them
by night, he and his servants, and he smote them and pursued them
as far as Chova, which is on the left side of Damascus. The place
referred to as Chova, to the north (left) of Damascus, is mentioned
nowhere else in Tanakh,[6] and it is therefore possible that at some

later stage an explanatory note was added, indicating that at some

stage the pursuit continued as far as Dan a more familiar location.
4)
Rabbi Barukh Epstein, in his Torah Temima, raises the
possibility that this verse represents an example of a phenomenon
that is prevalent elsewhere: In many places, 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, where the word should
start with that same letter.[7] Here, the text should read, He pursued
up until Dedan (va-yirdof ad Dedan), with Dedan representing the
name of the place, named for one of the descendants of Cham, son
of Noach (Bereishit 10:7). Dedan is mentioned in several places
in Tanakh, such as in the prophecy of Yirmiyahu (49:8) Dwell in
the depths, O inhabitants of Dedan; or in the words of Yechezkel
(27:15) to the city of Tyre: The men of Dedan were your
merchants.[8]
Grintz accepts the identification of the place as Dedan,[9] but
rejects R. Epsteins suggestion that it be identified with the children of
Cham, since Dedan is mentioned in several places in juxtaposition
with Sheva (for instance, Yechezkel 38:13), which is in the south.
Instead, Grintz proposes viewing Dedan as one of the children of
Ketura (Bereishit 25:3), concerning whom we read (ibid., 6), And to
the children of Avrahams concubines, Avraham gave gifts and sent
them away from Yitzchak, his son, while he himself was still alive,
eastward, to the land of Kedem. The land of Kedem (East) is in the
region of the Euphrates, as we knowinter alia from the story of
Yaakovs journey to Charan, where we read, Yaakov lifted his legs
and went to the land of the children of the East (ibid. 29:1), and this
place was known from ancient inscriptions, as noted there. Grintzs
conclusion is, In this instance it is clear that Avram and his allies
pursued the kings up until the border of the Euphrates; Dedan is
therefore the outermost limit of the pursuit. The next verse tells that
he fell upon them to return the spoils, but for the sake of the literary
flow, the text described first what happened later.
This suggestion is certainly original, but it is somewhat forced,
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, occurs at least twice more in Tanakh.
5)
In later generations, additional suggestions were
offered,[10] but it seems that a full solution to this question has been

proposed by Yehuda Elitzur.[11] He bases his explanation on two

central points.
First, 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. In Yaakovs blessings to his sons prior
to his death, he mentions geographical areas in relation to some of
the tribes. To Zevulun, he says, Zevulun shall dwell at the shore of
the sea, and he shall be a haven for ships, and his border shall be at
Sidon (Bereishit 49:13). His blessing to Yehuda mentions an
inheritance that provides an abundance of wine (ibid., 10). Similarly,
Moshes blessings to the tribes before his death are also partly
related to geographical areas recognized for their landmarks,
agriculture, etc. For example, To Binyamin he said, Gods beloved
shall dwell in safety by Him, He shall cover him all the day long, and
He shall dwell between his shoulders (Devarim 33:12);[12] And to
Yosef he said, Blessed of God is his land, for the precious things of
heaven, for the dew and for the deep that couches beneath and
from the chief things of the ancient mountains, and for the precious
things of the primordial hills (ibid. 13-15).
Moreover, the Torah talks about the son of Makhir, son of
Menashe the sons of Yosef by their families: Menashe and Efraim.
The children of Menashe: to Makhir the Makhiri family, and Makhir
bore Gilad; to Gilad the Giladi family (Bamidbar 26:28-29). It is
difficult to argue that there is no connection between the fact that
Menashes grandson is called Gilad, and the fact that the tribe of
Menashe ultimately receives their inheritance in the region of Gilad:
And Moshe gave the Gilad to Makhir, son of Menashe, and he
dwelled in it (Bamidbar 32:40).[13] Other descendants of the family of
Menashe were also given names of places which ultimately
correspond with places that became part of that tribes inheritance.
Among the sons of Gilad we find the following names: These are
the sons of Gilad: Iezer the Iezri family And Shekhem, the
Shikhmi family and Chefer, the Chefri family (Bamidbar 26:30-32).
Shekhem and Chefer are names of well-known ancient cities in
Eretz Yisrael; 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.[14]
Likewise, it seems to be no coincidence that when Yehuda
goes down from his brothers, he wanders about in the Timna region
(Bereishit 38:12), which ultimately became part of his inheritance

(Yehoshua14:57). Similarly, it is difficult to ignore the connection

between Yaakovs words to Yosef I have given you one portion
(shekhem echad) more than your brothers, which I took from the
hand of the Emori, with my sword and with my bow (Bereishit 48:22),
and the fact that the city of Shekhem ends up within the inheritance
of Yosef, between the portions of Menashe and Efraim, as stated
above.[15] It therefore seems clear that the brothers (Yaakovs sons)
were themselves aware of the division of the land which their
descendants were supposed to carry out.[16]
Second, this assumption, in and of itself, is not sufficient to
answer our question concerning Dan, since it would seem to
suggest that the original inheritance of the tribe of Dan was supposed
to be in the north when, as mentioned previously, we know that Dan
had been supposed to take their portion in the south (Shoftim1:34).
However, Elitzur argues that the reality was exactly the opposite: the
original inheritance of Dan wasindeed supposed to be in the north.
This may be proved on the basis of two main sources. First, it seems
to be hinted to in Moshes blessing to the tribe of Dan: Dan is a lions
cub that leaps from Bashan (Devarim 33:22), where Moshe speaks
to the tribe of Dan as though its inheritance lies in the Bashan area
(in the north).[17]Second, the same conclusion may be arrived at on
the basis of the structure of the Israelite camp, as described
in Bamidbar (chapter 2): according to the layout described in the
Torah, the tribes of Yehuda, Yissakhar and Zevulun encamp in the
east; Reuven, Shimon and Gad in the south; Efraim, Menashe and
Binyamin in the west, and finally Dan, Asher and Naftali in the
north. 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, are located in the
center of the country, while those whose banners are in the south
and the north do in fact inherit the land in these respective areas.
The tribes of Dan, Asher and Naftali settle in the north, just as their
banner in the wilderness was on the northern side of the camp. This,
too, serves as an indication that the location of the tribe of Dan in the
north was known prior to the inheritance of the land.
Why, then, 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, as
expressed early on, in the words of Moshe, after the tribes of Reuven
and Gad relinquish their portion on the western side of the Jordan,
requesting instead the land on the eastern side. This helps us
understand why ultimately the inheritance of the land did not reach

as far as the approach to Chamat (Bamidbar 34:8): the land was

expanded eastward, and therefore there were some northernmost
parts that were not conquered and settled. The most prominent
amendment to the original plan concerns the portion of Zevulun,
which was originally meant to be at the shore of the sea and his
border at Sidon, but is ultimately limited to the lower Galilee
(see Yehoshua19:10-16, 34). In the wake of these alterations, the
tribe of Dan receives its inheritance in the central region which may
originally have been meant for the tribe of Reuven or Gad. However,
after the tribe of Dan failed to conquer this region, they moved
northward and conquered the original inheritance which had been
intended for them since the time of Yaakov and his sons.
In light of this approach, well supported by the plain meaning of
the text, there is no room to support an argument for a later
authorship of the Torah on the basis of verses such as, He pursued
as far as Dan. 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.
Therefore, the familiarity of the writer of the Torah with the division of
the land, which would only occur later on, cannot serve as proof of
later authorship of the Torah, since the division of the land is
frequently presented as ancient knowledge.
D.

Summary

Over the previous shiurim we have seen the following: on the

basis of their analysis of the text,Chazal discuss the possibility of
some verses having been added to the Torah after the death of
Moshe. Their discussion concerns the final eight verses of the Torah,
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, too, were added to the Torah
after Moshes time, by one of the prophets.
We have demonstrated that the thesis of the Bible critics, from
Spinozas time onwards, which seeks to argue on the basis of
individual, exceptional verses that the entire Torah was written later
is unproven, and is based on a simplification and misrepresentation
of the concept of later additions to the Torah. 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
Moshes time, and we have offered various possibilities for explaining
this phenomenon.

Hence, our analysis of the verses themselves does not support

an argument for the later authorship of the Torah.
In the next chapters we will address further claims pertaining to
this subject.
Translated by Kaeren Fish

[1]

Y.M. Grintz, Yichudo ve-Kadmuto shel Sefer Bereishit, Jerusalem 5743, pp. 69-70, finds
support for this possibility in the fact that had the text been speaking about the same place, it
should had read, Dan, which is Layish/Leshem, in the same way that we find reference, in
the same chapter, to other places known by more than one name: The king of Bela, which is
Tzoar (14:2); the valley of Sidim, which is the Salt Sea (ibid. 3); And they returned and
they came to Ein Mishpat, which is Kadesh (ibid. 7); to the valley of Shaveh, which is the
kings valley (ibid., 17).
[2]
For example, Chatzor is not only the name of a major city in the Galilee
(Yehoshua 11:10), but also the name of a city in the southern part of the inheritance of
Yehuda (ibid. 15:25), as well as a place in the northern part of Jerusalem, mentioned in the
list of cities of Binyamin in the days of Nechemia (Nechemia 11:33). Similarly, the name
Afek belongs to at least three different cities (mentioned inShmuel I 4:1 in the region of
Shilo; in Shoftim 1:31 in the inheritance of Asher; and in Melakhim I 20:26 in the area of
the Golan).
[3]
Ibn Ezra offers the same suggestion in a different context where the same sort of textual
difficulty arises. Moshe describes for the Children of Israel the location of the mountains of
Eval and Gerizim: Facing Gilgal, which is by Elonei Mamrei (Devarim 11:30). How could
Moshe call the place Gilgal, if it was given this name only during the time of Yehoshua And
God said to Yehoshua, This day I have rolled (galoti) the reproach of Egypt from upon you.
And he called the name of that place Gilgal, to this day (Yehoshua 5:9)? Once again, Ibn
Ezra proposes, Similar to, And he pursued up until Dan either through prophecy, or as two
names. In other words, the place had been called Gilgal previously, and the only new
aspect of the name was the new meaning reflected in it.
[4]
We shall suffice here with a well-known example: following the covenant and oath between
Avraham and Avimelekh, we read: Therefore he called that place Beer Sheva, for there the
two of them swore (nishbeu) (Bereishit 21:31). However, in Yitzchaks 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, and they told him, We have
found water. And he called it Shiva; therefore, the name of the city is Beer Sheva, to this
day (ibid. 26:32-33). In other words, the place had been known by the same name
previously, and the renaming was simply a matter of imbuing the existing name with new
significance.
[5]
This interpretation is adopted by A. Weiser, in his commentaryTanakh Meforash on Sefer
Bereishit, Jerusalem 5741. He adds that it was perhaps the fact that the city had originally
borne that name, that drew the descendants of Dan to conquer it.
[6]
Chazal noted the difficulty of identifying Chova. As Rashi comments here, There is no
place that is named Chova. Rather, Dan is called Chova (literally, liability) as an allusion to
the idolatrous practices that would be maintained there in the future. Of course, this
explanation brings a whole new difficulty, since the city of Dan lies south-west of Damascus,
rather than to the north of it.
[7]
This phenomenon will be discussed at length in the chapter discussing the letter-text
(nusach) of Tanakh.

[8]

This exact possibility was suggested by Rabbi Reuven Margaliot (1889-1971) in his
work Ha-Mikra ve-ha-Massoret, Jerusalem 5749, p. 66, noting many other verses which, to
his view, reflect the same phenomenon.
[9]
See Grintz (above, n. 1), p. 70.
[10]
Y. Kiel, in Daat Mikra on Sefer Bereishit, Jerusalem 5757, 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, and as we find in Tehillim 42:7 For I
remember You from the land of the Jordan and from the Hermonim. See Y. Bin-Nun, Eretz
ha-Moriah, Alon Shevut 5766, p. 17.
[11]
In a lecture he delivered in 5741, published in Al Atar 4-5, Nissan 5749, pp. 243-249. The
essence of the explanation below is based on his words, with slight changes and some
additions.
[12]
Aside from the allusion to Binyamins portion as the intended dwelling place for the Divine
Presence, the mere mention of shoulders in other areas of Tanakh already indicates the
portion of Binyamin, where shoulders, a euphemism for mountains, 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, obviously, in the description of the shared border with
Binyamin): And the border went up to the shoulder of Yericho, to the north And from there
the border shall pass to Luz, to the southern shoulder of Luz, which is Beit El and the
border came down to the end of the mountain that lies before the valley of Ben-Hinnom, to
the slope of the Yevusi on the south and it passed over towards the shoulder that faces the
Arava, northward And the border passed along the shoulder of Beit Chogla, northward
(Yehoshua 18:12-19).
[13]
As Elitzur notes, although in its narrow sense Gilad refers to the region on the eastern
side of the Jordan, to the south of Yarmuk, in the above verse (as in other instances) the
expression Gilad 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. Mazar, Chefer,Encyclopedia Mikrait 3, Jerusalem
5725, columns 252-253: There is certainly a close connection between the city of Chefer and
its region, and the extensive family of Chefer, descended from the tribe of Menashe.
[15]
Similarly, Yissakhar calls one of his sons Shimron (Bereishit46:13), and there is a city by
this name that is located in the portion of Zevulun (Yehoshua 19:15), which is adjacent to the
portion of Yissakhar.
[16]
In keeping with this approach, Elitzur argues that the casting of the lots for the inheritance
of the land, at Gods command (Bamidbar26:52-56; 33:54), and its implementation over the
course of Sefer Yehoshua (14:2; 15:1; 16:1, and elsewhere), is not meant to establish a
division ex nihilo; instead, it merely confirms the general division that is already known,
defining the boundaries more accurately. Support for Elitzurs 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. On the one hand, Israel is
commanded to divide the land in a just and fair manner: For a bigger [tribe] you shall give a
bigger inheritance, while to a smaller [tribe] you shall give a smaller inheritance; each in
accordance with his census shall be given his inheritance (Bamidbar26:54). However,
immediately thereafter we find: But by lot shall the land be divided, according to the names of
the tribes of their fathers shall they inherit (ibid. 55-56). 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, and has nothing to do with the relative size of each tribe. If the division of the land is
ultimately carried out on the basis of a lot that depends on fate, 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, and must be carried out in a just way; the casting of the lot represents
solely Gods confirmation of the division. There are other instances in Tanakh of this sort of
phenomenon, where the result is known before a selection is made. An example is the story
of the appointment of Shaul as king (Shmuel I 10:17-27); another is the discovery of Yonatan
as the person who has violated the oath of Shaul, 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.
14:40-42).
[17]
There is certainly room to contemplate the allusion in the expression a lions cub (gur
aryeh), with regard to the city called Layish! (See M. Garsiel, Midrashei Shemot ba-Mikra,
Ramat Gan 5748, pp. 48-49.)
[18]
See the Daat Mikra commentary on Bamidbar, Jerusalem 5748, pp. 16, n. 2.

[19]

Except for an obvious deviation concerning the tribes of Reuven and Gad. The visual
parallel suggests that their portion was originally meant to be in the southern region.
Ultimately, the portion that Reuven receives is in the south but on the other side of the
Jordan.

Fundamental Questions in the Study of Tanakh

By Rav Amnon Bazak

Duplication and Contradiction

(Part 1)
A.

Background

The awareness that the Torah contains many instances of

duplication, as well as contradictions between different sources, has
always existed. Chazaladdress these phenomena in many places,
and note them using expressions such as, "Two biblical verses
contradict one another"; "one verse says while another verse
says." The commentators broaden the discussion even further, and
propose different explanations for the phenomena of repetition and
contradiction in Tanakh, both in relation to contradictions between
different textual units, and in relation to contradictions that occur
within one single unit.[1]
To illustrate the phenomenon, let us list some of the betterknown contradictions.
1.
The most famous would seem to be the two descriptions
of the Creation, as set forth in chapter 1 and chapter 2 of Bereishit.
Chapter 1 suggests that first the plants were created (verses 11-12),
followed by animals (verses 20-25), and finally man male and
female together (verse 27). In chapter 2, by contrast, man is created
first (verse 7), followed by vegetation (verses 8-9), with the text
emphasizing that there was no point in creating plants prior to the
appearance of man, and animals are created only in order to serve
as a "helpmate" to man (verses 18-20). Woman, too, is created at a
later stage, from one of Man's ribs (verses 21-23).
2.
Duplications and contradictions of this sort continue
throughout the narrative in Bereishit. The story of the Flood, for
example, 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; 9-13); twice God commands Noach to bring the
animals into the Ark, and twice we are told that Noach does
everything as God commands him (6:14-22; 7:1-5). Furthermore

there is a direct contradiction concerning the number of animals that

Noach is required to take. For he is told, "And of all the living things,
of all flesh, two of everything shall you bring to the Ark" (6:19-20).
However, just four verses later, Noach is told: "Of all the pure
animals shall you take for yourself by sevens, male and female"
(7:2).
3.
At the end of parashat Noach we read that Terach led
Avram, Sarai and Lot from Ur Kasdim, in the direction of Kena'an, but
they stopped in Charan (11:31-32). Later on we read that they
continued from Charan to Kena'an (12:5). But at the beginning
of parashat Lekh-lekha, God commands Avram, "Go forth from your
land and from your birthplace and from your father's house, 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. 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).
4.
The boundaries of the land, as stated at this Covenant
between the Parts, are "from the River ofEgypt to the great river, the
Euphrates" (ibid., 18), but two chapters later the boundaries are
limited to "the landof Kena'an" (17:8), located between the great sea
(Mediterranean) and the Jordan River (see Bamidbar34:1-13).
5.
God appears to Avraham and tells him that his son,
Yitzchak, will be born in a year's time (17:15-19), and Avraham
responds with laughter. In the next chapter, angels reveal
themselves to Avraham and inform him that in a year's time a son will
be born to him (18:10); this time it is Sara who laughs.
6.
When Yaakov returns from Charan to Kena'an, he sends
messengers to Esav, in Se'ir (32:3); at the end of their encounter
Esav returns home to Se'ir (33:16). 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, in light of the impossibility of both of them living in the same
area, owing to their respective wealth.
7.
In the sale of Yosef, we read, "TheMidianites sold him to
Egypt, to Potifar, Pharaoh's chamberlain, the captain of the guard"
(37:36), but further on we read, "And Potifar bought him from
theIshmaelites who had brought him down there" (39:1).
8.
The same phenomenon continues intoShemot. For
instance, in the plague of blood, Moshe says, "Behold, I will smite
with the staff that is in my hand upon the water that is in the River,
and it shall turn into blood" (Shemot 7:17) i.e., Moshe himself will
strike the River with his staff. But two verses later God tells Moshe,
"Say to Aharon: Take your staff and stretch your arm over the water
of Egypt, over their streams, over their rivers, over their lakes, and

over all their pools of water, and they shall be blood" in other
words, it is Aharon who strikes the water with his staff, and not only
the Nile, but all bodies of water throughout Egypt, turn into blood.
9.
At the time of the Exodus, Moshe tells Bnei Yisrael, "No
man shall emerge from the door of his house until the morning"
(12:22), suggesting that the Exodus takes place the next day. But a
few verses later we read, "[Pharaoh] called for Moshe and Aharon by
night, and he said: Arise and get out from among my people and
the Egyptians urged the people to hurry, that they might send them
out of the land for they were driven out of Egypt, and could not
delay, nor had they prepared themselves any provisions" (31-39).
This tells us that they left by night as supported by the verse
in Devarim (16:1), "For in the month of spring the Lord your God
brought you out of Egypt by night.
10. These sorts of contradictions are to be found in legal
units, too. In the laws concerning a Hebrew servant, in parashat
Mishpatim, we read that a servant who does not wish to go free in
the seventh year has his ear pierced by his master, with an awl, and
then "he shall serve him forever" (Shemot 21:6). As Rashbam
explains (ad loc.), "The literal meaning is all the days of his life, as
it says in the Book of Shmuel, 'And he shall remain there forever'
(Shmuel I 1:22)." This is also suggested in parashat Re'eh: "You
shall take the awl and put it through his ear, to the door, and he shall
be your servant forever" (Devarim 15:17). In parashat Behar, by
contrast, 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, those whom I brought out of
the landof Egypt; they shall not be sold as bondsmen" (Vayikra25:4042).
11. In the commandment of Shemitta, the Sabbatical year,
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, that the poor of your people may eat, and what they
leave, the beasts of the field shall eat" (Shemot 23:11). InVayikra,
however, 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, and for your servants, and for your
maidservants, and for your hired workers, and for the stranger who
sojourns with you. And for your cattle, and for the beasts in your land
shall all its produce be, for food" (Vayikra 25:6-7).
12. Especially prominent are the seeming contradictions
between Devarim and the preceding Books both in terms of the
narrative and in details of halakha. Chapter 1 of Devarim beings with
a description of the appointment of the judges (verses 9-18), and it

differs in several significant respects from the narrative

in Shemot ch.18. In Devarim, the appointment of the judges is
depicted as Moshe's own initiative, with no mention of Yitro, who
in Shemot persuades Moshe to appoint judges. Furthermore
in Shemot it is Moshe who selects the judges, while in Devarim he
appeals to the people to choose them, etc.
13. Further on in chapter 1 of Devarim, Moshe recounts the
episode of the spies, and here again, the account is quite different
from the one recorded inparashat Shelach. The most glaring
difference is that while in parashat Shelach the initiative of appointing
spies comes from God, in Devarim it is the people who request this
scouting mission. There are also many other differences, concerning
the purpose of the mission, the question of whether the conclusion
drawn from the mission is stated by the spies or by the people,
Yehoshua's role, and more.
14. In chapter 2 we read of the Children of Israel's approach
to Edom, and the warning they are given in advance that they will not
be able to enter the land of Edom; they will be permitted only to
purchase food and water from them (verses 5-6), as actually
happens (verse 29). In Bamidbar, chapter 20, we read that the
Children of Israel wanted to journey through the land of Edom, and
Edom refused, not permitting even the purchase of food and water.
15. Likewise there are differences in descriptions of what
happened in the episode of the golden calf: Shemot, chapter 32,
describes how immediately after God tells Moshe of His intention to
wipe out the nation, Moshe begs and pleads and succeeds in
annulling this decree. In Devarim chapter 9 by contrast, Moshe
descends the mountain with the feeling that the fate of the nation has
been sealed; only afterwards does he ascend to God and ask that He
annul the decree.
16. In the halakhic realm we find, for example, the wellknown differences between Shabbat in the Ten Commandments as
they appear in Shemot (20:8-11) and in Devarim (5:12-15). The
discrepancy goes beyond the opening command ("Remember" vs.
"Observe"),
extending
to
the
reason
behind
the
mitzva. Shemotemphasizes the context of the man-God relationship:
"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. Devarim emphasizes the
social context: "And you shall remember that you were a slave 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 day of Shabbat."

17. In the units describing the Pesach sacrifice there are

likewise discrepancies between Devarim and the previous Books. As
an example, in Shemot chapter 12, we read concerning the animal to
be used as the sacrifice, "You shall take it from the sheep or from the
goats" (verse 5), and concerning the form in which it is to be eaten
"You shall not eat of it raw, nor boiled at all in water" (verse 9).
In Devarim chapter 16, concerning the animal we read, "You shall
offer a Pesach to the Lord your God, of the flock and of the herd
(cattle)" (verse 2), 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).
18. As another example, concerning a Hebrew maidservant
we read in Sefer Shemot, "She shall not go out as the slaves go out"
(21:7). The plain meaning is that she is not automatically freed when
a Hebrew servant would be "after six years" (Rashbam, ad loc.), as
mentioned in the previous verse. In Sefer Devarim, however, we find:
"If your brother, a Hebrew man or Hebrew woman is sold to you, he
shall serve you for six years, and in the seventh year you shall let
him go free from you" (Devarim 15:12).
The above are just a few examples of the phenomenon under
discussion here. These examples have been debated over the
generations and various explanations have been proposed.
However, in many instances the solutions are less than satisfactory,
since they interpret the text in a manner that does not sit well with the
plain meaning; one who seeks to understand the literal meaning of
the text has trouble reconciling the various explanations with the
plain meaning. For instance, we mentioned above the textual
description of Avraham journeying with Terach, his father, until they
reach Charan, and the continuation of his journey to Kena'an; and
the contrasting revelation in which God calls upon him to leave "your
land and your birthplace and your father's house, implying that this
command came while he was still in Ur Kasdim, as in fact is made
explicit later when his journey is recalled in Bereishit15:7. The
commentators offer various ways of resolving this contradiction, but
the difficulty seems to remain. Rashi (12:2) writes,
"But did he not leave there already, with his father, and come
as far as Charan? Rather, this is what God told him: Distance
yourself even further from there, and leave your father's
house."
On the plain level of the text, it is difficult to interpret the
command "lekh lekha" (literally, "go for yourself") to mean "distance

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, where the plain meaning is again
to leave the place where he is right now, and not to "distance himself
even further. For this reason, Ibn Ezra and Radak explain that this
command was indeed given to Avraham in Ur Kasdim, and the verse
in fact is meant in the sense of the past perfect tense that God "had
commanded" Avraham. However, this too presents difficulties, if for
no other reason than that the formulation of the verse gives no hint of
this chronological ordering.[2] Other commentaries give rise to other
questions.[3]
The same perplexity arises in the halakhic realm. Concerning
the Hebrew servant, we noted above the contradiction between "and
he shall serve him forever (le-olam) in parashat Mishpatim, and the
mandatory release in the Jubilee year, as mentioned in parashat
Behar. Chazal's solution to the contradiction is to conclude that,
"'Forever' means 'for as long as there is until the Jubilee'"
(Kiddushin 21b). However, this is difficult to reconcile with the literal
level of the text, as noted by Rashbam, whom we quoted above. The
expression "le-olam" appears dozens of times inTanakh, and it
always means "forever. For instance, "You shall not seek their
peace and their welfare all the days of your life, forever"
(Devarim 23:7); "And I said, I shall never break My covenant with
you" (Shoftim 2:1). Why, then, would the Torah use an expression
whose meaning is clear, in view of its other appearances, rather than
simply stating "until the Jubilee year"?
Aside from the unsatisfactory nature of the solutions to the
various contradictions, there is a more fundamental difficulty that
arises in view of the sheer number of such contradictions. If a
scholar, focusing on the plain meaning of the text, encounters such a
great number of contradictions, requiring such a great variety of
solutions and explanations, he cannot help but ask himself why
the Tanakh is written in this way. Would it not be more appropriate
that the text be written in an organized, smooth style devoid of
repetition and contradiction? Indeed, as the study of the biblical text
spread, it became necessary to address this phenomenon from a
broader and more all-encompassing perspective.
B.

The Documentary Hypothesis[4]

In 1753, a French doctor named Jean Astruc published a book

in which he proposed a revolutionary explanation for the authorship

of Sefer Bereishit. 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. He arrived at the conclusion that
Moshe wrote the Torah by combining two distinct sources
("documents"), each of which referred to God by a different Name.
This hypothesis served to resolve many of the contradictions
in SeferBereishit, since these often arise between two units that refer
to God by different Names. 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, while chapter 2 speaks of "Hashem Elo-him.
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), while the second unit speaks of "Elo-him. In
the same way, the repeated command to bring the animals into the
Ark, and confirmation of Noach's obedience, relates to the fact that
the first time, the text reads, "And Noach did according to all that Elohim commanded him; so he did" (Bereishit 6:22), while the second
time we find, "And Noach did according to all that Hashem
commanded him" (7:5). 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, and the
command by Hashem to take "by sevens. And so on, in many other
instances.
Astruc's theory opened the way for other biblical scholars, from
his time until today. Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, considered the father
of modern biblical criticism, extended Astruc's ideas to address the
entireTanakh. Between 1780 and 1783 he developed a method
of distinguishing the literary and thematic indications of separate
sources, even where different Names of God did not appear in the
text. He was also the first to propose that Moshe had not been the
editor who joined the separate sources into a single work. His
argument for attribution of a later date to the various sources rested
on claims we addressed in the previousshiurim, concerning verses
which appear to have been written at a later time than the events
which they describe.
Over the years, the basic theory was developed and
broadened further. Various scholars argued for the existence of
additional sources, and tried to define and characterize the nature
and style of the different sources out of which, according to their
view, the Torah had come to be constructed. The central question
was how each source could be isolated, after which one could

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. At the same time, the scholars argued that the various
documents reflect views which developed and changed over the
course of many generations, such that the contradictions in the
Biblical text arose from inter-generational differences of view. Some
pointed to contradictions among the various textual units that use the
name "Elo-him, and posited the existence of an additional source,
which included the commandments pertaining to the priests
(kohanim). In 1805, a German scholar Wilhelm de Wette published
his theory that the Book of Devarim represented a separate source,
composed during the period of King Yoshiyahu.[5]
In 1878, Julius Wellhausen reformulated the documentary
hypothesis, proposing four separate sources reflecting different
stages in the evolution of Jewish faith. On the basis of de Wette's
theory thatDevarim had been composed during the period of King
Yoshiyahu, Wellhausen proposed hypotheses as to the period in
which each of the four sources had appeared:
1.
The "J" source (reference to the first letter of the
English transliteration of the Name Y-H-V-H which, according
to Wellhausen, is the Name used for God in this source) is the
most ancient, dating to the beginning of the period of the
monarchy.
2.
The "E" source (referring to the name "Elo-him"),
which is slightly later (8th century B.C.E.), with pictorial
descriptions of God and extensive attention to nature.
3.
The "D" (Deuteronomist) source, consisting mainly
of Devarim, and a major portion of the Books of the Early
Prophets. This source, as noted, is dated to the period of
Yoshiyahu, and serves as the basis for the dating of the other
documents.
4.
The "P" (priestly) source, including the chapters
concerning the Mishkan in Shemotand major portions
of Vayikra. This is the latest source, addressing detailed laws
and the superior status of the priests, and having nothing to do
with nature. Wellhausen regarded this source as having been
composed as late as the Second Temple Period (6th century
B.C.E.), when the faith of Israel had become more focused on
details, and the priests formed the major religious leadership.

These four sources, according to the documentary hypothesis,

were combined by a number of editors, until the final form of the
Torah was achieved in the 5th century B.C.E.
According to Wellhausen's theory, the most ancient layer of
Jewish faith was "natural religion, following which there came the
moral monotheism of the prophets, and then the theocratic religion of
the priests, 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, to his view, represented a backward step in
terms of the development of ideas.[6]
The documentary hypothesis therefore rested on two central
pillars: a literary focus, addressing the contradictions in the text, and
explaining them on the basis of a division into four separate
documents;[7] and a historical focus, which attempted to trace the
chronological development and appearance of the four documents,
as well as to identify their authors.
Both of these pillars are not without their serious difficulties. In
the next shiur we will address the historical focus, and thereafter we
will treat the literary focus of the Documentary Hypothesis.
Translated by Kaeren Fish

[1]

For the meantime we will concern ourselves with the phenomenon as it is to be found in
the Torah. The phenomenon and the applicability of the solutions proposed in relation to the
rest ofTanakh will be discussed in a later chapter.
[2]
Hebrew grammar does not offer a fixed form for complex tenses such as the past perfect.
Generally, when the biblical text seeks to convey the past perfect, the usual order of the verse
is changed around so that the subject appears before the object. An example is the verse
"And Adam had known (ve-ha'adam yada) (i.e., engaged in marital relations with) Chava, his
wife" (Bereishit 4:1), where Rashi comments, "This was prior to the matter just discussed; it
was before he sinned and was expelled from the Garden of Eden, and likewise the pregnancy
and birth (preceded the sin and expulsion). If the verse had read, va-yeda ha-adam, it would
mean that his children were born only after he was expelled." Similarly, we may point to the
verse, "And God had revealed (va-Hashem gala) to Shmuel a day before Shaul's arrival"
(Shmuel I 9:15).
In the case of God's command to Avraham, too, according to the explanation of Ibn Ezra and
Radak, the text should logically have read, "And God had said (va-Hashem amar) to Avram,
'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,
then he should be depicted as the dominant figure on the journey. What we find, however, at
the end of chapter 11, is that it is Terach who seems to be the main character: "And Terach
took Avram, his son to go to the land of Kena'an."
[3]
Ramban, for example, rejecting the interpretations of Rashi and Ibn Ezra, argues that
Avraham had not been born in Ur Kasdim at all, but rather in Charan. This forces him to

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 Bermans introduction to Umberto Cassutos 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

contradicts the idea that at some stage a single location would

be chosen where God will cause His Name to rest. In fact,
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.
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.[8]
7. The adherents of de Wette's view saw further proof for their
argument in the fact that altars existed in the time of Eliyahu,
after the establishment of the Temple and well before the
reigns of Chizkiyahu and Yoshiyahu, 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, Hoshea,
Mikha, and Yishayahu. This would seem to show that the
prohibition of sacrificing outside of the Temple was instituted
only in the time of Yoshiyahu.[9]Concerning the first argument,
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. It could not have taken
place in Jerusalem, for two reasons: first, because Eliyahu
was active in the kingdom of Israel, whose capital was in
Shomron; and second, even if theoretically it might have been
possible for him to get to Jerusalem, the "competition"
between Eliyahu and the worshippers of Ba'al could obviously
not have taken place there.[10] However, when Eliyahu flees
and comes to Mount Chorev, he declares,
"For the Children of Israel have abandoned Your
covenant; they have destroyed Your altars and have
slain Your prophets by the sword" (Melakhim I 19:10).
If altars were forbidden in any case, why would Eliyahu have
been troubled by the fact that they had been destroyed? It
seems that after the division of the kingdom, there was indeed
a phenomenon of altars to God in the Kingdom of Israel, which
was cut off from the Temple at Yeravam's initiative; it was
these altars that were destroyed by the worshippers of Ba'al.
Although the establishment of these altars was forbidden in
the first place, their destruction was seen as a very grave
demonstration of idolatrous loyalties. 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, there was no room for speaking out against the
worship of God in inappropriate places. Those in the Kingdom
of Israel who built altars to God were evidently regarded by the

prophets in a positive light, since the obvious alternative was

the far greater evil of outright idolatry.
In any event, it should be emphasized thatMelakhim itself
whose composition, according to these scholars, was inspired
by Yoshiyahu's revolution, and was aimed at advancing the
idea of the concentration of worship is the very same source
that brings the story of Eliyahu; this proves that this incident is
not a contradiction of the principle. Unless we posit that the
editor ofMelakhim did not understand the contradiction
between his narratives, the obvious conclusion is that this
Book believes that although one single location had been
chosen in Jerusalem, there is no contradiction between that
and the gravity of the shattering of altars to God outside of
Jerusalem.
We therefore conclude that the central argument for the claim
of late authorship of Devarim has multiple and serious flaws. And
since this argument is the basis for the dating of the other
documents, the historical claims of the documentary hypothesis as a
whole are without foundation.
(To be continued)
Translated by Kaeren Fish

[1]

Historical questions arose once again in the wake of archaeological discoveries in Israel,
on the one hand, and Ancient Near Eastern studies, on the other. These geographicalhistorical aspects, which arose at a later period than the documentary hypothesis, will be
discussed in future chapters.
[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, with the aim of
having it viewed as holy in order to gain acceptance by the people, and it was for this reason
that they placed it in a concealed place in the Temple. 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, and we noted that the commentary on Divrei Ha-yamimattributed
to Rashi maintains this view. However, the claim that the work was a forgery that was
innocently accepted by the public, gives rise to doubts concerning the practical likelihood of
such a conspiracy. Indeed, many scholars today do not accept this theory, arguing instead
that the Sefer had been written during the time of Chizkiyahu, was hidden during the period of
Menashe, and was rediscovered during the reign of Yoshiyahu (see M. Weinfeld, MiYehoshua ve-ad Yoshiyahu, Jerusalem 5752, p. 177; Weinfeld himself presents a far more
complex view).
[3]
For reviews of the difficulties surrounding the hypotheses of de Wette and Wellhausen,
concerning the essence and dating of Sefer Devarim, see: M.Z. Segal, Mavo ha-Mikra,
Jerusalem 5737, pp. 140-142; M.D. Cassuto, "Devarim," Encyclopedia Mikra'it II, Jeruslaem
5714, column 611; Y.M. Grintz, "Devarim," Ha-Encyclopedia ha-IvritXI, Jerusalem 5717,
columns 887-890. In English, see U. Cassuto,The Documentary Hypothesis, Jerusalem 2011.
[4]
In the Ten Commandments we already find, "You shall have no other gods beside Me"
(Shemot 20:2), and further on in Shemot, "You shall make no mention of the name of other

gods, it shall not be heard from your mouth" (ibid. 23:13). See Shemot 34:1116; Vayikra 19:4; and elsewhere.
[5]
See, for example, M. Haran, Ha-Assufa ha-Mikra'it: Tahalikhei ha-Gibbush Ad Sof Yemei
Bayyit Sheni ve-Shinuyei ha-Tzura Ad Motza'ei Yemei ha-Benayim, Jerusalem 5764, pp. 2832. Haranattempts to prove that the story is chronologically later on the basis of the mention
of Yoshiyahu as the one to destroy the altar. However, this hypothesis relies on two prior
assumptions. First, Haran rejects outright the existence of the phenomenon of prophecy; if
this were true, then even if the words "by the name of Yoshiyahu" did not appear here, there
would be no room for a prophet to say anything about the future. Therefore, to his view, any
story about a prophecy concerning the future is actually based on later authorship, after that
"future" had already come to pass; only then could historical events be presented as having
been prophesied in advance. Obviously, for a person who believes that prophecy did exist,
there is no difficulty in accepting the possibility that a prophet would foretell the future.
Second, 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, it is reasonable to posit that only the words "by
the name of Yoshiyahu" are not part of the original narrative, but rather were a later addition
introduced by the editor of the Book, who was familiar with the specific fulfillment of this
prophecy. This assumption does not rule out the concept of prophecy concerning the future
(as noted, for example, by Y. Elitzur, Yisrael ve-ha-Mikra, Jerusalem 5760, pp. 19-20).
[6]
For a discussion of the ways in which Yirmiyahu makes use of verses from Devarim, see:
D. Rom-Shiloni, "Ha-Torah be-Sefer Yirmiya: ha-Technikot ha-Parshaniot ve-ha-Megamot haIdeologiot,"Shenaton le-Cheker ha-Mikra ve-ha-Mizrach ha-Kadum 17, 5767, pp. 43-87.
[7]
Many additional arguments in this regard are raised in the sources cited in n. 3 above.
Among others, the following difficulties are treated: Had Devarim been written in the time of
Yoshiyahu, 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), since Edom was an enemy kingdom during
this period (see Melakhim II 8:22). Furthermore, the text affirms that Amatzia, who reigned
before Chizkiyahu and Yoshiyahu, 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;
cf. Devarim 23:18). In addition, the depiction of the prophet-leader set forth in Devarim 18:16
sits well in relation to such figures as Yehoshua and Shmuel, but not with regard to the
prophets at the end of the First Temple Period.
[8]
As Cassuto notes (above, n. 3), 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, but rather represents a later addition. However, this seems like a
superficial and ad hoc manner of solving textual difficulties, using the theory to shape the
evidence rather than the other way round, even when it results in such a forced reading as
this.
[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; and that in fact, these sources indicate evidence of many altars during the period of
the settlement of the land and the period of the Judges (see, for example, A. Rofe [n. 5 in last
week's shiur], p. 59). However, these arguments are puzzling: Devarim itself emphasizes that
the prohibition applies specifically in the context of "the place which God shall choose", and
God's choice of Jerusalem became apparent only during the time of Shlomo (see Melakhim I
8:12-21). 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.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, see "bama", Encyclopedia Talmudit 3, pp. 339-341), but they
address mainly the verses in Sefer Vayikra 17, which are not relevant to our discussion at this
stage.
[10]
Chazal point out the exceptional nature of the construction of an altar on Mount Carmel,
viewing it as an "emergency measure" (seeYevamot 90b and elsewhere).

*********************************************************
Dedicated in memory of Joseph Y. Nadler, zl, Yosef ben Yechezkel Tzvi
*********************************************************

Shiur #4c: Duplication and Contradiction (continued)

Let us now address another argument that is central to

Wellhausen's approach, 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, and within this context there was a fundamental
transition from religion based around natural life, to one focused on
historical events and to ceremonial and symbolic frameworks. One
aspect of this was that the festivals, which had originally been purely
agricultural celebrations, were imbued at this time with additional
historical significance. 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), and that the idea of sacrifice in
general became dominant and prevalent. In addition, the entire
subject of priestly gifts, according to Wellhausen, appeared only in
the period of the priestly regime, 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.
These speculative claims as to the nature of the Priestly source
and its relationship to the preceding Books were countered, from
different directions, by Rabbi David Tzvi Hoffmann and Prof.
Yechezkel Kaufmann.[1] In brief, I shall set forth three of the major
arguments found in their works against this approach.[2]
1.
In terms of subject matter, it is difficult to understand why
the
Priestly
source,
which
includes
major
sections
of Shemot and Bamidbar and almost all of Vayikra, would include
laws that have no connection with the Second Temple Period such
as the instructions to build the Mishkan and its vessels, and the
division of the land among the tribes. At the same time, some laws
that were extremely relevant during that period primarily the issue
of mixed marriages, which was a central issue treated by Ezra and
Nechemia make no appearance at all.
2.
In light of archaeological finds from the ancient Near
East, 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. "The argument that during the period of
exile new sacrifices, new festivals and new religious institutions were
invented, seems absurd to anyone who is familiar with the cultures of
the ancient Near East Wellhausen viewed institutionalized and
[3]

complex ritual as the fruit of later development. He had no idea of the

existence of orderly and fixed ritual in the major cultural centers of
the ancient Near East."[4]
3.
Scholars have noted linguistic elements showing the
profound differences between biblical Hebrew and the development
of the language in the Second Temple Period.[5] For instance, the
word 'edah' (congregation), which appears dozens of times in
different parts of the Torah that are attributed to the Priestly source,
was cited extensively by Wellhausen's school as evidence of later
writing. However,[6] this word is used less and less: in the Books of
the Early Prophets it appears twenty times; in the Later Prophets
only three times, 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, it should be quite ubiquitous. Instead,
these Books make extensive use of the word "kahal." The decrease
in the number of appearances of the word "edah" indicates the
gradual abandonment of this term, which points to the conclusion
that it belongs to the linguistic context of a period long before that of
the Second Temple.
In addition, there are also prominent differences between the
language of Yechezkel and that of Vayikra, despite the relatively
extensive treatment of Templematters in Yechezkel. For example,
the verb used in the Priestly source to describe the washing of the
parts of the sacrifices is "r-ch-tz,"[8] while in Sefer Yechezkel the verb
"n-d-ch" is used instead (for example, 40:38 "yadichu et ha-olah"
"they would wash the burnt offering"), and likewise in Divrei Hayamim (Divrei Ha-yamim II 4:6).
In view of these discrepancies, there are some scholars who
agree that biblical Hebrew is indeed different from the Hebrew of the
Second Temple Period, but argue that it is the invention of scholars
who lived during the Second Temple Period, and existed as a literary
language rather than a living one. Such claims, which seem tenuous
on their own terms, 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.[9]Thus we find that ancient biblical Hebrew matches
inscriptions from the period of the monarchy,[10] while later biblical
Hebrew matches external testimonies that we have from the Second
Temple Period, such as the Book of Ben Sira and the Dead Sea
Scrolls.
For
example,
in
the
Books
of Bereishit, Shmuel andMelakhim, there is frequent mention of the

city of "Damesek" (Damascus),[11] while in Divrei Ha-yamim it is

referred to as "Darmesek" (Divrei Ha-yamim I 18:5-6;Divrei Hayamim II 16:2), even where the verses parallel sources
in Shmuel and Melakhim. The same phenomenon is to be found in
external sources, too: in the Tel Amarna letters, dating to the
14th century B.C.E., and other inscriptions, the city is called
"Damesek," while in the Dead Sea Scrolls and other later writings it is
referred to as "Darmesek."
These arguments have led many scholars to reject
Wellhausen's hypothesis concerning the later authorship of the
Priestly source,[12] even though some of them generally subscribe to
the documentary hypothesis.
D.

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. However, beyond
addressing the problems inherent in the historical claims of the
documentary hypothesis, we must also emphasize a central difficulty
that emerges from an in-depth analysis of the language of
theTanakh. The study of the development of biblical Hebrew provides
a very strong indication that theChumash predates not only the later
Books of Tanakh, as discussed above, but also the Books of the
Prophets.[13] This is shown most strongly when we contrast the
language of the Chumash with the Books of the Prophets where,
despite the general similarity between them, we find a number of
motifs that appear exclusively in one but not the other.
For example, some common expressions in the prophetic
literature are completely absent from the Torah. Let us mention three
prominent examples.
1.
The expression "ha-Shem Tzeva-ot" ("Lord of Hosts")
appears 260 times in Tanakh, but starting only in the Book of
Shmuel.[14] There is no mention of this description of God in the
Torah, nor in the Books ofYehoshua and Shoftim.
2.
The expression "So may God do, and so may He add,"
appears
eight
times
as
an
oath
in
the
Books
of Shmuel and Melakhim, but is not used in connection with any of
the oaths in the Torah.[15]
3.
"Naveh" refers to the place where shepherds sit as they
pasture the flocks. The word is used in this sense some twenty times
in Tanakh all from the Book of Shmuel onwards.[16] Its absence

from the Torah would seem to indicate that the word did not exist in
this sense at that time, and that it began to be used only during the
period of the monarchy, much later on.
The absence of these common expressions from the Torah would
suggest that the Torahs Hebrew is a more ancient stage of the
language than that which is found in the Books of the Prophets. Had
some parts of the Torah been written from the period of the
monarchy onwards, there would be no reason for the absence of
such common expressions.
We may also point out instances of the opposite phenomenon:
words which exist in the Torah, but do not appear in the Books of the
Prophets. For example, the word "isheh" (referring to a burnt offering)
appears dozens of times in the Books of Vayikra and Bamidbar, and
is a central motif in the world of sacrifices, but it appears nowhere in
the prophetic literature. On the basis of the documentary hypothesis,
it is difficult to understand why this is the case, and why the authors
of the Books of the Prophets would not have used the same terms
which they had employed, according to this view, in writing the Books
of the Torah.
There are also many instances of differences in spelling
between the Torah and the Books of the Prophets. To cite just two
examples:
1.
The word "hi" (she) is spelled just eleven times in the
Torah with the letter 'yud'; far more often (199 times!) we find the
same spelling as the word "hu" (meaning 'he') i.e., with a 'vav,' with
only the vowels (chirik) indicating the feminine form. In the rest
ofTanakh, in contrast, the word is spelled with a 'yud' 474 times, and
not a single time with the letter 'vav.' It is reasonable to assume that
this difference in spelling reflects a difference in the way the word
was pronounced, but in any event it points to a difference between
the period of the Torah and that of the prophets.
2.
The word "na'arah" (girl) appears twenty-two times in the
Torah, mostly in Devarim; only once is it spelled with the letter 'heh'
at the end (Devarim 22:19); in every other instance it ends with the
letter "resh," accompanied by the "kamatz" vowel to signify the
feminine form. In contrast, the rest of Tanakh includes the word 23
times all spelt with a 'heh' at the end. Here again it would seem that
in the most ancient form of Hebrew, the same word was used for the
masculine and feminine forms of the word, and that the traditional

pronunciation of the word "na'ar" as "na'ara" represents a later

development.[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.[18] By comparing the various
Books of the Tanakh with one another, and by comparison with
external findings, we see quite clearly the development of the
Hebrew language and the building of its various layers as
the Tanakh progresses. The documentary hypothesis, which claims
that that the Torah was authored contemporaneously with many later
books ofTanakh, has no convincing explanation for this fact.
(To be continued)
Translated by Kaeren Fish

[1]

Rabbi David Tzvi Hoffmann (1843-1921) was one of the leaders of German Jewry, a
halakhic
authority
and
a
commentator
on Tanakh,
who
headed
the Hildesheimer Rabbinical Seminary in Berlin. In his book, Decisive Refutations of
Wellhausen, originally written in German, Rabbi Hoffmann presented a moderate and
objective refutation of Wellhausen's claims of a Priestly source dating to the Second Temple
Period. Yechezkel Kaufmann (1889-1963), a professor at the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, was among the scholars who did accept the documentary hypothesis in principle,
but nevertheless were completely opposed to Wellhausen's claim in this particular regard.
See his work, Toldot ha-Emunah ha-Yisraelit, vol. 1,Jerusalem 5736, pp. 113-120 (translated
and abridged by Prof.Moshe Greenberg as The Religion of Israel, Chicago 1960).
[2]
See Weinfeld, MiYehoshua ve-ad Yoshiyahu, columns 499-502.
[3]
We shall discuss the relationship between these finds and the biblical text in a later
chapter.
[4]
Weinfeld, column 500.
[5]
See, for example, the following by A. Hurvitz: A Linguistic Study of the Relationship
between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel, Paris 1982; The Historical Quest for
Ancient Israel and the Linguistic Evidence of the Hebrew Bible: Some Methodological
Observations, Vetus Testamentum 47, 1997, pp. 301-315; "Al Kama Munachim mi-Techum
ha-Kedusha ve-ha-Tahara ha-Meshamshim be-Sefer Yechezkel be-Mishkal 'Mekutal'," in: Y.
Zakovich and A. Rofe (eds.), Sefer Yitzchak Aryeh Zeligman, Jerusalem 5743, pp. 247-256;
"Ha-Vikuach ha-Arkheologi-Histori shel Kadmut ha-Sifrut ha-Mikrait Leor ha-Mechkar haBalshani shel ha-Ivrit," in: Y.L. Levin and A. Mazar (eds.), Ha-Pulmus al ha-Emet ha-Historit
ba-Mikra, Jerusalem 5761, pp. 34-46.
[6]
See Rabbi Hoffmann (above, n. 1), p. 62, n. 1; A. Hurvitz, "Le-Shimusho shel ha-Munach
ha-Kohani 'Edah' be-Sifrut ha-Mikrait,"Tarbiz 40:3 (5731), pp. 261-267.
[7]
In Divrei Ha-yamim it appears just once (Divrei Ha-yamim II 5:6), but there, too, the verse
has a parallel in Melakhim I 8:5, such that the appearance of the word here does not
represent any new content.
[8]
See, for example, Shemot 29:17; Vayikra 1:9, 13: 8:21; 9:14.
[9]
See Hurvitz 1997 (above, n. 5), p. 308-313.

[10]

Relevant findings in this regard include the Siloam (Shiloach) inscription,

the Lachish letters, and inscriptions in neighboring languages such as the Mesha Stele. We
will discuss archaeological artifacts from the period of the monarchy later on.
[11]
Shmuel II 8:5-6; Melakhim I 11:24, and elsewhere.
[12]
See, inter alia, Weinfeld, column 502; Schwartz, p. 209.
[13]
The examples cited here were presented in a lecture by Y. Elitzur, "Revadim be-Ivrit haMikrait ha-Keduma," at the Study Days in Tanakh held in Alon Shvut during the summer of
2006.
[14]
Chazal note this: "Rabbi Elazar said: From the time that the Holy One, blessed be He,
created His world, no one called Him 'Tzeva-ot' until Channa [mother of Shmuel], who called
Him by this Name" (Berakhot 31b).
[15]
Other examples: 1. the root "k-l-m" (shame), as a verb and as a noun, appears some
seventy times in Tanakh, but never in the Torah. 2. The word "dim'a" (tear as in weeping)
appears in its various forms 25 times in Tanakh, but never in Torah (except for Shemot22:28,
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]").
[16]
It appears in the Torah only once, and in a metaphoric sense: "To Your holy habitation" (el
neveh kodshekha Shemot 15:13).
[17]
Further examples: 1. 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. For instance, 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); in the Books of the
Prophets, in contrast, it appears in defective form only rarely (19 out of 150 instances). This
example is cited from J. Barr, The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible, New York 1989, p.
135. 2. The word "ha-el," in the sense of "ha-eleh" ("these"), appears 8 times in the Torah, but
nowhere in the Books of the Prophets. (In Divrei ha-Yamim I 20:8 we find one instance of "el
noldu" "these were born.")
[18]
Linguistic scholar Gotthelf Bergstrsser addressed these phenomena; in his book on the
grammar of the Hebrew language he writes that they "should be attributed solely to later
editing." However, the claim that a later editor would alter the language in such a peculiar way
seems highly unlikely.

**********************************************************
Dedicated in memory of Joseph Y. Nadler, zl, Yosef ben Yechezkel Tzvi
*********************************************************

Shiur #4d: Duplication and Contradiction (continued)

E.

The literary aspect of the documentary hypothesis

Like the historical aspect of the documentary hypothesis, its

literary aspect, too, contains significant difficulties, and has caused
scholars of recent generations to gradually reject parts of the
approach.[1]The attempt to create a uniform continuity within the
various documents was unsuccessful, and therefore various attempts
were made to divide the documents themselves into sub-sources.
The proper sub-division of the four central sources gave rise to much
controversy among scholars, with especially contentious debate
surrounding the division between the "E" source and the "J" source.
With an absence of agreement concerning even the basic
assumptions for the discussion, phenomena such as the stages of

development reflected in these sources were difficult to address.

Differences of opinion spread also to other aspects of the hypothesis,
including the dating of the various documents; the relationship
between their various sub-units; the degree to which the redactor
was involved in the writing; the question of how and when the
sources were joined into a single Torah; and more. These
disagreements undermined, to a certain degree, the reliability of the
approach as a whole.
However, beyond these debates, 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, but a single, continuous text in
which the various sources are intertwined so as to preserve
continuity of theme, despite the disparate origins of the sources.
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.[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, nor has any archaeological
discovery ever been made of any of them in pristine individual form.
At the beginning of the 20th century a new school of thought
appeared, founded by the German scholar Hermann Gunkel, who
suggested that the text in itself reflects the consolidation of various
oral traditions; hence, one need not necessarily posit a collection of
contradictory written sources. While this approach was not meant to
replace the documentary hypothesis, it did lead to the development
of other scholarly views which tended not to accept the documentary
hypothesis in its entirety. Many modern scholars, based in Germany,
have almost completely abandoned the documentary hypothesis,
and have proposed alternative models to explain the process of the
writing of the Torah.[4] As a result of the diminishing persuasiveness
of the documentary hypothesis, many scholars of the last generation
eschewed attention to, and analysis of, 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), turning
instead to literary analysis of the text in its present form, having
concluded that there is little to be gained from trying to discover the
origins of the Biblical text.

Yet despite all the difficulties we have noted that weaken the
claims of the documentary hypothesis and similar models, the textual
problems which prompted the hypothesis, and which it attempted to
solve, still remain. The contradictions and duplications present in
theTanakh, and the impossibility of reading the Torah as a single
continuum, have not been solved, and the fact that in many cases
one is able to discern a pattern to the contradictions between
different units, in terms of the different terminology which they use,
including different Names of God, remains valid. Any student of the
Torah therefore must confront the challenge of how the
contradictions and duplications within the Torah should be
addressed.
F.

The "aspects" approach

The documentary hypothesis stands, of course, in direct

contradiction to the traditional Jewish world-view, which views the
Torah as a unified creation emanating from a Divine source. Much of
the religious Jewish public has never been exposed to the
documentary hypothesis, and even those who have partial familiarity
with it have, for the most part, the fundamental questions it sought to
address in fact, the world of Biblical academia is generally
dismissed without any serious attention.[5] Fear of the possible
influences of the Enlightenment and its attendant views, which had
penetrated the Jewish world, too, likewise led to a general distaste
for this academic realm and also, to some extent, to a weakening
of Tanakh study amongst religious Jews.
The prevalent approach among the Jewish scholars who did
address the documentary hypothesis,[6] such as Malbim, Rav
Shimshon Raphael
Hirsch,
Rav
Yitzchak
Isaac
HaLevy
[7]
[8]
Rabinowitz, and especially Rav David Tzvi Hoffmann, was to
reject it out of hand. However, it would seem that even Rav
Hoffmann, who was the only one to tackle the documentary
hypothesis head-on, 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, 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), a Torah sage as well

as a scholar of world renown in the field of biblical study who

developed the "aspects approach,[9] or in Hebrew, shitat habechinot.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, while maintaining that these differences and
contradictions
were
nevertheless
Divinely authored
and
intended, 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, and anyone who
seeks the truth and acknowledges the truth cannot deny the
truth that arises from the words of these scholars. And since
our tradition teaches that one cannot deny that which the eye
sees and the ear hears, we too as faithful Jews shall not
deny that which the human intellect indicates with certainty. We
cannot deceive our souls in turning a lie into truth, and truth
into a lie" (Shitat ha-Bechinot, p. 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. According to this approach,
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. These descriptions can be
presented individually and alone, each expressing one aspect of
reality in its pristine form, or can be presented in combination with
other conflicting descriptions that express a different aspect of the
issue. When one steps back from the text and considers the multiple
aspects of a topic that have been presented, the differences cease to
appear as contradictions, but rather as expressions of the multifaceted nature a given topic which, taken together, give us the whole
picture. Thus Rav Breuer continues:
"The man of science sees in the Torah a collection of
documents, written by J, E, D, P, and redacted later on by R.
The man of great faith, in contrast, sees in the Torah the work
of God. This man believes that God Himself wrote J, E, D, and
P, and He Himself also took on R's redaction work." (ibid., pp.
132-133)

Rav Breuer applied his approach in his books,[10]and we shall

examine very briefly a few examples of his approach.
Let us start with a famous example of where two seemingly
different versions of the same event are placed alongside one
another, that of the first two chapters of Bereishit, which both
describe the creation of the world.[11] In keeping with his approach,
Rav Breuer argued that these two chapters represent two different
aspects of God's relationship with, and guidance of, the world.
Chapter 1, in which God is called "Elo-him, represents the world of
nature, where the order of Creation follows a natural progression
from plant life, via animals, to the creation of man who is likewise
created naturally, male and female together. In this natural world,
man's role is to rule over nature but he has no creative role, nor
any special quality that separates him fundamentally from the animal
kingdom.
Chapter 2, on the other hand (starting from verse 4), where the
Name Y-H-V-H is added to God's Name, expresses revelation and
the connection between God and man. Man stands at the center of
this world, and until he is created, there is no point in creating plants
and animals (which are created after him). Man's role in chapter 2 is
"to cultivate it and to guard it": he has a creative role, relating to his
obligation to develop the world, and to eat in a manner that is
different from the animals. He is a creature with intelligence, able to
give names to the animals, and he is given special prohibitions by
God he may not eat from the Tree of Knowledge. In this world, the
creation of woman, who is created in this version after man, is not
intended solely for the purpose of continuing the human race; her
role is also, perhaps fundamentally, to alleviate man's loneliness by
providing him with a partner, a "helpmate, whom he can love and
rejoice in.
Thus, the Torah does not gives us one account of how the
world was created, 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, and how it would have been created had it
been a world only of revelation and direct contact between God and
man. In reality, "both these and those are the words of the living
God, and the truth is a combination of these two ideas
together.[12] Man is at one and the same time a part of the natural
world and the most sophisticated creature in it, with the natural role of
reproducing and continuing the human race, but also fundamentally

separate from nature and a part of God Himself a creature

endowed with intelligence who may be commanded, and whose
connection with his partner is not like that which exists among the
animals, but has a strong social-spiritual component as well.[13]
Let us now examine an example where the two aspects are not
separated but intertwined in the text. We mentioned in a
previous shiur the contradictions in the description of the plague of
blood in Egypt. Here, too, it seems that the Torah is describing two
separate aspects of the plague.[14] First we read of the specific
command to Moshe to address Pharaoh, and to strike the water of
the Nile. This striking seems to represent the beginning of Pharaoh's
punishment, "measure for measure, for his command that all boys
born to Am Yisrael be cast into the Nile:
"Go to Pharaoh in the morning behold, he goes out to the
water and you shall stand at the bank of the Nile to meet him,
and you shall take in your hand the staff which turned into a
snake. And you shall say to him, The Lord God of the Hebrews
has sent me to you, to say, Let My people go, that they may
serve Me in the wilderness, for behold, you have not obeyed
until now. So says the Lord: By this shall you know that I am
the Lord: behold, I shall smite with the staff that is in my
hand upon the water that is in the Nile, and it shall turn to
blood. And the fish that are in the Nile will die, and the Nile will
stink, and the Egyptians will no longer be able to drink water
from the Nile." (Shemot 7:15-17)
The same Nile in which Moshe had been hidden as an infant,
and where he was saved from the bloodbath that was the fate of the
other Jewish babies, becomes at Moshe's command a river of
blood.[15]
The Torah then goes on to describe the other aspect of the
plague of blood, 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, "Show a sign for yourselves" (7:9), after the sign
involving the serpent does not have the desired effect, and
"Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them" (7:13).
From this perspective, the plague on the Nile represents an
"escalation" in the power of the sign, and therefore the plague affects
not only the Nile but also every source of water in Egypt. For this
purpose the staff of Aharon is used, just as it had been for the sign of
the serpent:

"And God said to Moshe: Say to Aharon, Take your staff and
stretch out our arm over the water of Egypt over their rivers,
over their canals, over their ponds, and over every pool of
water, that they shall become blood, and there shall be blood
throughout the land of Egypt, both in [vessels of] wood and in
[vessels of] stone." (7:13)
Thereafter, the Torah records the execution of both aspects
together: "And Moshe and Aharon did so, 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, before the eyes of Pharaoh and before the eyes of
his servants, and all the water that was in the Nile turned into
blood. And the fish that were in the Nile died, and the Nile
stank, 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.
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).
Just as the two aspects of the plague of blood are intertwined
in both the introduction and the enactment of the plague of blood, the
end of the plague is likewise described from both perspectives.
According to the aspect that describes Aharon's striking of the water,
the main purpose of the plague is to serve as proof of God's
existence. But it becomes apparent that once again, the plague has
not achieved its aim, 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,
and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, nor did he listen to them,
as God had said. And Pharaoh turned and went to his house,
and did not take even this to heart." (verses 22-23)

It would seem, then, that according to this aspect, the plague of

blood had already ended for if all the water in Egypt was blood, the
Egyptian magicians would not have been able to perform the same
feat, since they would have had no fresh water to use. Thus,
Aharon's sign ended after some time, and then the magicians
managed to replicate the sign, and therefore Pharaoh once again
refused to award Aharon's sign any serious attention.
However, in terms of Moshe's specific striking of the Nile, the
plague had not yet ended, as the Torah immediately goes on to note:
"And all the Egyptians dug around the Nile for water to drink,
for they could not drink of the water of the Nile. And seven days
were completed, after God had struck the Nile." (verse 24)
According to this description, the plague lasted a week, 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. It
was only at the end of the week that the plague was seen to have
ended, and it was time for another plague.[17]
Thus, 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, common to all the
plagues, of Gods truth and power. The Torah presents both aspects
through the intertwining of their various elements, giving us a multifaceted and nuanced presentation of the plague of blood.
(To be continued)
Translated by Kaeren Fish

[1]

Reviews of approaches opposing the documentary hypothesis may be found in sources

cited previously: A. Rofe, pp. 83-112; B.Y. Schwartz, pp. 218-225. See also M.Z. Segal, pp.
127-147; R. Alberts, Tahalikh Tzemichatah shel ha-Torah Gishot ba-Mechkar haModerni, Beit Mikra 55 (2) 5771, pp. 5-38.
[2]
As noted by M.Z. Segal, p. 144: "No work has ever been composed through this approach
of joining fragments neither in biblical literature, nor in world literature This entire idea, set
forth by the proponents of the documentary hypothesis, runs contrary to common sense and
to scientific truth."
[3]
This problem troubled many scholars, prompting them to seek sources for this sort of
compilation during the biblical period. Y.H. Tigay, Ha-Chumash ha-Shomroni ke-Degem
Empiri le-Bikkoret ha-Sifrutit shel ha-Torah, Beit Mikra 22 (3) (70), 5737, pp. 348-361, and in
his wake A. Rofe (ibid) pp. 101-104, cite, as evidence of a style that brings contradictory

sources as part of a single text, the Samaritan Chumash and manuscripts found at Qumran,
in which the narratives in Sefer Shemot include parallel fragments from Sefer Devarim. Tigay
acknowledges (p. 360) that, since in the Samaritan Sefer Torah the fragments that were
integrated into Sefer Shemot remained unchanged in their place in Sefer Devarim, "the protoSamaritan redactor is revealed as having added into one fundamental text an addendum from
another text, instead of presenting them equally or creating a completely new version through
his own free workings of them. A greater measure of freedom than this is attributed to the
redactor of the Torah" (ibid.). Beyond this, however, 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. For example, in the story of the
appointment of the judges, in Shemot 18:13-27, 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, as part of his speech, are reworked in
the Samaritan Chumash in the third person (for example: instead of "And I said to you at that
time, saying, I cannot bear you alone", in Devarim 1:9, the Samaritan text reads: "And Moshe
said to the people, I cannot bear you alone"). In other words, even in the Samaritan Chumash
and other similar sources we find no situation of contradictory narratives which are presented
in juxtaposition; rather, they demonstrate an attempt to forge the different sources into a
single continuum that does not grant legitimacy to the contradictions.
[4]
See Alberts, pp. 6-7.
[5]
This thoroughgoing apathy arose, among other reasons, 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. For a general discussion of the topic
see Y. Shavit and M. Eran, Milchemet ha-Luchot Ha-Hagana al ha-Mikra be-Mea ha-Tesha
Esreh u-Pulmus Bavel ve-ha-Tanakh, Tel Aviv 5764, esp. pp. 68-80.
[6]
A review of Jewish Orthodox grappling with the documentary hypothesis is presented by
Shavit and Eran, pp. 72-75.
[7]
In his book Dorot Rishonim, vol. 6, Jerusalem 5699.
[8]
We have mentioned Rav Hoffmann's book on the subject previously. In his commentary
on Vayikra and Devarim he deals extensively with the critical approach.
[9]
This new approach was first published in the journal De'ot 11, pp. 18-25, and after that he
wrote several more articles on the subject. His own articles, and other articles written about
his approach, appear together in the book Shitat ha-Bechinot shel Ha-Rav Mordekhai Breuer,
Alon Shvut 5765; the references from this point onwards are to this book. The best discussion
in English of Rav Breuers work appears in Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah,
ed. Shalom Carmy (The Orthodox Forum, Aronson, 1996), which features a number of
articles by Rav Breuer and others about his approach.
[10]
Pirkei Mo'adot, Jerusalem 5746; Pirkei Bereishit, Alon Shvut 5758; Pirkei Mikraot, Alon
Shvut 5769.
[11]
For more extensive discussion, see Pirkei Bereishit, pp. 82-122.
[12]
If the biblical text presents aspects of the full truth, how can we know what actually
happened? Counterintuitively, Rav Breuer suggests that we look in the midrash: "Someone
who believes that only the plain, literal level of the text is the 'correct' or 'true' interpretation of
the Torah, will have trouble believing that the plain level of the text does not describe what
'actually' happened, 'in reality.' But their view is the view of the Sadducees and the Karaites.
Faithful Jews believe that both the peshat (literal level) and thederash (homiletical level)
provide correct and true interpretations of the Torah. The derash describes what actually
happened in reality, while the peshat describes what should have happened. This principle is
well-known and universally accepted in the halakhic realms of the Torah; my 'aspects
approach' merely applies this method to the narrative, as well. This being the case, where is
the problem, and where is the innovation?" (Shitat ha-Bechinot, pp. 299-300).
[13]
Obviously, there are also other ways of understanding the nature of the contradictions, and
especially the significance of the two different Names for God in the two accounts of creation.
Rav Breuer makes extensive use of the expressions "middat ha-din" (the Divine attribute of
strict justice, reflected in the Name "Elo-him"), and "middat ha-rachamim" (the Divine attribute
of mercy, reflected in the Name "Y-H-V-H"), based on Chazal's teachings in this regard. U.
Cassuto,Torat ha-Te'udot ve-Sidduram shel Sifrei ha-Torah, Jerusalem 5719, pp. 19-38,
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,

implying the definite article: "Elo-henu" (our God), "Elo-hekha" (your God), etc. The Name YH-V-H, on the other hand, is a "private Name" which is not made explicit and does not appear
in any possessive form; this is the Lord God of Israel. Hence, the Name "Elo-him" expresses
a general, objective description of a universal God and transcendental Being, while the Name
"Y-H-V-H" expresses the unmediated relationship between God and His creatures in general,
and Israel in particular. For this reason, chapter 1 presents a general, overall description of
Creation, while in chapter 2 the description is personal and subjective. Likewise, the dual
description of the Flood: the first description, which mentions "Y-H-V-H", as a personal Name,
describes God as having "regretted and was sorrowed in His heart," since the text is
speaking here of the direct relationship between God and man. The description using God's
"general Name," on the other hand, makes no mention and gives no hint of this relationship.
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, and "love of God" arising from a sense of closeness.
[14]
The explanation proposed here is slightly different from that given by Rav Breuer himself:
see Pirkei Mo'adot, pp. 208-218.
[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, but also in another linguistic link: Moshe is sent to Pharaoh prior to the plague,
and God commands him, "You shall stand (ve-nitzavta) at the bank of the Nile (al sefat hayeor) to meet him" (verse 15). 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). And his sister stood (va-tetatzav) at a distance, to know what would be
done with him" (2:3-4). Notably, the expression "al sefat ha-yeor" (at the bank of the Nile) is
not mentioned in the other plagues.
[16]
The reference here is to Moshe, as we see later on: "And God said to Moshe, Pass before
the people and take with you some of the elders of Israel, and the staff, with which you
struck the Nile, take in your hand as you go" (Shemot 17:5).
[17]
Two distinct aspects are apparent in the plague of frogs, too, as Rav Breuer notes, ibid.

*********************************************************
Dedicated in memory of Joseph Y. Nadler, zl, 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. If an indentured Hebrew servant
(eved ivri) decides to remain as a servant to his master, the question
arises as to whether he serves his master forever or goes free in the
Jubilee year. The Torah, which relates the laws of theeved ivri in a
number of places, 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. Parashat Behar as a whole expresses the idea that God
owns the world, the land of Israel, and man himself; for this reason it
is emphasized that the servant cannot serve his master in perpetuity
but is released, whether he likes it or not, in the fiftieth year.

"If your brother who is with you grows poor, and is sold to
you, you shall not cause him to serve as a slave. He shall
be a hired worker and sojourner with you; he will serve with you
until the Jubilee year. Then he shall depart from you he and
his sons with him and return to his family, and he shall return
to the inheritance of his fathers. For they are My servants,
whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be
sold as slaves." (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, he cannot be sold into
perpetual servitude in the same manner as a servant who is not an
Israelite. His release in the Jubilee year is a function of the concept of
God's ownership over Israel, and therefore the release in the Jubilee
year is automatic, without any formal act required on the part of the
master, and without any action on his part or on the part of the
slave being able to prevent the release in any way.
In contrast, in parashat Re'eh the Torah illuminates a different
perspective of the relations between the master and servant:
"If your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, is sold to
you, he shall serve you for six years, and in the seventh year
you shall let him go free from you. And when you send him free
from you, you shall not send him empty-handed: you shall
surely give him from your flock and from your threshing floor
and from your vineyard; of that with which the Lord your God
has blessed you shall you give to him. And you shall
remember that you were a servant in the landof Egypt, and
the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you
this thing today. And it shall be, if he says to you, I will not go
out from you, for I love you and your house, for he is happy
with you, then you shall take an awl and thrust it through his
ear to the door, and he shall be your servant forever; and also
to your maidservant shall you do thus." (Devarim 15:12-17)
According to this perspective, what obligates the master to free
the servant is not the religious aspect ofparashat Behar that Israel
are Gods servants and not mans servants but rather the moral
aspect: since each Israelite was once a slave in Egypt, he must treat
his own servants in a moral fashion. For this reason, he has a
practical obligation to let his servant go in the seventh year. This
release is not automatic, like the release in the Jubilee year; rather, it
is a release that is incumbent upon, and initiated by, the master, and

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). However, in this instance, if the servant
wishes to stay, then the master has no further obligation to effect his
release. Given that the master has exhausted his moral obligations,
the servant indeed remains "a servant forever."
In practice, "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, and if the
servant foregoes his freedom and prefers to stay, the master, for his
part, is exempt forthwith from initiating his release, forever. However,
in the Jubilee year, the servant goes free automatically since an
Israelite cannot be sold into perpetual servitude. By separating out
the two aspects of servitude theocentric (Israel are Gods servants
not mans) 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.[1]
The examples we have examined are only a few of the many
instances in which the "aspects approach" makes use of, and thereby
recognizes in principle, the scholarly analysis of Wellhausen et al
which exposed the contradictions and the independent ideas
expressed in the various units, yet it explains the nature of the
phenomenon in a radically different way. These contradictions are
not the wondrous, unparalleled work of an anonymous editor, who
joined together contradictory sources from different periods,
managing to weave them into a reasonably coherent continuum, as
well as succeeding in passing off his work to the Israelites as God's
Torah. Instead of this improbable hypothesis, 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. This composition is indeed unparalleled and
unprecedented precisely because only God could have created it.
Of course, this approach is dependent on faith in God as the
Giver of the Torah. This faith lies beyond the specific textual
questions that are addressed here, but ultimately it is the
fundamental basis for the entire debate between the documentary
hypothesis and the aspects approach. In Rav Breuer's words:

"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, and that a mortal redactor edited them into a single book.
We, on the other hand, believe that the sources of the Torah
were written by God, 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, for the intellect has nothing
to say on the matter." (Shitat Ha-bechinot, pp. 343-344)
It should be noted that Rav Breuer's extensive and minute
analysis of the textual units, attributing half-verses to one or another
aspect, is not always convincing. He accepts almost unquestioningly
the literary analysis of the classical Bible critics, while in recent times,
as noted, many scholars have questioned the possibility of arriving at
a clear, systematic division of sources; they acknowledge that the
text is sometimes so intertwined and convoluted that the proposed
division is difficult to accept. In parallel with the process that has
occurred in the academic world, 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, and may
propose a different division of the aspects, based on more clearly
defined ideas.[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. Rather, Rav Breuers fundamental insight
should be seen as highlighting the Torah's tendency to express the
complexity of various concepts and narratives through repetition,
ambiguity, and contradiction. 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. In general, then, we can state
that the phenomenon of different and contradictory aspects certainly
exists in the Torah, and the division between various units of the text
may be implemented in places where the division is clear, but it need
not be applied at all costs and certainly not in a dogmatic fashion.[3]
F.

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;
some of these have already been treated here. In his books, Rav
Breuer explains these contradictions on the basis of the "aspects

approach," and we have already examined one example in our above

discussion of the release of the Hebrew servant.
Yet it seems that specifically with regard to Sefer Devarim,
there is no need to appeal to the aspects approach in order to
resolve the abundant contradictions, since the great majority of the
book is made up not of objective narration, but rather of Moshe's own
lengthy speeches especially the opening speech (1:64:40) and
the "speech of the mitzvot" (5:1-26:19).[4] In other words, 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.
In some places Chazal note the special nature of Moshe's
speeches, 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,
but in the curses in SeferDevarim, it is permitted to interrupt.
What is the reason for this? These are stated in the plural, and
Moshe uttered them at God's instruction. Those are stated in
the singular, and Moshe stated them on his own." (Megilla 31b)
In other words, 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, since these are
not a quote of God's words, but rather Moshe's own words in the
speech where he bids farewell to the nation.[5] For this reason, 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, recorded in the unit of the curses in Sefer Vayikra.[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, 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, he does so, as evidenced by
Rabbi Yehuda, who usually did not seek to explain, but
in Devarim he did." (Yevamot 4a)[7]

In light of this, there is no need to appeal to the "aspects

approach" when discussing the contradictions between Devarim and
other parts of the Torah, 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.
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. For instance, 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, and
the objective narrative that precedes it in the Torah. One of the most
prominent differences concerns the initial dialogue between Avraham
and his servant. The objective account records the servant as asking
Avraham,
"Perhaps the woman will not agree to follow me to this land;
shall I then take your son back to the land from whence you
departed?" (Bereishit24:5).
Avraham's response is,
"Guard yourself lest you take my son back to there. If the
woman will not agree to follow you, you shall be free of this
oath to me; only do not take my son back there" (ibid., 6-8).
When the servant recounts these events, the entire matter of
the possibility of taking Yitzchak is omitted; all that is recalled of the
discussion is:
"I said to my master, Perhaps the woman will not follow me.
And he said to me, The Lord before Whom I walk will send His
angel with you, and cause your path to prosper, and you shall
take a wife for my son from my family and from my father's
household. Then you shall be free of my oath, when you come
to my family; and if they do not grant it to you, you shall be free
of my oath." (ibid. 39-41)[8]
Thus, the discrepancies between objective descriptions and
subjective accounts should not be treated as contradictions. Rather,
in each instance we need to examine the account and explain why
the event is described from a subjective viewpoint, how it expresses

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, Moshes subjective
standpoint would be of little significance. Nevertheless, the overall
point
remains
that
we
should
distinguish
between
contradictions within the
Torahs
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, zl, 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 Israels 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.

Gods 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);

"The Lord your God would not listen to Bil'am, and the Lord
your God transformed the curse into a blessing, for the Lord
your God loves you." (23:6)
Likewise, 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 with
all your soul, and with all your might" (6:5);
"You shall love the Lord your God and observe His charge and
His statutes and His judgments and His commandments for all
time." (11:1)
Here, again, it seems that the reason for this is connected to
the context of Devarim, being set on the eve of entry into the land.
This is indicated in Moshe's parting speech at the end of Devarim,
where he describes the process of repentance that Israel willundergo
after being exiled from the land as punishment for their sins. First we
read,
"And you shall return to the Lord your God, and obey Him
and the Lord your God will bring back your captivity, and have
mercy upon you, and gather you back from all of the nations
and the Lord your God will bring you to the land which your
forefathers inherited, and you shall take possession of it, and
He shall be good to you, and multiply you more than your
fathers." (30:2-5)
Only afterwards does Moshe say,
"And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the
heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all
your heart, and with all your soul, that you may live." (ibid., 6)
In other words, 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). Only in
the land can the relationship between God and Israel reach a level
that may properly be called "love." For this reason, 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.
3.

The Sanctity of the People in Devarim

Another principle that is conspicuous in Moshe's "speech of

the mitzvot," (chapters 5-26 of Devarim) in contrast to the other
books of the Torah, is the special level of sanctity attributed to the
people as a whole.Parashat Emor in Vayikra sets forth various laws
pertaining to the sanctity of the kohanim (priests), including the
following prohibition:
"They shall not make a bald patch on their head, nor shall they
shave the corners of their beard, nor make any cut in their
flesh. They shall be holy to their God, and shall not profane the
Name of their God, for it is the offerings of the Lord made by
fire, the bread of their God, that they offer up; therefore they
shall be holy." (Vayikra 21:5-6)
The source of the kohanims special holiness lies in the fact
that they minister in the Mishkan and administer the sacrificial
services. This status requires conduct on a certain level, and forbids
them from various practices such as making a bald spot or cutting
themselves. In the continuation of the discussion, this holiness also
prohibits kohanim from eating forbidden foods:
"That which dies of itself, or is torn by beasts, he [the kohen]
shall not eat of it, to defile himself with it" (ibid. 22:8).
In Devarim, by contrast, Moshe treats the whole people as
holy, 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; you shall not gash
yourselves, nor make a baldness between your eyes for the
dead. For you are aholy nation unto the Lord your God, 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." (Devarim14:1-2)
"You shall not eat any animal that dies of itself; you shall
give it to the stranger who is in your gates, that he may eat it,
or you may sell it to a foreigner, for you are a holy nation unto
the Lord your God." (ibid. 21)
The discrepancy between Vayikra and Devarim in this regard is
not necessarily contradictory, since we may posit that there are two
levels of holiness: whereVayikra speaks of the holiness of

the kohanim, Moshe inDevarim introduces the idea that these laws
actually apply to the entire nation.[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. For example, after the rebellion of
Korach, the Torah addresses the kohanim and speaks of their
obligations and their rights. Inter alia, we read of the giving of the
firstborn to the kohen:
"But the firstborn of an ox, or the firstborn of a sheep, or the
firstborn of a goat, you shall not redeem, they are holy; you
shall sprinkle their blood upon the altar and their meat shall
be yours, just as the breast of elevation offering and the
right thigh are yours." (Bamidbar 18:17-18)
Further on, the Torah talks about the tithes given to theleviim:
"And to the children of Levi, behold, I have given all the
tithes in Israel as their share, in return for the service which
they perform the service of the Tent of Meeting." (ibid. 21)
Moshe's speech in Devarim however, 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, year by year, in the place which
the Lord shall choose you and your household."
(Devarim 15:19-20)
And in the only place in Devarim where mention is made of tithes, the
same idea recurs:
"You shall surely tithe all of the increase of your seed that the
field brings forth, year by year. And you shall eat it before the
Lord your God, in the place where He will choose to cause
His Name to rest the tithe of your corn, of your wine, of your
oil, and the firstborn of your herds, and of your flocks" (ibid.
14:22-23).[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, Moshe describes a utopian reality the

ideal situation of Israel. The whole nation was indeed supposed to be

imbued with the same sanctity as that of the kohanim, but only if
Israel were truly deserving of their status as a holy nation. This
question of whether Israel merit Gods benevolence and
designation as a holy nation is one of the central themes of
Moshe's speeches throughout Devarim. On the one hand, he asserts
as we have seen in the verses discussed above, as well as in other
places the people are indeed holy:
"For you are a holy nation unto the Lord your God; 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." (Devarim 7:6)
This continues the vision that was presented prior to the revelation at
Sinai, where we are told:
"And now, if you will diligently obey Me and observe My
covenant, then you will be My special possession out of all the
nations, for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be for Me a
kingdom ofkohanim and a holy nation." (Shemot 19:5-6)
On the other hand, this vision itself hints strongly that this
holiness is not automatic; rather, it is contingent upon observance of
the commandments. This idea, too, 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, as
He promised you, if you keep the commandments of the Lord
your God and follow in His ways." (Devarim 28:9)
The holiness of Israel will be expressed only if the nation
observes the commandments and follows the way of God. 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.
In this sense, there is a connection to another instance in
Moshe's speeches where the utopian vision and gritty reality are
presented alongside one another. On the one hand, Moshe declares
that there is seemingly no need for the legislation regarding
cancellation of debts, since there will be no loans and no poor
people:

"But there shall be no poor person among you, for the Lord
shall surely bless you in the land which the Lord your God
gives to you as an inheritance, to possess it only if you
diligently obey the Lord your God, to observe and to perform
all of these commandments which I command you this day."
(Devarim 15:4-5)
However, even this formulation suggests that ultimately the
idyllic economic situation is dependent upon observance of the
commandments, and therefore Moshe establishes only a few verses
later:
"For the poor shall never cease from the midst of the land;
therefore I command you, saying, you shall surely open your
hand to your brother, to your poor and to your needy who are
in your land." (ibid. 11)
This command rests upon Moshe's clear assumption that the
people will sin and be exiled from the land, as he states explicitly in
several places during his speeches (such as 4:25-27; 30:1).
The same idea applies holds true with regard to Israel and their
holy status. Moshe describes the nation in an ideal state, where they
are worthy of eating of the firstborn of the animals and of the tithes of
the produce, just as the priests who serve in the Temple do. In
practice, however, these laws may well never be implemented for
Israel will not reach the level of holiness that will create this reality.
Nevertheless, as they are about to enter the land, Moshe sees fit to
present the people with the aspiration to be a holy nation, as
something for which they should strive in their life in the land.
Conclusion
We have examined several points here that illustrate the
special nature of Devarim, with its idiosyncratic style and unique
ideas. We have explained why Moshe, in his speeches, treats
identical topics with different emphases founding Devarim and in the
other books of the Torah. Identification of such themes allows us to
explain the variations between his words inDevarim and the text
elsewhere. Obviously, the scope of this shiur does not allow for an
exhaustive discussion of the entire book, but I believe that the
examples that we have addressed here offer an overall approach
toDevarim as a whole. Moreover, they provide a convincing response

to the questions raised by Biblical scholars from de Witte onwards

regarding the disparities between Devarim and other books of the
Torah.
(To be continued)
Translated by Kaeren Fish

[1]

The Yerushalmi (Sukka 3:11; p. 54a) records a dispute as to whether the rejoicing here is
over the four species or over the festive sacrifices, but the plain reading of the text contains
no mention of the sacrifices in these verses, and it therefore seems more reasonable to
accept the view that the rejoicing is over bringing the four species.
[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, and as the first blow to God's
"deterrent effect" which is described at length in the Song of the Sea (ibid. 15:14-16). For this
reason, God Himself fights against Amalek, and promises to do so also in the future: "For I
shall surely erase the memory of Amalek from under the heavens" (ibid. 17:14). In the
description in Devarim, in contrast (25:17-19), the emphasis is on the negative moral aspect
of Amalek's act towards Israel: "For meeting you on the way, and attacking the stragglers who
trailed after you, while you were tired and weary" (ibid., 18). Hence, the obligation concerning
Amalek is placed specifically upon Israel: "You shall erase the memory of Amalek from
under the heavens; you shall not forget" (ibid., 19).
[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; rather, all of the congregation is holy,
You are all sons of the Lord your God like the kohanim; hence you too should observe this
commandment, just as they do."
[4]
Rashi explains, in accordance with the halakha set down byChazal: "'You shall eat it
before the Lord your God' this is addressed to the kohen, for we already know that this is
one of the gifts given to the kohanim." However, this interpretation is difficult to reconcile with
the plain meaning of the text.

*********************************************************
Dedicated in memory of Joseph Y. Nadler, zl, Yosef ben Yechezkel Tzvi
*********************************************************

Shiur #4g: Duplication and Contradiction (continued)

G. The roots of the "aspects approach"
While Rav Breuer pioneered the systematic application of the
"aspects approach, this approach has much earlier perhaps even
ancient roots. The most obvious foundation for such an approach
would seem to be found in the well-known teaching of Chazal, that
appears in a number of variations, concerning contradictory verses
that were said "as a single utterance" (be-dibbur echad):

"'Shav' and 'shaker'[1] emerged as a single utterance, which is

impossible for the human mouth to say, or for the ear to
perceive; 'Zakhor'and 'shamor'[2] emerged
as
a
single
utterance, which is impossible for the human mouth to say, or
for the ear to perceive; 'Those who desecrate it shall be put to
death' (Shemot 31:14) and 'Two lambs of the first year, without
blemish' (Bamidbar28:9) emerged as a single utterance, which
is impossible for the human mouth to say, or for the ear to
perceive;[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, 'One thing was said by God' in
speech, 'yet two things have I heard' (Tehillim 62:12), and it is
written, 'Is My word not like a fire, says the Lord; like a hammer
that
shatters
rock'
(Yirmiyahu 23:29)."
(Yerushalmi,
Nedarim chapter 3; col. 37d)
This passage draws a clear distinction between God and man:
where God is able to utter multiple ideas in a single utterance, 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, 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.
A well-known Talmudic text of a similar nature occurs
concerning
the
disputes
between
the School ofHillel and
the School of Shammai, where the gemara(Eiruvin 13b) concludes
that "both these and those are the words of the living God. Rabbeinu
Peretz bar Eliyahu of Corbeil, one of the most prominent Tosafists of
the 13th century, 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, there are differing opinions, based on Biblical sources,
concerning the size of the altar in the Temple(see Zevachim 62a).
One opinion states that its size was sixty cubits while the other
maintains that it was twenty. 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,
pertaining to material fact, the text offers no decisive ruling. The
verses may be interpreted in two different ways, and so long as the
method of exegesis is rooted in the text itself, then "both these and

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.
Thus, the text does not necessarily describe the physical reality as
such but rather offers the possibility of multiple interpretations, which,
for the purposes of the Tanakhs message, are able to coexist.
If this is so where the question at stake is of a technical nature,
such as the size of the altar, then it surely applies to a matter of
different perspectives on reality, or different elements of a world-view.
The text need not adopt a one-sided position; it may express two
truths which, to the human mind, appear contradictory, but
nevertheless are both to be considered as the words of the living
God."
Rav Breuer himself[6] found a basis for his approach in the
works of Rabbi Aryeh Leib Ginzburg, author of Sha'agat Aryeh, one
of the greatest Lithuanian scholars of the 18th century. The Gemara
(Yoma 54a) states that the expression "to this day, which appears
many times in Tanakh, means up until the time of the writing (and not
until the reader's time). In Sefer Divrei Ha-yamim we find,
"Some of them, of the children of Shimon, went toMount Se'ir
and they smote the remnant of Amalek, who had escaped, and
they dwelled there to this day." (Divrei Ha-yamim I 4:42-43)
Clearly, this description is not relevant to our own times, for
"Sancheriv, king of Assyria, arose and confounded all the
nationalities." However, this verse still poses a problem, for according
to Chazal it
was
Ezra
who
composed Divrei
haYamim (Bava Batra 15a), 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, as I have written. Because in any case
the lineage of the generations is not properly ordered; it
includes several internal contradictions, and also some
between Divrei Ha-yamim and the Book of Ezra, for in one
book he found such-and-such, and in another book something
else, and he copied what he found. It seems most likely to
suggest that he found written, in an ancient book that had been
written before Sancheriv's upheaval, 'And some of the children
of Shimon went' up until 'And they dwelled there to this day,'

and he copied it word for word, not wishing to introduce any

changes [although this was no longer the reality]."
The assertion that Divrei Ha-yamim and the Book of Ezra were
composed with input from other sources, which Ezra copied verbatim
into his books despite the resulting contradictions, is indeed an
original and audacious idea. 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, to the
Five Books of the Torah, 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, and Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik. As we have mentioned in
previous shiurim, 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. For
him, it is specifically the grappling with such approaches that creates
the possibility of deepening our understanding of the Torah:
And in general, 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, but rather we should build the
palace of Torah above it; in doing so we are exalted by the
Torah, and through this exaltation the ideas are revealed, and
thereafter, when we are not pressured by anything, we can
confidently also struggle against it.[7]
More specifically, the conceptual basis of the "aspects
approach, too, conforms to Rav Kook's harmonious approach, which
views contrasts and contradictions as part of an overarching, allencompassing unity. This idea appears in many different places in
Rav Kook's writings. For example, in Orot ha-Kodesh,[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, expressing all of its unique, individual characteristics.
Were the distances between them to be eliminated, the identity and
features of each would be less distinct; they would blur into one
another. Only out of this distance and sharp contrast are we able to
appreciate the connections between the separate parts, so that
eventually true unity can arise.
Thus, Rav Kook also laid the foundations for the approach
which views contradictions in the biblical text, too, not as problems
that require solutions, but as part of an overall harmony and a more

complete truth. At the end of a discussion on the nature of prophecy

and its relationship to science he concludes:
". Reality is not afraid of contradictions as science is, for it is
inestimably greater than science."[9]
Rav Soloveitchik took this a step further, 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. We are also aware of the theory suggested by Bible
critics attributing these two accounts to two different traditions
and sources. Of course, since we do unreservedly accept the
unity and integrity of the Scriptures and their divine character,
we reject this hypothesis which is based, like much Biblical
criticism, on literary categories invented by modern man,
ignoring completely the eidetic-noetic content of the Biblical
story. It is, of course, true that the two accounts of the creation
of man differ considerably. This incongruity was not discovered
by the Bible critics. Our sages of old were aware of it. However,
the answer lies not in an alleged dual tradition but in dual man,
not in an imaginary contradiction between two versions but in a
real contradiction in the nature of man. The two accounts deal
with two Adams, two men, two fathers of mankind, two types,
two representatives of humanity, and it is no wonder that they
are not identical."[11]
Thus, although Rav Breuer was the first to apply his method in
a consistent and specific manner, the roots of his approach are firmly
rooted in generations of Jewish philosophy.
(To be continued)
Translated by Kaeren Fish

[1]

th

This refers to the discrepancy in the 9 of the Ten Commandments, "You shall not bear
false witness against your neighbor": in Shemot 20:12 the expression for "false witness" is "ed
shaker"; in Devarim 5:16 we find "ed shav.
[2]
th
The 4 of the Ten Commandments in Shemot is introduced by the words "Zakhor et yom
ha-shabbat" Remember the Shabbat day; inDevarim we find, "Shamor et yom ha-shabbat"
Observe the Shabbat day.
[3]
Likewise in reference to Shabbat. Strictly speaking, this is not a contradiction, since it is
possible for God to prohibit labor on Shabbat while at the same time commanding the offering
of sacrifices on Shabbat.

[4]

Here again, this is not a clear contradiction, since the Torah does not state explicitly that
one may not marry the wife of a brother who has died. The other examples which Chazal go
on to cite, omitted here, are of a similar nature.
[5]
For further discussion, see my article in Shitat ha-Bechinot, pp. 295-298, and Rav Breuer's
response, pp. 299-300.
[6]
See Shitat ha-Bechinot, p. 92 onwards.
[7]
Iggerot
ha-RAY"H 1
(Jerusalem 5722), iggeret 134
(translation
from Tzvi
Feldman in Selected Letters [Maaleh Adumim, 1986], p.14).Rav Breuer himself cites this
passage as the heading of his second article on the subject of his exegetical approach;
see Shitat ha-Bechinot, p. 28. Rav Kook writes a similar idea in other places, such as in Orot
ha-Kodesh 2, Jerusalem 5724, p. 547: "The very same declarations and paths that lead to the
ways of heresy, also lead in their essence if we seek their source to the depths of a faith
that is more exalted, more illuminating and life-giving, out of the same simple understanding
that shone prior to the appearance of this rift." Concerning the relationship between the story
of the Creation and the theory of evolution, Rav Kook wrote: "A comparison between the story
of the Creation and recent studies is a noble endeavor. There is no problem with interpreting
the biblical account, 'These are the generations of the heavens and the earth' as containing
within itself worlds of millions of years, until man arrived at some awareness that he was
differentiated from all animals, 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, by choosing a wife, who
would be more connected to him than his father and his mother his natural family members.
The deep sleep could be interpreted as visions, and this could also last for some time, until
the consolidation of the idea of 'bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh'" (Shemonah
Kevatzim, Jerusalem 5764, kovetz 1 siman 594, p. 163).
[8]
Orot ha-Kodesh 1, Jerusalem 5723, p. 15. This, too, is cited byRav Breuer, at the end of a
different article: see Shitat ha-Bechinot, p. 70. The idea that Rav Kook sets forth here is part
of a more comprehensive discussion which he develops over the course ofOrot ha-Kodesh,
especially in part I, chapters 8-13.
[9]
Iggerot ha-RAY"H 2, Jerusalem 5722; iggeret 478, p. 120. At the same time, Rav Kook
was vehemently opposed to the study of biblical criticism: see, for example, Iggerot haRAY"H 1, iggeret 279, p. 317; Iggerot ha-RAY"H 2, iggeret 363, p. 27.
[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. See Shitat ha-Bechinot,
pp. 188-189.
[11]
The Lonely Man of Faith (Jerusalem: Maggid, 2012), p. 7. Rav Soloveitchik goes on to
develop these two aspects of man, Adam I and Adam II (corresponding to the Torah's
description of his creation, in chapter 1 and chapter 2 of Bereishit).

*********************************************************
Dedicated in memory of Joseph Y. Nadler, zl, Yosef ben Yechezkel Tzvi
*********************************************************

Shiur #4h: Duplication and Contradiction (continued)

H.

Bias in the writing of Tanakh?

We have seen that despite making identical use of the same

literary tools, 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.
A central question for Bible critics, which does not arise for
those who believe in Divine authorship of the Torah, is the question

of who authored the various documents and who collated them into a
single textual anthology. 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. 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, these
attempts have generally been rather forced, as well running counter
to the impression that arises from the biblical text as a whole. 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, and the traditional approach which
seeks to read the story on its own terms without asking questions of
authorship or agenda. It will also be argued that only by reading the
Biblical text on its own terms can its messages be appreciated, and
that searching for agendas behind the text ends up obscuring far
more than it illuminates.
The story of Yehuda and Tamar (Bereishit 38) is one of the
most dramatic episodes in the Torah. A review of the story
demonstrates that its central theme is Yehuda's process of
repentance. One chapter prior to this story, Yehuda is the main
protagonist in the sale of Yosef. His sin lies primarily in his attempt to
gain the best of both worlds, as it were: he wants to rid the family of
Yosef, while at the same time not killing him, so as to evade the
difficult moral problem of murder (Bereishit37:26-27). However,
selling a person into slavery is a very grave act, for which the Torah
mandates the death sentence, just as it does for murder
(Devarim 24:7). In addition, from the point of view of Yaakov, the
blow is exactly as painful as it would have been had the brothers
really killed Yosef.[1] The brothers all adopt Yehuda's deceptive
approach, offering a "white lie" as they show Yaakov Yosef's coat
that has been dipped in blood, and ask with seeming innocence
technically, with no lying or deceit "See now; is it your son's coat or
not?" (Bereishit 37:32).
At the beginning of chapter 38, the shameful path of combining
sin with evasion of responsibility reappears in the behavior of Onan,
Yehuda's son. Outwardly, he fulfills his moral responsibility in
marrying Tamar, the wife of his deceased brother, Er. However, in
truth he does not want to bear a son,[2] and therefore "when he came
to his brother's wife, he spilled [his seed] on the ground so as not to
give seed to his brother" (Bereishit38:9). Two of Yehuda's sons
die,[3] and one might have expected that he would deduce from this

that there was some problem with the path he was following and the
education of his children. However, at this stage Yehuda does not
take heed; instead, he sins further: he attributes the death of his sons
to Tamar, and therefore oppresses her and does not allow her to
rebuild her life. She is obligated to undergo a levirate marriage, but
Yehuda prevents her from marrying his third son, Shela. Once again,
he does not explain to her what he is doing and why, but rather stalls
her with an excuse which the Torah itself testifies as not representing
his true position:
"Yehuda said to Tamar, his daughter-in-law: 'Remain as a
widow in your father's house until Shela, my son, is grown' for
he said [to himself], Lest he, too, die as his brothers did."
(38:11)[4]
As the chapter progresses, we see Yehuda reach the lowest
moral rung in his life, when he visits Tamar, whom he mistakes for a
prostitute (Bereishit 38:15-18). When he hears that Tamar is
pregnant, he is quick to sentence her to death by burning.
It is at this dramatic moment that Yehuda reaches his turning
point. Tamar does not accuse him outright; rather, she hints to him in
a way that would allow him, once again, to evade responsibility:
"As she was being brought out and she [had] sent word to her
father-in-law, saying, The man to whom these belong I am
pregnant by him. And she said, See now to whom this seal and
this cloak and this staff belong." (verse 25)
Yehuda does not respond to her first statement,[5] but the
second shakes him out of his complacency. Of particular note is
Tamar's use of the expression "haker na" "see now, recalling the
testimony of the brothers in the previous chapter: "See now, is this
your son's coat or not?" (37:32).[6] It appears that it is specifically this
echo that stops Yehuda in his tracks. 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.
Just as Yosef's brothers used a garment (Yosef's special
coat) to deceive their father, so Tamar has deceived Yehuda
using a garment her veil.
2.
Yehuda proposes to Tamar, "I will send (ashaleach) a
goat kid from the flock (gedi izim), recalling how "they took
Yosef's coat and they slaughtered a goat kid (se'ir izim) and

dipped the coat into its blood. And they sent (va-yeshalchu) the
coat" (37:31-32).[7]
3.
In the previous chapter, Yehuda had argued before his
brothers, "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.
Now, Tamar has misled Yehuda in a similar way: "She covered
herself (va-tekhas) with a veil and he thought her a
prostitute, for she covered (khista) her face."
Thus, the Torah creates a clear connection between the two
narratives, thereby also alluding to their thematic connection. The
fact that Tamar places the full weight of responsibility upon Yehuda,
while refusing to accuse him openly, forces him to wrestle with
himself and ultimately to acknowledge his misdeeds, despite the
shame that this entails.[8] For the first time since the beginning of the
story, Yehuda assumes responsibility for his actions. Not only does
he acknowledge that Tamar has not prostituted herself; he also takes
responsibility for his neglect of her over the course of so many years:
"And Yehuda recognized, and he said, She has been more
righteous than I, for I did not give her to Shela, my son." (verse
26)
Just as in the previous chapter, Yaakov had recognized his
sons bloodstained cloak, so too in Yehuda recognizes his own
fault.[9] The story ends with the birth of Peretz and Zerach; Peretz is
ultimately the progenitor of the royal dynasty of the House of David.
Yehuda's entire personality changes from this point onwards, in
the wake of this episode, and it is he who assumes responsibility for
all that happens to the brothers in Egypt. Until now he has evaded
responsibility for his own actions; from now onwards he assumes
moral responsibility even for that which he personally has not done:
"Yehuda said, What shall we say to my lord; what shall we
speak and how shall we justify ourselves? God has found the
transgression of your servants; behold, we are servants to my
lord both we and him with whom the goblet was found."
(44:16)
The climax of his transformation comes, of course, at the
moment where he expresses his readiness to remain as a slave in
Egypt instead of Binyamin, so as to save his father additional pain,

after Yehuda himself had been responsible for the first terrible blow
to Yaakov.[10] Ultimately, this narrative teaches of the dangers of
evading responsibility through "white lies" and misleading others. It
teaches of the importance of taking responsibility, of the possibility of
repair, and of the power of repentance. 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, nor the
lawmaker from among his offspring" (Bereishit 49:10). 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. However, 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,
preferring the assumption that it was created by people who sought
to further their own views by disseminating it.
Let us note, at the outset, that some scholars regard the "J"
and the "E" sources as having been composed during the period of
the kingdoms of Yehuda and Israel; accordingly, they describe
events from a subjective point of view that serves the interests of
their respective loyalties.[12] On the basis of Friedman's attribution of
these two chapters to two sources, one of them "a Levitical priest,
probably from Shiloh, and therefore possibly descended from
Moses, the other a member or supporter of the royal house of David,
how are we to explain the episode of Yehuda and Tamar, which
clearly belongs to the second source,[13]according to his approach?[14]
Some scholars have argued that since, at the end of the
episode, Yehuda is depicted in a positive light, this narrative should
be viewed as supportive of him,[15]but this is a most unsatisfactory
resolution of the problem. Why would a "member of the royal house
of David, seeking to emphasize the superiority of the tribe of
Yehuda, write a narrative such as this one, depicting Yehuda as
leaving his family, withholding levirate marriage from his daughter-inlaw through false excuses, and abandoning her to her bitter fate?
Would someone seeking to glorify Yehuda really describe him
engaging in relations with his daughter-in-law, mistaking her for a
harlot?

Indeed, scholars not blindly committed to this view could

suggest a completely different interpretation. Thus, for example, Y.
Zakovitch writes:
"The story of Yehuda and Tamar is an anti-Judah narrative; it is
a narrative that puts Yehuda patriarch of the tribe, patriarch
of the house of David to shame. Whoever placed chapter 38
at the heart of the story of Yosef, after chapter 37, sought to
diminish Yehuda's stature."[16]
Of course, this prompts the opposite question: why would
someone who seeks to put Yehuda to shame present him as
ultimately acknowledging his misdeeds, with all the difficulty involved,
although he could have chosen to avoid admitting his guilt? Why is
Yehuda rewarded with the birth of sons, 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. 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).
According to her theory, the fact that Tamar, who was a Canaanite,
accepted upon herself the customs of Yehuda's family, comes to
justify marriage with foreign even Canaanite women. This theory
is problematic from the very outset first and foremost, from the
literary point of view. Is this indeed the message of the story? Would
we not expect, if there were the slightest kernel of truth to this claim,
that the story would at least mention Tamar's Canaanite origins,
instead of ignoring the issue of her lineage altogether? If this were
indeed the message of the story, 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, leading scholars to misunderstand and misrepresent
meaning of a story and its messages. The story of Yehuda and
Tamar is a fascinating episode that conveys important, 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.
Subservience to the assumption of bias in Tanakh is not only
mistaken in its own right, but also problematic insofar as it leads one

to ignore the messages arising from the narrative, such that Bible
study loses all independent value.
While our argument has been based on only one narrative, the
same idea arises from the most cursory familiarity with Tanakh as a
whole. Anyone who reads the Tanakh cannot fail to notice that it
shows no favoritism. In ancient cultures, the outstanding successes
of the rulers are generally given much attention. By contrast, the
characters of the Tanakh are always complex, and never free from
criticism: the forefathers (the "you are my sister" episodes; Yaakov's
theft of the birthright from Esav); the stories of the fathers of the
tribes (the slaughter of Shekhem, the sale of Yosef); Moshe (Mei
Meriva); and, of course, 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. This
phenomenon is inconceivable in terms of ancient cultures. Would any
nation in the world invent a past that involved slavery and hard labor,
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, at the beginning of his
career, as a robber living off 'protection money'? Why, as part
of his imaginary tale, does he attribute the building of the
Temple not to the founder of the dynasty, David, but rather to
Shlomo? All of this stands in complete contrast to what we
would expect, considering the norms of the Ancient East
Why did he invent a story about Shaul, the king chosen by God
before David, despite the theological difficulties that this story
raises? The invention of these stories makes no sense."[19]
Likewise there is no entity or group with a vested interest in
dissemination of the Torah. The Kohanim and Leviim do receive
many "priestly gifts" and serve in important positions, but all of this
pales into insignificance, in terms of interests, when we consider the
fact that they receive no inheritance in the land.[20]The idea of the
monarchy, which appears for the first time Devarim ch.17, is set forth
in the Torah with strict limitations, which no king would have any
interest in publicizing.
Thus, assertions of bias in Tanakh are suspect and would
seem to arise themselves from biased motives.

I.

Summary

The Torah contains many instances of duplication and

contradiction. Throughout the generations, the general approach was
to address these instances individually and locally, without attending
to the more general question of why these phenomena exist and why
the Torah was written in this way. Biblical scholars discovered that in
many instances the contradictions are systematic, and they arrived at
the "documentary hypothesis, according to which the duplications
and contradictions arise from the fact that the Torah is made up of
four main documents, each composed in a different period and
possessing its own characteristics; only at some later time were they
joined together to form a single work. We have discussed some of
the difficulties posed by the documentary hypothesis, 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.
At the same time, the documentary hypothesis did advance the
study and understanding of the Torah in a new direction, suggesting
that the Torah itself was written in such a way as to include multiple
perspectives. According to the "aspects approach" developed by
Rabbi Mordechai Breuer, there is no need to explain every
contradiction on its own terms upon a first reading. Rather, there is a
complex and nuanced message arises specifically from appreciation
of the juxtapositions and contradictions.
Finally, we noted a phenomenon that developed in the wake of
the documentary hypothesis, which seeks to detect bias in the
various narratives and units of the Torah. We negated this view
through a review of one narrative unit, and concluded that
the Tanakh is a unique and unprecedented work insofar as it shows
no favoritism towards anyone.
Translated by Kaeren Fish

[1]

Chazal note this and emphasize that the sale of Yosef was not a positive act on Yehuda's
part, but rather the opposite: "Rabbi Meir said: the term botze'a is mentioned only in
connection with Yehuda, as it is written, 'Yehuda said to his brothers: what profit (betza) is it if
we kill our brother.' And anyone who praises Yehuda is in fact a blasphemer. Concerning
this it is said, 'The compromiser (botze'a) blasphemes and renounces God' (Tehillim 10:3)."

[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, so that his
name will not be wiped out from Israel" (Devarim 25:6). 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; hence the
degrading procedure to be followed by a person who chooses it.
[3]
It would seem that their fate is not the result of their actions alone. Despite the severity of
Onan's behavior, the Torah does not mandate the death penalty for his sin. 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. This idea is also echoed in Reuven's words to
Yaakov, following the encounter with Yosef the viceroy of Egypt who demands that the
brothers bring Binyamin down to Egypt. When Yaakov initially refuses, Reuven pledges, "Slay
my two sons if I do not bring him to you" (42:37). 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. (It must be
remembered that at this stage Reuven already had four sons [46:9], such that the emphasis
on twosons, specifically, is not coincidental.)
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, will bury his wife and his sons. From whom do we learn this? From Yehuda:
'And Yehuda said to his brothers, What profit' [i.e., he sufficed with saving him from
active murder, but left him to die of hunger and thirst while] he should have taken him
back to his father. What happened to him [Yehuda]? He buried his wife and his sons"
(Bereishit Rabba85:3, Theodor-Albeck edition, p. 1034).
[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, and he was at Keziv when she bore
him" (verse 5). 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. The connection
between keziv and shela is highlighted once again in the story of the Shumanite woman: at
first, when Elisha promises that she will bear a child, she answers, "Do not lie (tekhazev) to
your handmaid" (Melakhim II 4:16); later, when her son dies, she tells him, "Did I not say, Do
not deceive (tashleh) me" (Melakhim II 4:28).
[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." This suggests that she had already sent
messengers to Yehuda with the seal and the wicks, but he had not yet responded. (See
commentary of Rabbeinu Bechaye ad loc.)
[6]
It should be noted that these are the only two instances in Tanakhwhere this expression
occurs. Chazal comment on the connection between the two narratives, and its effect on
Yehuda: "He sought to deny it, but she said to him, 'See now' your Creator: they belong to
you and your Creator. 'See now, to whom the signet belongs' Rabbi Yochanan taught: God
said to Yehuda, You said to your father, 'See now;' by your life, Tamar now tells you, 'See
now'" (BereishitRabba, Vilna edition, 85:25).
[7]
This too is noted by Chazal: "God said to Yehuda: You deceived your father with garments
of the goat; by your life, Tamar will deceive you with garments of a goat" (Bereishit
Rabba 85:9, Theodor-Albeck edition, p. 1043).
[8]
As Yehuda himself had previously said: "Let her take it herself,lest we be shamed;
behold, I sent this kid, but you have not found her" (38:23).
[9] Although at first glance, the intention of the verse would seem to be that Yehuda
recognized the belongings as his own, the absence of any article from the verse indicates
that the recognition taking place was on a deeper, more profound level (in contrast to 37:33,
where the verse merely says [regarding Yaakov], He recognized it).
[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, or pledge) appears only five
times in the Torah three times in chapter 38 we find the word "eravon" (a pledge) (verses
17,18,20), and twice the Torah mentions that Yehuda is a guarantor (arev) for Binyamin
(43:9; 44:32).
[11]
Tosefta, Berakhot 4:18, Lieberman edition, p. 23.
[12]
A summary of this approach can be found in the popular work by Richard Elliot
Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible (1987). The book is written in an approachable style and with

great self-confidence, while many of his arguments are unfounded and even misleading. As
one example (aside from our discussion of Yehuda and Tamar), 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, the father of Shekhem, while in chapter 34
we read of the rape of Dina and the revenge of Shimon and Levi. In Friedman's view, this
represents evidence of two different sources attesting to the origins of the city. The first
asserts that the land was paid for. The second documents a conquest through massacre.
This suggests that the author of the first source was from the kingdom of Israel; he writes
positively of Shekhem, since it is one of the major cities of Israel. The author of the second
source, from the kingdom of Yehuda, presents a negative picture.
Friedman's explanation is based on two mistaken assumptions. First, the very
claim that there is a contradiction in this regard is unfounded. Chapter 33 states clearly
that Yaakov purchased a plot of land close to the city of Shekhem "He encamped
facing the city. And he purchased the plot of land where he pitched his tent" (33:18-19).
Furthermore, chapter 34 says nothing about seizing the city itself; it speaks of the killing
of its inhabitants. Second, the connection between chapter 34 and the "J" source is
entirely unclear, since God's Name does not appear in this chapter at all. Indeed, many
scholars maintain that this chapter is not part of the "J" source: see, for example, A. Rofe,
pp. 86-87, proposing that chapter 34 is an "independent document"; see also ibid. pp.
199-201.
[13]
Verses 7-10 mention shem Hashem (the name of God attributed to the J source) three
times.
[14]
Friedman pays no attention to this episode in his book, although (or perhaps because) it is
highly problematic in light of his theory.
[15]
See Y. Amit, "Pulmusim Semuyim be-Parashat Yehuda ve-Tamar," Shenaton le-Cheker
ha-Mikra ve-ha-Mizrach ha-Kadum, vol. XX, 5770, pp. 11-25. Amit's view raises many
questions. Proceeding from the assumption that the narrative does indeed mean to convey
support for the house of Yehuda and thus, naturally, for the royal house of David she is
left only with the question of why David himself is not mentioned in the text (!). Amit argues
that the Torah is not devoid of anachronism as evidenced in the unit of Layish and Dan, as
we discussed in a previous shiur. This argument is, of course, baseless, since even according
to those who maintain that the phenomenon of anachronism does exist in Tanakh, it is
certainly not deliberate; at most, it testifies to a lack of attention on the part of the writer. The
idea that the Torah, which is clearly oriented towards the nation of Israel on the verge of
entering the land, could make explicit mention of someone who would live hundreds of years
later, is simply untenable, regardless of one's religious or ideological position.
[16]
Y. Zakovitch, Mikraot be-Eretz ha-Marot (Tel Aviv, 1995), p.55. See also, at greater
length, Y. Zakovitch and A. Shinan,Maaseh Yehuda ve-Tamar (Jerusalem, 5752), pp.
219-220.
[17]
See her article (above, n. 15), and the reference there in n. 2.
[18]
Even Friedman (see above) notes that the writing describing the kingdom of David,
in Sefer Semuel, is "remarkable because it openly criticizes its heroes, a practice that is all
but unknown among ancient Near Eastern kings" (p. 39). However, he makes no attempt to
explain this most unusual phenomenon, nor does he draw any conclusion from it.
[19]
Y. Hoffman, "Historia, Mitos u-Politika," in: Y.L. Levine and A. Mazar (eds.), Ha-Pulmus al
ha-Emet ha-Historit ba-Mikra, Jerusalem 5761, pp. 31-32.
[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, in this regard. In describing
Yosef's regime in Egypt during the years of famine, the Torah states: "Only the land of the
priests he did not buy, for the priests had a portion assigned to them by Pharaoh, and they
ate their portion which Pharaoh gave to them;therefore they did not sell their lands"
(Bereishit 47:22). In other words, 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, in contrast to the rest of Egypt. 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, which they offer as a gift to God, I have given to the Leviim to inherit; therefore I
have said to them, among Bnei Yisrael they shall receive no inheritance" (Bamidbar 18:24). It
is specifically because the Leviim receive their food from God that they receive no inheritance

in the land, for God's servants must engage in their labor for the sake of heaven, with no
personal interest.

*********************************************************
Dedicated in memory of Joseph Y. Nadler, zl, Yosef ben Yechezkel Tzvi
*********************************************************

Shiur 5a: Authorship of the Books of the Prophets and Writings

A.

"And who wrote them?"

In contrast to the complexity surrounding the question of the

writing of the Torah, as discussed in previous chapters, the picture is
somewhat clearer when it comes to the Prophets (Neviim) and
Writings (Ketuvim). In the case of some books, especially among the
Later Prophets, the matter is fairly simple: the text is written in the
first person, by the prophet himself, with the exception of some
introductory verses which indicate some editorial activity. With regard
to some other books, such as the Early Prophets, we encounter a
problem similar to the one faced in addressing the Five Books of the
Torah, since they too are written in the third person, and the text itself
gives no direct indication of the author's identity.
Chazal address the question of the authorship of these books,
and are in agreement concerning most of them:
"And who wrote them?
Moshe wrote his book and the episode of Bil'am,[1] and Iyov.
Yehoshua wrote his book and eight verses [at the end] of the
Torah.
Shmuel wrote his book, and [the book of]Shoftim, and
[Megillat] Ruth.
David wrote Sefer Tehillim, including the contribution of ten
elders
Yirmiyahu wrote his book and the Book ofMelakhim, and
Lamentations [Eikha].
Chizkiyahu
and
his
companions
[2]
wrote Yishayahu,Mishlei, Shir Ha-shirim and Kohelet.
The Men of the Great Assembly wrote [the Book
of] Yechezkel and the Twelve [Minor Prophets],Daniel,
and Megillat Esther.
Ezra wrote his book and the genealogy of Divrei Ha-yamim up
to himself (or 'up to lo').'"[3] (Bava Batra 14b-15a)

From the beraita it would seem that there are two categories of
authorship: works wholly attributed to the prophet himself, such as
Yirmiyahu and Ezra, and works which were compiled, edited, and put
into their final form at a later date than the events or prophets that the
books describe. Thus Yirmiyahu is identified as the redactor of Sefer
Melakhim; 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.
The reason for this would seem to be the extensive detail in the
documentation of Yirmiyahu's prophecies, set forth in chapter 36 of
his book. This chapter records the Divine command:
"Take a scroll and write in it all the words which I have spoken
to you concerning Yisrael, and concerning Yehuda, and
concerning all the nations, from the day I spoke to you in the
days of Yoshiyahu, until this day" (Yirmiyahu 36:2)
as well as its fulfillment in Yirmiyahu's words to Barukh ben Nerya
(36:4), and the detailed description by Barukh himself:
"They asked Barukh, saying, Tell us now: How did you write all
of these words from his mouth? And Barukh said to them, He
dictated all these words to me, and I wrote them with ink, in the
book." (36:17-18)
The chapter ends with the testimony:
"Then Yirmiyahu took another scroll, and gave it to Barukh, the
scribe, the son of Neriyahu; and he wrote in it from the mouth
of Yirmiyahu all the words of the book which Yehoyakim, king
of Yehuda, had burned in the fire, as well as many other words
in the same spirit." (verse 32)
This would seem to suggest that the other prophets did not record
their prophecies, and therefore Chazal regard the redaction of their
works as having taken place after the period of these prophets.
The beraita in Bava Batra continues with clarifying several
points:

"'Ezra wrote his book and the genealogy of Divrei Hayamim until lo' and who completed it? Nechemia, son of
Chakhalia.
'Yehoshua wrote his book' but the text says, 'Yehoshua bin
Nun, God's servant, died' (Yehoshua 24:29)! This was
completed by Pinchas.
'Shmuel wrote his book' but the text says, 'Shmuel died'
(Shmuel I 28:3)! This was completed by Gad, the visionary,
and Natan the prophet."[4]
In other words, the Books of Yehoshua, Shmueland Divrei Hayamim were written by more than one prophet; a different prophet
was needed to complete what the main prophet had written
especially for the ending, recounting the death of the prophet after
whom the book is named.
Later on, the gemara records a disagreement as to the identity
of the author of the Book of Iyov. Theberaita attributes it to Moshe,
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, in the time of Achashverosh, or with
the return from the Babylonian exile.
Elsewhere, Chazal make further observations concerning the
authorship of these books. Some opinions maintain that, like the
Books of Yehoshua andShmuel, Yirmiyahu himself did not write his
entire book, but rather only up to a certain point, as the plain
meaning of the text would seem to suggest.
"Up to what point is Yirmiyahu's prophecy recorded? Rav
Yaakov and Rav Abba disagree with Rabbi El'azar and Rabbi
Yochanan. One opinion says, Up until, 'He that
scattered Israelwill gather them up' (Yirmiyahu 31:9), while the
other says, Up until, 'There is hope for your future, says God,
and your children will return to their border' (ibid. 16)."[5]
Clearly, 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. With regard to the Torah, very few medieval
commentators and sometimes even then only through allusion
speak of the existence of verses added at a later date, 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. Such a position can be supported

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, as any faithful editor would do.
Moreover, the commentators on Tanakh offer additional
possibilities as to the identities of the various authors. Of particular
note is the view of Abravanel. In his introduction to the Early
Prophets he argues against the identification offered in
the beraita concerning the early prophets, inter alia because of the
expression "to this day" which appears in these books, seemingly
indicating that they were written in a later period. Concerning Sefer
Yehoshua, 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), but also because of other places in the text which
indicate that they were not written by Yehoshua. In setting up
the stones in the Jordan River, the text says, 'And they
remained there to this day' (Yehoshua 4:9)[6] If Yehoshua
wrote all of this, how could he say, 'to this day'? For he wrote
close to the time of the events, while the expression 'to this
day' necessarily implies that it was written a long time after this
happened. Likewise we find, concerning the inheritance of the
tribe of Dan, that the text specifies, 'And the border of Dan was
too small for them, 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, at the end
of the period of the Judges. This is decisive evidence that the
text could only have been written many years after Yehoshua's
death, 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; rather, Shmuel the prophet wrote his book
[Yehoshua], as well as Sefer Shoftim And do not be
surprised that I differ in this matter from the view of Chazal, for
even in the Gemara, Chazal are not unanimous in this regard,
and there are dissenting opinions as to whether it was Moshe
who wrote Sefer Iyov, and whether Yehoshua wrote the final
eight verses of the Torah. And since Chazalthemselves
question the authorship in some cases, it is not so far-fetched
for me, too, to propose a more logical explanation in keeping
with the verses and their sense."

Abravanel proves, 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. Hence, 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. Since Sefer Yehoshua includes
verses which, demonstrably, could not have been written by
Yehoshua himself,[7] Abravanel concludes that the author must have
been a later figure. He proposes Shmuel presumably
since Chazal also attribute the authorship of Sefer Shoftim to him.
Later on, Abravanel offers a more moderate possibility:
"If you wish to say that Yehoshua wrote his book,
as Chazal maintain, then we must posit that Yirmiyahu, or
Shmuel, gathered these narratives and put them together into
a book, making additions as they saw fit with their Divine
inspiration."
According to this approach, Yehoshua did indeed write the
great majority of his book, but it underwent later redaction by some
other prophet (either Shmuel or Yirmiyahu). Abravanel is preceded in
this view by the classical Tanakh commentators, who likewise point
to specific verses in Sefer Yehoshua which were added by an editor
at a later stage. For instance, concerning the verses that describe the
conquest of Kiryat Arba and Kiryat Sefer (Yehoshua 15:13-19), which
according toSefer Shoftim (1:10-15) took place only at the beginning
of the period of the Judges, Rashi writes in his commentary (ad loc.)
that these verses were written
" after the death of Yehoshua, for during Yehoshua's time
Chevron had not yet been conquered, as we read in Sefer
Shoftim, and the matter is noted here only because of the
division of the land."
Concerning the verse that Abravanel cites, mentioning the
battle of the children of Dan at Leshem, Rashi and Radak likewise
maintain that the reference is to an event that occurred during the
period of the Judges, and is thus recorded in Shoftim.
A similar phenomenon occurs with regard toSefer Shmuel.
Here, too, we find the expression "to this day" appearing in several

places,[8] and here too it testifies to a distance from the time of the
events. This distance of time is especially apparent in the verse,
"In early times (lefanim) in Israel, a person who went to inquire
of God would say, 'Come and let us go to the seer' for the
prophet of our days was previously called a 'seer' (ro'eh)."
(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, since the word was
already obsolete at the time of the writing. 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), would in previous generations have been
called a 'ro'eh' (seer). In other words, when this book was
written, the seer was once again referred to as a 'navi,'
because this book was not written in the time of Shmuel And
our Sages, of blessed memory, stated that Shmuel wrote the
book, but He Who illuminates the world turns darkness into
light, and turns a twisted path into a straight road."
The same approach is adopted by Abravanel, and he offers a
similar explanation:
"What appears correct to me in this matter is that Shmuel,
Natan and Gad all wrote their works individually each writing
what happened during his own lifetime, and all of these
testimonies were gathered together by Yirmiyahu the prophet,
and he joined them together into a single book. For if this was
not so, who gathered these texts, which were composed by
different people? For the text does not record that the prophets
wrote their testimonies consecutively; rather, each wrote a
book in his own right. It seems, then, that when Yirmiyahu
sought to write Sefer Melakhim, he knew that Sefer
Shemuel was proximate to it, and he gathered the testimonies
of the prophets mentioned in the book and there is no doubt
that he also added comments of clarification, as he saw fit. This
explains the expression, 'to this day,' and this explains the
verse, 'In early times in Israel'"
Opinions are similarly divided concerning the authorship
of Sefer Tehillim. In the beraita quoted above, Chazal maintain that
King David wrote the book, "through (or 'incorporating') ten elders,

and the list includes ten individuals, some of whom lived earlier than
David, while others were his contemporaries:
"Adam, and Malki-Tzedek, and Avraham, and Moshe, and
Heiman, and Yedutun, and Asaf, and the three sons of
Korach."
Rashi comments: "He wrote the things which these elders had said,
for they lived before him, and some lived in his own period."
According to Rashi, David was not only the author of some of
the psalms in Sefer Tehillim, but also the redactor of the book,
collating psalms that had been uttered by others some in previous
generations, some in his own generation.
Midrash Shir Ha-shirim cites other opinions:
"Ten people uttered the Book of Tehillim: Adam, Avraham,
Moshe, David, Shlomo concerning these five there is no
argument. Concerning the other five there is disagreement
between Rav and Rabbi Yochanan. Rav counts Asaf, Heiman,
Yedutun individually, and the three sons of Korach as one, and
Ezra. Rabbi Yochanan counts Asaf and Heiman and Yedutun
as one and the three sons of Korach individually, and Ezra."
(Shir Ha-shirim Rabba, parasha 4, 1, 4).
Attention should be paid to two central differences between
these sources. First, according to the midrash above, the general
idea is not that David wrote what ten people had said, but rather that
"ten people uttered Sefer Tehillim, and David is listed as one of
them, and is one of the five individuals whose identity is agreed upon
unanimously. Second, the midrash also counts Ezra among the
authors of psalms in other words, there are psalms that were
included in Sefer Tehillim after the time of David. Indeed, this would
seem to be borne out by the text itself, since there are a number of
psalms which describe exile and destruction, the most famous of
them being chapter 137 "By the rivers of Babylon."[10]
A third opinion concerning the authorship of Sefer
Tehillim appears in Rav Sa'adia Gaon's commentary, which attributes
the entire work to David, awarding no status to the ten elders
mentioned in the beraita:

"The entire Book is a prophecy that was prophesied by David,

just as the entire Jewish people unanimously refers to it as the
'songs of David'; likewise, in many sources it is attributed to
him And even though one might think that it also contains
prophecies or psalms of others, in addition to David such as
Asaf, and Heiman, and Yedutun, and Eitan, and Moshe the
man of God, and others one must know that it is not so.
Rather there is nothing in it that was not of David And since
this is clear, Yedutun is mentioned along with David in some
places only to tell us that that psalm was a prophecy of David,
yet named after Yedutun; Yedutun is a partner together with
Asaf, and the sons of Korach, and Heiman all the participants
in the name of that psalm declare it and sing it together. But the
psalm,[11] 'A prayer unto Moshe the man of God,' is a song that
was conveyed to the sons of Moshe who lived at the time of
David, in order that they could sing it" (Rav Sa'adia Gaon's
introduction to his Commentary on Sefer Tehillim,Kapach
edition, pp. 28-29)
In Rav Sa'adia Gaon's view, Sefer Tehillim in its entirety was
composed solely by David, and was uttered through prophecy. While
this opinion is certainly representative of and integral to a broader
philosophical context,[12] it is clear that Rav Sa'adia Gaon, too, did not
regard the view of the beraita quoted above as binding.
The impression arising from these sources is that
the beraita in Bava Batra does not represent a tradition that was
accepted unanimously, and that there are authorities who differed
both in later sources amongChazal, and also amongst medieval
commentators. In any event, our discussion will be conducted on the
basis of the text itself, and will attempt to address in depth the
questions surrounding the redaction of the various Books.
(To be continued)
Translated by Kaeren Fish

[1]

The commentators question the need to specify the story of Bil'am, since it is part of
"Moshe's book." Rashi notes that this comes to tell us that Moshe included this episode "even
though it did not serve any purpose of Moshe, or his teaching, or the record of his actions."
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, for that was written by God, just like all the rest of the Torah.
Rather, it is a document in its own right, which Moshe wrote in greater details, and it was in
their [Chazal's] possession." See A.J. Heschel, Torah Min HaShamayim be-Aspaklaria shel
ha-Dorot, London and New York 5725, pp. 435-437.

[2]

The basis for the attribution of Sefer Mishlei to Chizkiyahu is, of course, the verse, "These,
too, are the proverbs of Shelomo which were copied by the men of Chizkiya, king of Yehuda"
(Mishlei 25:1).
[3]
The commentators are divided as to the meaning of these closing words. Rashi explains,
"up until his own lineage," but the later commentators point out that Ezra is not mentioned
anywhere in Divrei Ha-yamim. The Maharsha proposes that the reference is to Ezra's father,
Seraya ben Azarya (Ezra 7:1), who is mentioned in Divrei Ha-yamim I 5:40. Rabbeinu
Chananel writes that what Chazal mean is that he wrote up until the word 'lo,' in the verse,
"And he had (ve-lo) brothers, the sons of Yehoshafat Azarya and Yechiel and Zeckharyahu
and Azaryahu and Mikhael and Shefatyahu; all of these were the sons of Yehoshafat, king of
Israel" (Divrei Ha-yamim II 21:2). This would suggest that Ezra concluded his writing with the
end of the life of King Yehoshafat. However, this interpretation is difficult to accept, since it is
not clear why Ezra would end his account specifically at this point [interestingly, the Ritva
seems to have understood that the individual referred to in the verse as Azaryahu was
actually Ezra himself!]. In addition, as the Tosafot point out (ad loc.), 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. He maintains that the words should not be read
as 'ad (until) lo,' but rather 'ed (a witness) to him' i.e., "evidence for his own lineage in Sefer
Ezra." He goes on to propose that the words of the Gemara that we will quote below,
testifying that the end of the Book was written by Nechemia, actually refer to the Book
of Ezra, and not the Book of Divrei Ha-yamim.
[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, from beginning to end, 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."
[5]
Eikha Rabba, Petichta 34, Buber edition, p. 20. (The midrash is also cited
in Yalkut Shimoni, Yirmiyahu, 281.)
[6]
Here Abravanel adds other instances in Sefer Yehoshua where the same expression
appears.
[7]
In addition to the verses cited by Abravanel we might add, "And Yehoshua turned back at
that time and he captured Chatzor, and he killed its king by the sword, for Chatzor had
previously been the chief of all of these kingdoms" (Yehoshua 11:10). This suggests that the
redactor treats the preeminence of Chatzor as a fact that had been well-known in the past,
but that the contemporary audience needs reminding of.
[8]
See Shmuel I 5:5; 6:18; 27:6; 30:25; Shmuel II 4:3; 6:8; 18:18.
[9]
We will be examining Rabbi Kara and his exegetical approach in detail in chapter 8.
[10]
Rashbam adopts this approach in his commentary on Tehillim, which was only recently
discovered, and parts of which were published by A. Mondshein in his article, "Al Gilui haPerush ha-'Avud' shel Rashbam le-Sefer Tehillim," Tarbiz 79 1, 5770-5771, pp. 91-141. Inter
alia, Rashbam argues that some of the "songs of ascent" (shirei ha-ma'alot), such as
chapters 120 and 123, were composed in Babylonian exile, or at the beginning of the Second
Temple Period. See ibid. pp. 130, 133.
[11]
Psalm 70.
[12]
As part of his dispute with the Karaites. See U. Simon, Arba Gishot le-Sefer Tehillim miRaSaG ve-ad Ibn Ezra, Ramat Gan 5742, pp. 17-24.

Shiur #5b: Authorship of the Books of the Prophets and

Writingss
B.

The Book of Yishayahu

The Book of Yishayahu (Isaiah) is a central issue in the

discussion of the authorship of the books ofTanakh. As noted in the
previous shiur, the Talmud attributes the authorship of Yishayahu to
Chizkiyahu and his colleagues thereby hinting, already at that early
stage, that Yishayahu himself was not the sole author of the work

that bears his name. The basic claim that we will examine is that the
second part of the Book, from chapter 40 onwards, was not written by
Yishayahu (who lived in the 8th century B.C.E., long before the
destruction of the Temple in 586 B.C.E.), but rather by another
prophet who lived long after the Destruction of the Temple, and who
describes a reality very different from the one depicted in the first
part. Let us review the main elements of this argument.
1. In the first part (chapters 1 to 39), Yishayahu addresses the
nation who are ruled by the kings of Israel, but in the second part
(chapter 40 onwards) he seems to be addressing the nation in exile,
whilst the land and its cities lie in ruin and desolation. In several
places in the second half there are verses that describe the
Destruction of the Temple as a known, familiar fact, leading the
prophet to cry out in supplication, asking God to have mercy on His
people in exile:
"Do not be exceedingly angry, O Lord, and do not remember
iniquity forever; behold, see, we pray You we are all Your
people. Your holy cities have become a wilderness; Tzion is a
wilderness,Jerusalem is a desolation. Our holy and
beautifulTemple, where our fathers praised You, has been
burned with fire, and all our pleasant things have been laid
waste. Will You restrain Yourself at these things, O Lord? Will
You hold Your peace and afflict us so severely?"
(Yishayahu 64:8-11)
"Look down from heaven and see, 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, have You caused us to stray from Your
ways, and hardened our hearts, for fear of You? For the sake
of Your servants, bring back the tribes of Your inheritance. The
people of Your holiness possessed it for only a short while;our
enemies have trodden down Your Sanctuary." (ibid. 63:1518)
Many of the prophets mention the Destruction of the Temple,
but they speak of it in the future tense, whilst in Yishayahu it is
described in the past tense. Moreover, it is clear from the prophet's
language that he is crying out over a reality that exists in the present.

Likewise, the exile of Israel is depicted as an established

reality, even though nowhere in Yishayahuis there any prophecy that
foretells exile.
"So says the Lord, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: For
your sake I have sent to Babylon, and I will bring them all down
as fugitives" (43:14);
"Go forth out of Babylon, flee from the Kasdim; declare in a
voice of song; tell this, spread it to the ends of the earth, say:
The Lord has redeemed His servant, Yaakov." (48:20)
To this we must add that during Yishayahus life no decree of
destruction had yet been passed forJerusalem, so he did not regard
the future destruction as a certainty. Even in the eyes of the prophet
Yirmiyahu, who lived after Yishayahu, destruction and exile were
seen as events which it would still be possible to avert.
2. Koresh, the king of Persia who conquered the Babylonian
empire in 539 B.C.E. and decreed that the exiles could return to their
homeland (see Ezra ch.1), is mentioned twice in the second half of
the Book, despite the fact that he lived approximately two centuries
after Yishayahu:
"[He] who says of Koresh, He is My shepherd, and shall
perform all that I desire, and saying toJerusalem, You shall be
rebuilt, and to theTemple, Your foundation shall be laid."
(44:28)
"So says the Lord to His anointed one, to Koresh, whose right
hand I have held, that I might subdue nations before him, and
loosen the loins of kings, that I might open before him doors
and gates which shall not be shut." (45:1)
It is not easy to understand why Yishayahu would mention,
some two hundred years before the time of Koresh, the name of a
future king as part of a prophecy.[1] In general, the prophets did not
speak of matters that would take place so far in the future, and they
do not speak in such specific detail as to include names of people not
yet born.[2]
3. There are various expressions that appear numerous times in
the second part of the Book, but are entirely absent from the first
part. One example is "all flesh" (which appears only in 40:5, 6; 49:26;

66:16, 23, 24); another is "to heart" (al lev) (42:25; 46:8; 47:7;
57:1,11).[3] In terms of content, too, there are conspicuous differences
between the two parts of the Book. One of the best known examples
is the subject of "God's servant," which appears repeatedly as a
central motif in the second part of the Book (see 41:8, 9; 42:1, 19;
43:10; 44:1, 2, 21; 45:4; 49:3; 52:13; 53:11), but is altogether absent
from the first part.[4]
4. The structure of Sefer Yishayahu likewise reflects quite clearly
the division into two parts. The first section of Yishayahu's
prophecies concludes with the prophecy of consolation in chapter 35,
ending with the words,
"And the ransomed of God shall return, and come to Tzion with
song and everlasting joy upon their heads; they shall obtain joy
and gladness, while sorrow and sighing shall flee."
(Yishayahu 35:10)
Following this are four chapters (36-39) that focus on King
Chizkiyahu: his war against Ashur, his illness, his relations with the
prophet Yishayahu, and his failure in dealings with the king
of Babylon. These chapters are, to a great extent, a repetition of
chapters 18-20 ofMelakhim II. A parallel phenomenon exists in Sefer
Yirmiyahu, in which the actual prophecies end in chapter 51, while
the final chapter 52 is a repetition of a chapter in Melakhim II
(chapter 25). If the repetition of the chapter from Sefer
Melakhim represents the conclusion of Sefer Yirmiyahu, it seems
reasonable to suggest that the repetition of the chapters from Sefer
Melakhim in Sefer Yishayahu represent the same phenomenon.
5. Finally, 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). By contrast, in the second part of the Book his name is not
mentioned at all.
It turns out that the first person to suggest the idea that the
second part of Sefer Yishayahu was not actually written by
Yishayahu, was R. Avraham ibn Ezra. In his commentary to the
beginning of chapter 40, he writes:
"This unit was joined [to the preceding prophecies] because it
is mentioned previously that all of the king's treasures, as well

as his children, would be exiled to Babylon, and therefore this

is followed by the consolations. And these first consolations
from the second half of the Book, according to the opinion of
Rabbi Moshe haKohen, concern the [building of the] Second
Temple, while to my view it is all meant concerning our own
exile, but within the Book there are matters of the Babylonian
exile, as a memorial, for Koresh allowed the exiles back.
However, the matters in the latter part of the Bookconcern the
future, 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, 'Kings shall see and arise, and princes shall
prostrate themselves' (Yishayahu49:7) ...and he who is wise
will understand."
Ibn Ezra formulates his words in a rather obscure fashion, as is
his custom when it comes to sensitive subjects,[5] but his general
meaning seems clear.[6] Ibn Ezra maintains that this unit was "joined"
to the preceding chapters, and draws a distinction between the two
sections of the Book in terms of content. He then immediately goes
on to note that despite the fact that the beraita states, in a general
way, that 'Shmuel wrote his book,' this does not refer to the entire
Book, but only up to the point where the text explicitly notes his
death. It seems quite likely that Ibn Ezra mentions this here because
he believes that Sefer Yishayahu, too, likeSefer Shmuel, was not
written in its entirety by the prophet after whom the Book is named,
but rather was completed by someone else.
To this we might add that Chazal themselves note explicitly
that there are verses in Sefer Yishayahuthat were not written by
Yishayahu himself, but rather by a different prophet:
"Rabbi Simon said: There were two verses that were
prophesied by Be'era,[7] but they were not sufficient to comprise
a Book in their own right, so they were included in Sefer
Yishayahu. And these are they: 'And when they say to you,
Consult the mediums' (Yishayahu 8:19), and the following
verse (8:20)." (Vayikra Rabba 6, 6, Margaliot edition, pp. 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. It must be noted that the unity of the Book
of Yishayahu goes back to antiquity, and a clear allusion to the Book,

including both parts, as a single work is found already in the Book of

Ben Sira,[8] which offers the following comment on Yishayahu:
"He foretold the end with a mighty spirit, and comforted the
mourners of Tzion. He told eternal hidden matters before they
transpired." (Ben Sira 48, 33-34, Segal edition, p. 334)
These verses of Ben Sira clearly refer to the prophecies in the
second part of the Book (see, for instance, 42:9; 61:2-3). Likewise, in
the Septuagint translation of Sefer Yishayahu, dating to the
2nd century B.C.E., the Book appears as a single unit. The "Complete
Scroll of Yishayahu" discovered at Qumran, dating to the mid2nd century B.C.E., likewise shows no division between the two
parts.[9]
Interestingly, alongside the differences in language and style
noted above, the opposite phenomenon also exists: expressions
including some that are unique to Sefer Yishayahu that appear in
both parts of the Book. Some examples include "yomar Hashem" (the
future form of "says the Lord" Yishayahu1:11,18; 33:10; and also
41:21; 66:9; the expression appears nowhere else in the Books of
the Prophets);[10]"ram ve-nissa" ("high and elevated" appearing only
twice in all of Tanakh: Yishayahu 6:1; 57:15); "orach mishpat" ("the
path of judgment" 26:8; 40:14); and others.[11] In view of this, 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 was influenced by it in terms of both content and style
although, as we have seen, he also developed his own style and
introduced ideas that had not appeared in the first part. Due to
Yishayahus influence on the later prophet, the two collections were
brought together to form a single unit.
Hence, 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. This in no way contradicts the view
of Chazal, who attribute the redaction of the Book to Chizkiyahu and
his colleagues, 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.
All of the above could have been easily agreed upon and
accepted in our generation, with the widespread popular reengagement with Tanakh study in general, and Sefer Yishayahu in

particular. Yet the engagement of Bible Criticism with Sefer

Yishayahu has deflected the discussion in a different direction.
Hundreds of years after Ibn Ezra's hinted allusion, the early
Bible critics[12] arrived at the same conclusion that the second part
of the Book was not written by the prophet Yishayahu, but rather by
someone they refer to as "Isaiah II" or Deutero-Isaiah. 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. Implicit in this argument is a denial of
the concept of prophecy; it suggests that a prophet could not
describe events that would happen in the future. This, of course, is a
very different approach to the one presented above, which is based
on analysis of the style and content of the text, while maintaining the
assumption that a prophet of God can know the future. Prophecies
concerning the future are often presented in this sort of language,
depicting future events in general terms, but not in detail, as noted
above. Thus, the argument of the Bible critics shifted the discussion
from the question of whether the character of the prophecy, along
with various specific elements as discussed above, leads us to
conclude that it was a different prophet who wrote the second part of
the Book, to the question of whether the prophet any prophet is
capable of knowing the future. The approach of the Bible critics
caused great agitation among the Torah scholars, who were quick to
reject their hypothesis.
One of the great Torah scholars who addressed head-on the
claim that there existed an "Isaiah II" was Shadal, Rabbi Shmuel
David Luzzatto (1800-1865).[13]Despite his extensive academic
scholarship, in his letters[14] and in his commentary on Sefer
Yishayahuhe rejects this view with great vehemence. The modern
biblical commentator Rachel Margaliot devotes an entire book to this
subject Echad Haya Yishayahu, in which she rejects the various
arguments for to the later authorship of the Book.[15] In these works,
as well as in works by other prominent Jewish scholars,[16] the
controversy over the essence of prophecy features prominently:
"The idea of the division of the Book arises from a realist,
historical approach that seeks the prophet within the
background of his prophecies. This approach does not view
prophecy as a vision of the future, but rather as an overview of
reality as it is unfolding. According to this approach, the
prophet stands at the very point where the events that he is

prophesying about are unfolding. The prophet is a sort of

conscientious, insightful politician who observes the reality
around him, knows what is going on politically, and senses
what awaits just beyond the horizon. He might be described as
a talented publicist who dares to guess what is going to
happen next, based on accumulated information as to what is
happening now. This view led the scholars to reject any
prophecy that was not within the scope of the prophet's natural
vision."[17]
Indeed, on this point there is a fundamental different of opinion
between the secular, critical view ofTanakh, and the religious view. If
a person believes that the Tanakh possesses sanctity and that the
prophet receives his messages from God through prophecy and
Divine inspiration, 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. Such
a position represents a denial of the whole concept of prophecy,
regardless
of
one's
position
on
the
question
of
whetherSefer Yishayahu is a single work or two separate ones
brought together. It was this, then, that caused the great controversy
concerning "Isaiah II."
However, the substantial arguments that we have cited against
seeing Yishayahu as a single work are valid and compelling,
completely independently of discussions to do with the prophet's
status and abilities. As we have seen, they are based on the content
of the prophecy itself,[18] and on simple, clear proofs from the style
and structure of the text, as well as the conspicuous absence of any
mention of Yishayahu himself from chapter 40 onwards. There is no
doubt that these considerations were borne in mind by Ibn Ezra, too,
when he wrote his commentary to chapter 40 ofSefer Yishayahu. In
any event, we can discuss the matter without trespassing into the
territory of fundamental Jewish beliefs.[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.[20]
Translated by Kaeren Fish

[1]

Admittedly, 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, who will
profane the altar that Yerav'am has established in Beit El: "And he said, Altar, altar, so says

the Lord: Behold, a child will be born to the house of David, Yoshiyahu by name, and he shall
slay the priests of the high places that burn incense upon you, and they shall burn bones of
men upon you" (Melakhim I 13:2). Here too, 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. However, this does not seem to represent any proof in
our case, for it is reasonable to suppose that the words, "Yoshiyahu by name," were not
uttered in the original prophecy, but rather were added later on by the redactor of the Book
(Yirmiyahu, according to the beraita cited in the previous shiur) who was writing later, with a
perspective that included having witnessed the fulfillment of the prophecy. If we understand
the words "Yoshiyahu by name" as being part of the original prophecy, then Yoshiyahu's
repentance in the wake of the discovery of the Sefer Torah was actually planned and foretold
by God in advance. Why, then, would the text testify, "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,
according to all of the Torah of Moshe; nor did any like him arise afterwards" (Melakhim II
23:25)? Conceivably, the prophecy was meant to have been fulfilled much earlier, but the
inability of the kings of Yehuda to completely eradicate the practice of idolatry postponed its
fulfillment to the days of Yoshiyahu.
[2]
My rabbi and teacher, Rav Yaakov Medan, in his article "Mavo le-Ma'amaro shel C.
Chefetz al Malkhut Paras u-Maday," Megadim 14, 5751, p. 64, likewise rules out the
possibility of the prophecy about Koresh presenting specific details about a person not yet
born. He proposes a different solution to the problem, arguing that Yishayahu was not
speaking of Koresh, king of Persia, whom we know as the king who declared the Jews of
Babylon free to return to the Land ofIsrael, but rather of his grandfather, who lived in the
period of Yishayahu. However, the suggestion that there were two different kings named
Koresh is itself revolutionary, and beyond this, 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, rather than to the king whose promise to facilitate the rebuilding of the
Temple concludes the Tanakh.
[3]
For a partial list of such expressions, see M. Z. Segal, Mavo ha-Mikra, Jerusalem 5737, p.
323.
[4]
The expression "My servant" (avdi) does appear twice in the first part, but in these
instances it refers to a specific person first Yishayahu himself (20:3), and then Eliyakim ben
Chilkiyahu (22:20) rather than as a general thematic motif of "God's servant."
[5]
As we saw previously, concerning the "secret of the twelve."
[6]
Concerning the meaning of his words see, inter alia, R.N. Krochmal, Moreh Nevukhei haZeman, Lemberg 1851, p. 114; M. Friedlander, Perush Rabbi Avraham ben Ezra al
Yishayahu, London 1873, pp. 170-171.
[7]
The midrash refers here to Be'eri, father of Hoshe'a, who was also a prophet as the
midrash goes on to explain. In some versions the midrash does indeed read "Be'eri," but this
version points to an identification of Hoshea's father as Be'era, prince of the tribe of Reuven
(Divrei ha-Yamim I 5:6). See Margaliot ad loc., n. 6.
[8]
rd
nd
The Book of Ben Sira was written at the end of the 3 or beginning of the 2 century
B.C.E. See M.Z. Segal, Sefer Ben Sira ha-Shalem, Jerusalem 5713, pp. 3-6.
[9]
See Y. Yadin, Ha-Megillot ha-Genuzot mi-Midbar Yehuda, Jerusalem-Tel Aviv 5718, p.
101.
[10]
It appears not as a rhetorical expression but as a regular future-tense verb in Yirmiyahu
42:20. We might add that Sefer Yishayahufeatures other similar expressions which are
likewise unique to this Book: "yomar Elo-heikhem" (40:1); "yomar kadosh" (40:25); "yomar
melekh Yaakov" (41:21).
[11]
For more expression appearing in both parts of the Book, see M.Z. Segal (above, n. 3),
and below.
[12]
This hypothesis was first suggested in 1775 by Johann Dderlein in his Latin commentary
on Sefer Yishayahu. It was later publicized by Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, in 1883, and has
since become universally accepted by all biblical scholars.
[13]
Rabbi Luzzatto was head of the rabbinical school of Padua, Italy.
[14]
Published in Kerem Chemed 7, Prague 5603, pp. 225-242. Concerning Shadal's position
on this subject see S. Vargon, "Emdato shel Shadal be-She'elat Achduto shel Sefer
Yishayahu," Mechkarei Morashtenu I, pp. 7-27. Vargon acknowledges that Shadal
polemicizes against those who deny that prophets can foretell the future. He also notes that
Shadal did not view in the same light all arguments against unified authorship of Yishayahu;

he recognized that Chazal, who arrived at the same conclusion on the basis of different
premises, expressed a legitimate view. See ibid. p. 25 and n. 64.
[15]
R. Margaliot, Echad Haya Yishayahu, Jerusalem 5714. Most of the book is devoted to a
review of the linguistic style that is common to both parts of Sefer Yishayahu, as set forth
above. However, as we have seen, there are also stylistic differences, 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, rather than evidence of Yishayahu having written all of it as
intimated by M.Z. Segal, pp. 323-324: "In general, there is a great discrepancy between the
two parts in the stylistic qualities of the language. In the second part the language is lyrical,
magnanimous and flowing, full of softness, gentleness, pathos and enthusiasm, while the
prophecies of Yishayahu, in the first part of the Book, are conveyed in elevated, intensive and
dense language. Hence, the argument from language does not support the traditional view
that the second part, too, was written by Yishayahu son of Amotz, since the linguistic
differences contradict this view."
[16]
For other works rejecting the division of Sefer Yishayahu, see R. Margaliot (above, n. 14),
p. 17; Y. Yaakobson, Chazon ha-Mikra II, Tel Aviv 5717, p. 47.
[17]
R. Margaliot, p. 20.
[18]
Concerning the nature of the prophecy, even Margaliot acknowledges: "Certainly,
referring to someone by name two hundred years before he is to be born, is not a regular
vision encountered in the Books of the Prophets We cannot pretend to know the power and
depths of prophecy; whether a prophet can prophesy only concerning the near future, or also
concerning more distant events; whether only in obscure metaphors, or also explicitly." Once
again, though, our discussion does not concern the question of whether or not the prophet
could know Koresh's name, but rather whether there is any point in the prophet knowing, and
stating, the name of a person to be born in the future, when this name in no way adds to or
detracts from what he is saying.
[19]
As Rabbi Y. Cherlow points out in his Yir'eh la-Levav, Tel Aviv 2007, p. 246, n. 52.
[20]
Indeed, in our times the question is discussed without the passionate emotion that
surrounded it in previous generations. The following are some of the sources that address the
issue: Z. Okashi, "Emunat ha-Mada Yishayahu ha-Sheni ke-Mashal," Derekh Efrata7, 5758,
pp. 99-105, argues that from a scientific point of view there is no absolute truth concerning
the authorship of the second part ofSefer Yishayahu, but he too believes that both positions
are legitimate in terms of a religious world-view. A. HaKohen, "Ha-Omnam Echad Haya
Yishayahu?" Derekh Efrata 10, 5760, pp. 79-88, 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. Y. Rosenson, "Yichudo, Achduto uMurkavuto shel Sefer Yishayahu me-Hashkafot Chazal al Yishayahu," Derekh Aggada 3,
5760, pp. 179-202, treats the question at length, inter alia from the perspective of midrashei
Chazal. A review of further sources may be found in N. Ararat's article, "Divrei ha-Navi
Menachem Hatza'a le-Limmud ha-Yechidot ha-Nevuiyot bi-Yishayahu 40-66," Sha'anan 11,
5766, p. 9, n. 1, and pp. 53-55. Many years ago, the British Chief Rabbi, Joseph Hertz,
reached a conclusion similar to the one above: This question can be considered
dispassionately. It touches no dogma, or any religious principle in Judaism; and, moreover,
does not materially affect the understanding of the prophecies, or of the human conditions of
the Jewish people that they have in view (Hertz Chumash, London: Soncino, 1938, p. 942).

Shiur #5c: Authorship of the Books of the Prophets and Writings

C.
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,
as well as two different approaches to explaining them: the
documentary hypothesis, and the "aspects approach" of Rav

Mordechai Breuer. Is this discussion relevant also to the prophetic

literature?
Clearly, the phenomena exist in these Books, too, with
contradictions between chapters, as well as within literary units
themselves. For instance, we see a series of contradictions in the
chapters describing the establishment of the monarchy in Sefer
Shmuel (ShmuelI, Chapters 8-17). Let us examine some of them.
1. In 7:13 we read, "The Philistines were subdued and came no
more into the territory of Israel, and God's hand was against
the Philistines all the days of Shmuel." This suggests that
during the latter period of Shmuel's leadership, the Philistines
were no longer an enemy that threatened Israel. However, in
9:16 God tells Shmuel: "Tomorrow at about this time I will send
you a man from the land of Binyamin, and you shall anoint him
as prince over My people, Israel, and he shall save My people
from the hand of the Philistines, for I have looked upon My
people, for their cry has come to Me." The situation becomes
further complicated when later on, in Shmuel's parting speech,
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, king of the children of Ammon,
came against you, you said to me, No, let a king rule over us"
(12:12).
2. Chapter 10 concludes with a description of Shaul's coronation
by all of Israel: "And all the people shouted and said, 'Long live
the king!'" (verse 24). Nevertheless, immediately afterwards,
we read of the attack by Nachash the Ammonite on the
inhabitants of Yavesh Gil'ad, and subsequent events create
the impression that Shaul's coronation never happened. 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, and if there is none to save us, we will come
out to you" (11:3). The messengers do not head directly for
Shaul, but rather travel throughout the land. When they reach
Giv'at Shaul they bring their message to the inhabitants, 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,
and they told these things to the listening people, and all the
people raised their voices and wept. And behold, Shaul came
after the herd from the field, and Shaul said: What ails the
people, that they weep? And they told him the news of the
people of Yavesh" (ibid. 4-5). How is it possible that after Shaul

becomes king, 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. In chapter 13, Shaul offers the sacrifices before Shmuel
arrives, despite the explicit command that he had received to
wait for the prophet to arrive. Shmuel rebukes Shaul and tells
him that the monarchy is to be taken from him and given to
someone else: "Shmuel said to Shaul, You have acted
foolishly; you have not observed the command of the Lord your
God, which He commanded you; for now God would have
established your kingdom over Israel forever. But now your
kingdom will not endure; God has sought Himself a man after
His own heart, and God has appointed him as a prince over
His people, since you did not observe that which God
commanded you" (verses 13-14). Afterwards, however, when
Shaul fails again to observe a Divine command, in the war
against Amalek, and God says, "I regret that I set up Shaul as
king, for he has turned away from following Me, and has not
performed My commandments," 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. In chapter 16, an evil spirit torments Shaul. His servants
propose that David be brought to play on the lyre, to dissipate
his mood, and a strong connection is forged between them:
"David came to Shaul and stood before him, and he loved him
greatly, and he became his armor-bearer" (verse 21). But
afterwards, when Goliath is taunting the Israelite camp, David
presents himself before Shaul and Shaul does not recognize
him. Furthermore, 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, the captain of the host: Avner, whose son is
this youth? And Avner said, By your life, O king, I do not know.
And the king said: Inquire as to whose son the young man is.
And when David returned from smiting the Philistine, Avner
took him and brought him before Shaul, with the head of the
Philistine in his hand. And Shaul said to him, Whose son are
you, lad? And David said, The son of your servant, Yishai, of
Beit Lechem." How is it possible that Shaul does not recognize
David if we were previously told that he was his armor-bearer,
and that he "loved him greatly"?

The Bible critics maintain that these and other contradictions

arise from the fact that the text is actually a compilation of different
sources,[1] yet as we saw in our discussion on the Books of the
Torah, doubts can and have been raised as to the degree to which
the attempted explanation of the Bible critics actually solves the
difficulties. Since I have already discussed at length the "aspects
approach" of Rav Mordekhai Breuer to similar literary problems in the
Torah itself, I will propose here briefly a general solution to the
questions above. According to the aspects approach, the text seeks
to illuminate different dimensions and perspectives on the narratives,
and does so by combining overlapping, and sometimes contradictory,
accounts.
Without embarking on a lengthy discussion of all the
details,[2] we may note that these chapters display a dual character,
with two different perspectives on the monarchy. In chapter 8,
Shmuel is adamantly opposed to the nation's demand for a king.
God, too, takes a dim view of the demand and tells Shmuel,
"For it is not you that they have rejected; rather, they have
rejected Me from ruling over them. According to all the deeds
that they have done, from the day I brought them up out
of Egypt, and until this day, in that they have forsaken Me and
served other gods so they are doing also to you." (Shmuel I
8:7-8)
Nevertheless, God does not reject the demand outright, and
ultimately acquiesces. In chapter 9, in contrast, Shaul's appointment
is presented as a decision originating with God Himself, 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,
saying, Tomorrow at about this time I will send you a man from
the land of Binyamin, and you shall anoint him as prince over
My people, Israel, and he shall save My people from the hand
of the Philistines, for I have looked upon My people, for their
cry has come to Me." (9:15-16)
This ambiguous treatment reflects the fact that throughout all
the Books of Tanakh, the attitude towards the monarchy is a complex
one. On the one hand, there are many instances where the
monarchy is viewed in a positive light. For instance, going back as far
as the forefathers, we find that God tells Avraham, "I shall make

nations of you, and kings shall emerge from you" (Bereishit 17:6);
similarly, Yaakov is told, "a nation and a company of nations shall
arise from you, and kings shall emerge from your loins" (ibid. 35:11).
Of particular note is the positive attitude towards the concept of
a monarchy that we find in the concluding chapters of Sefer Shoftim,
with its description of the deplorable level to which Bnei Yisrael have
fallen, including idolatry (Shoftim 17, Mikha's idol); sexual immorality
(ibid. 19, the concubine in Giv'a); and murder (ibid. 20-21, the war
against Binyamin). This reality is explained in a repeated verse: "In
those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right
in his own eyes" (ibid. 17:6; 21:25; see also 18:1; 19:1). We may say
that Sefer Shoftim ends on a note of crying out for a king, perceiving
the monarchy as a solution to the anarchy reigning in political,
religious, and moral spheres. Indeed, a king has the power to lead
Am Yisrael in the path of Divine service, as did such worthy kings as
David, Yehoshafat, and Yoshiyahu.
On the other hand, there are other places where the Biblical
text warns of the dangers inherent in monarchy. The main idea is
summed up in Gidon's words after the people offer that he reign,
founding a sort of dynasty in which he and his sons will rule over
Israel: "I shall not rule over you, nor shall my sons rule of you; God
shall rule over you" (Shoftim 8:23). Notably in the Torah itself, up
until Sefer Devarim, the highest office in Israel is that of 'nasi' (prince)
(Shemot 22:27;Vayikra 4:22). The danger of appointing a king i.e.,
the concentration of tremendous power in the hands of a single
person is clear: if the king is driven by improper motives, he may
cause a complete collapse of the entire nation's Divine service, as
indeed happened under such kings as Yerovam ben Nevat and
Achav.
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, and you take possession of it and settle in it, and you will
say, 'Let us appoint a king over us, like all the nations around
us' you shall surely appoint over you a king whom the Lord
your God will choose; from among your brethren shall you
appoint a king over you; you cannot appoint over you a foreign
man who is not of your brethren." (Devarim 17:14-15)

It is not clear whether this is meant as a command to appoint a

king, or as license to do so.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; to cut off the descendants of Amalek; and to
build the Temple. Rabbi Nehorai said: This unit [concerning the
king] was said only to pacify their discontent, as it is written,
'And you shall say, Let us appoint a king over ourselves.'"[3]
We may therefore say that this controversy reflects the two
different perspectives presented throughout Tanakh. A monarchy
offers both risks and opportunities, advantages and disadvantages.
TheTanakh expresses this complexity by means of a dual
presentation of the chapters in Sefer Shmuel pertaining to the
monarchy. The one aspect, starting in chapter 8, 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. The second aspect, starting in
chapter 9, emerges from a view of the monarchy as a positive
institution which was intended by God from the outset. The following
chapters are divided along the lines of these two approaches, with
events such as a failure on Shaul's part or an encounter between him
and David being viewed from both perspectives. The scope of our
present discussion does not allow for a detailed presentation of this
division.[4] Suffice it to note, in light of this example, that concerning
the other Books ofTanakh, too, there is room to suggest that there is
deliberate repetition in some chapters, arising not from diverse
sources that have been collated by an editor, 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.
Let us now examine an example of internal contradictions and
redundancies within the same textual unit. In the description of the
crossing of the Jordan inYehoshua 3-4, there are several
contradictions.
1. In chapter 3, Yehoshua addresses the people and tells them of
the miracle that is going to happen when they cross the Jordan
(verses 9-13). As part of his speech, he commands them,
seemingly of his own initiative, "And now, take yourselves
twelve men of the tribes of Israel, one man for each tribe"
(verse 12). Later on, after they have crossed the Jordan, God
appears to Yehoshua with a command that is formulated in

almost exactly the same language: "Take yourselves from the

people twelve men, one man for each tribe. And command
them, saying: Take yourselves from this place, from the midst
of the Jordan, from where the feet of the kohanimstood firm,
twelve stones, and you shall carry them over with you, and
leave them in your lodging place where you will lodge tonight"
(4:23). 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. The chronology as presented in the text suggests that after
Yehoshua's speech to the people, they did indeed cross over
the Jordan, and afterwards God addressed Yehoshua with the
above command: "All of Israel passed over on dry land, until
all of the nation had finished crossing over the Jordan. And it
was, when the entire nation had passed over the Jordan, that
God spoke to Yehoshua, saying" (3:17-4:1). Thereafter,
Bnei Yisrael fulfill the commandment and set up the pile of
stones at the lodge: "And Bnei Yisrael did so, as Yehoshua
had commanded, and they carried twelve stones from the
midst of the Jordan, as God had spoken to Yehoshua, for the
number of the tribes of Bnei Yisrael, and they carried them
over with them to the lodge, and laid them down there" (4:8).
But afterwards, the text reverts to the previous situation: "And
the kohanim, who bore the Ark, stood in the midst of the
Jordan, until the entire episode was finished, which God had
commanded Yehoshua to speak to the people, in accordance
with all that Moshe had commanded Yehoshua, and the
people hastened and crossed over" (verse 10).
3. There is also repetition in relation to the kohanim. First we
read of the kohanim, bearing the Ark, emerging from the
Jordan: "And the kohanim, who bore the Ark, stood in the
midst of the Jordan and the people hastened and crossed
over. And it was, when all the nation had finished crossing
over, that the Ark of God passed over, and the kohanim,
before the people" (ibid. 10-11). Then we find a closing verse:
"On that day God magnified Yehoshua in the eyes of all of
Israel, and they feared him as they had feared Moshe, all the
days of his life" (ibid. 14). Yet, once it appears that the entire
episode is over, the text returns to the description of
thekohanim's exit from the Jordan: "And God said to
Yehoshua, saying: Command the kohanim, who bear the Ark
of Testimony, and let them come up from the Jordan. And
Yehoshua commanded thekohanim, saying, Come up from the
Jordan. And it was, when the kohanim, bearing the Ark of

God's Covenant, arose from the midst of the Jordan, and the
soles of the kohanim's feet were lifted onto the dry ground, that
the waters of the Jordan returned to their place, and flowed
over all their banks, as they did before" (ibid. 15-18).
4. The repetition continues with a two-fold explanation as to the
need for the twelve stones taken by the representatives of the
tribes. First we read, "In order that this might be a sign in your
midst, that when your children ask in the future, saying, What
are these stones to you? Then you shall say to them, That the
waters of the Jordan were cut off before the Ark of God's
Covenant; when it crossed over the Jordan, the waters of the
Jordan were cut off; and these stones shall be a memorial
for Bnei Yisraelforever" (4:6-7). Later on, after the second
description of the kohanim emerging from the Jordan, the
same description is repeated: "And he said to Bnei Yisrael,
saying, When your children ask their fathers in the future,
saying, What are these stones? Then you shall make known to
your children, saying: Israel crossed over this Jordan on dry
land. For the Lord your God dried up the waters of the Jordan
before you, until you had passed over, as the Lord God did at
the Reed Sea, which He dried up before us until we had
passed over"(ibid. 21-23). The establishment of the monument
of stones likewise appears twice (verses 8, 20).
Here again, Bible critics over the generations have raised
suggestions as to how the various verses represent different sources,
without any such division successfully solving the issue.[5] Here, too,
it seems that the aspects approach may be utilized to show how the
text endeavors, by means of overlapping descriptions, to convey the
different aspects of the miracle.[6] The story itself offers three distinct
perspectives:
1. 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), and
later on, "in order that you will fear the Lord your God all the
days" (ibid. 24).
2. Yehoshua's personal status amongst the people: At the
beginning we read, "This day I have started to magnify you in
the eyes of all of Israel, that they may know that as I was with
Moshe so I will be with you" (3:7). By the end of the dramatic
crossing of the Jordan, this aim has indeed been attained: "On
that day God magnified Yehoshua in the eyes of all of Israel,

and they feared him as they had feared Moshe, all the days of
his life" (4:14).
3. The message to the other nations: "In order that all the people
of the earth may know the hand of God, that it is mighty"
(verse 24).
Here again, our discussion does not allow for an elaboration of
the way in which these three perspectives are interwoven in the
chapter. We may, however, concur that "their integration naturally
brings about repetitions which illuminate, in each instance, the
different aims of this miracle."[7] Thus, for example, the dual
description of the monument of stones arises from the fact that the
first time, the stated purpose is for Am Yisrael, while the second
description is directed towards the nations of the world. In the dual
descriptions of the command to appoint the twelve men, or for
the kohanim to exit the Jordan, we see clearly that in both cases the
action is presented in one instance as God's command (4:2, 15-16),
and in the other instance without any Divine command (3:11; 4:11).
Thus, these actions symbolize God's guidance of Am Yisrael, and, at
the same time, an elevation of Yehoshua's status in the eyes of the
people.
These examples demonstrate that the "aspects approach"
represents an effective and practical way of understanding textual
difficulties in the Books of the Prophets, just as it is in explaining
similar difficulties that arise in the Torah itself.[8]
Translated by Kaeren Fish

[1]

See, for example, M.Z. Segal, Sifrei Shmuel, Jerusalem 1971, pp. 6-16; S. BarEfrat, Perush Shmuel I in the Mikra le-Yisrael series, Jerusalem-Tel Aviv 5756, pp. 15-16.
[2]
I heard the essence of this approach from my teacher, Dr. Mordekhai Sabbato, and I set it
forth in detail in my book, Shmuel I: Melekh BeYisrael, Jerusalem 2013. 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.org/archive/shmuel/16shmuel.htm
[3]
A similar difference of opinion exists among the commentators. Ramban understands the
unit in Sefer Devarim as representing a mitzva, and the Rambam (Laws of Kings 1:1),
concurs. Abravanel sees the unit as merely giving license to appoint a king, as an example of
"the Torah speaks here only in response to the evil inclination." following the view of Rabbi
Nehorai ("to pacify their discontent"). The plain meaning of the text seems to lend itself more
to Abravanel's view, which reflects more accurately the language of the command. If this is
indeed an obligation, why would the Torah present is as a description of a situation "you will
say, Let us appoint a king over ourselves like all the nations around about us'"? Ramban
addresses this question, 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." Were this not the meaning, he
claims, it would indeed be difficult to understand why the Torah presents their request in this
way: "For what reason would the Torah say, in relation to a commandment, 'like all the

nations that are around about us'? ForBnei Yisrael should not learn from them, nor envy
those who act unjustly." However, this explanation seems slightly forced. The Netziv
(Ha'amek Davar), in his commentary on Sefer Devarim, explains that the Torah does not
issue an absolute command in matters pertaining to national policy, since such matters are
influenced by the circumstances at any given time, and no absolute ideas could be
appropriate for every generation.
[4]
Interested readers are encouraged to examine the analysis in detail in my abovementioned
book, Shmuel I: Melekh BeYisrael, Jerusalem 2013.
[5]
A concise and clear review of the various approaches is presented by E. Assis, Mi-Moshe
li-Yehoshua u-mi-Nes le-Teva, Jerusalem 5765, pp. 85-89.
[6]
Our presentation here is based on Assis's discussion (see n. 5), pp. 92-108.
[7]
Assis (see n. 5 above), p. 107.
[8]
It should be noted that Rav Breuer himself preferred not to apply his approach to the Books
of the Prophets. He maintained that this approach was unique to the Torah, specifically
because the Torah represents God's direct word, and that only God could encompass and
contain all the contrasting perspectives in a single text. See S. Carmy, Introducing Rabbi
Breuer, in S. Carmy (ed.) Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah, New Jersey 1996 p.
147.

Shiur #6a: Tanakh and Archaeology

A.

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.[1]The earliest studies were
conducted by American and British scholars such as Edward
Robinson (1794-1863) and Charles Warren (1840-1927), 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. At the
beginning of the 20th century, religious scholars such as William
Albright (1891-1971) and G. Ernest Wright (1909-1974) introduced
what became a central endeavor in the field: they sought, by means
of archaeological findings, to demonstrate the authenticity of biblical
narratives and thereby to disprove the documentary hypothesis
(which we discussed at length in the previous chapter). As an
outgrowth of this approach, a similar school of scholarship arose in
Israel, too, headed by Yigael Yadin (1917-1984). Although nonobservant religiously, Yadin viewed the strengthening of the bond
between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel through
archaeology as an important Zionist endeavor. The efforts
included, inter alia, 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, and whose own authenticity may
in turn be demonstrated by the fieldwork.

Towards the end of the 20th century, some new trends

appeared which gradually moved themselves further away from the
original orientation of biblical archaeology. First, a school that
became known as the "New Archaeology" sought to sever itself from
the historical context of the Tanakh, and to view archaeology as an
independent discipline dealing with the processes of cultural and
social development borne out by the findings, without reference to
any particular events recorded in the Tanakh. Second, some of the
"New Archaeologists" adopted a more extreme approach that tended
to negate the historical validity of the Tanakh, concerning everything
up to the period of the divided kingdom, especially the period of
Achav (in the first half of the ninth-century B.C.E. see MelakhimI,
ch.16). This school is related to some extent to trends among
scholarly circles in Europe (especially in Scandinavia),[2] and is
known as the "minimalist approach." It argues that the biblical record
should not be regarded as historical fact so long as there is no
positive archaeological evidence supporting it, since according to
the proponents of this view the Tanakhwas written with a bias, long
after the events actually took place.[3] The narratives of the Torah,
they maintain, along with the Books of Yehoshua, Shoftim,Shmuel,
and even the beginning of Sefer Melakhim, are stories that have
almost no historical basis, and they contradict the archaeological
findings from the relevant periods. Hence, 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.
The same approach is held by a certain school of
contemporary Israeli scholars, whose views we will discuss here.
One of the most prominent representatives of this approach is Zeev
Herzog. In a newspaper article that raised a storm of controversy,
Herzog argued,
"After 70 years of intensive excavation in Eretz Yisrael,
archaeologists are arriving at a frightening conclusion: the
'deeds of the fathers' are a fable; we did not go down to Egypt
nor did we come up from there; we did not conquer the land,
and there is no trace of the empire of David and Shlomo."[4]
Herzog's popular article led to extensive discussion of these
questions, and conferences, articles and books appeared in
response to the minimalist approach.[5]
In general, this position is extreme and controversial, and many
scholars distance themselves from it, regarding it as a passing trend.

The argument of Herzog and those like him is not comprised purely
of archaeological elements, but also displays prominently political
opinions and subjective world-views. At the opposite end of the
spectrum, there are scholars who belong to the "maximalist
approach," maintaining that everything in the Tanakh should be
accepted as historical truth so long as there is no proof to the
contrary.[6] But the majority of scholars are not identified with either
camp, and treat each discovery on its own merits.
In this chapter we shall discuss questions that have been
raised for the most part by the minimalists and have received some
media attention. 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, but
rather approach its findings with an objective view appropriate to
scientific enquiry.
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. Clearly, this
research must be approached with appropriate reservations and
caution. Firstly, 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, decisive proofs, as we have seen in the
previous chapters. In addition, there is some doubt as to whether the
discipline of archaeology may be defined as a "pure" science: many
fundamental assumptions in the field, concerning the dating of
different findings, as well as the methods of ascertaining their date,
etc., have not been conclusively proven. Likewise, 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. However, this argument from absence is a major
weakness of the approach: "'We have not found' is not a proof"
(Ketubot 23b),[7] and it happens on occasion that a finding discovered
quite by accident contradicts entire theories constructed previously,
as we shall see. The frequent updating of archaeological approaches
likewise contributes little reliability to the findings. Finally, just as in
the realm of the literary criticism of the Tanakh, it is difficult to ignore
the bias sometimes openly declared on the part of many
archaeologists of the minimalist school, who have joined together
with the "new historians"[8] and follow a political agenda, both in Israel
and elsewhere.[9] For example, Herzog concludes his controversial
article mentioned above with the words,

"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."[10]
Countering Herzog's claims, 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,
did they not exist? This bitter protest arises from the fact that
the archaeology of the Land of Israel, and perhaps of the
Ancient East in its entirety, started out by taking upon itself a
task that it could not fulfill, 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, as far as possible,
the characteristics of the various cultures Nevertheless, it
remains just one of the sources for reconstructing history, and
it should by no means be entrusted with more than that task
We must remind ourselves that archaeology, too, is a human
science, with room for working assumptions and for discretion;
whose data are incessantly changing, and whose conclusions
change over time and are certainly not absolute."[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. The basic assumption is that the Tanakh describes an
absolute material reality, and there is therefore no need to become
too excited over findings that sit well with the biblical narrative, and
conversely, no need to be overly agitated about findings that
contradict the narrative. The question of the degree to which
archaeological findings conform with theTanakh is, to this view,
simply a matter of time.
However, a scornful attitude towards the study of archaeology
does not solve the questions that arise from this area of study, and
does not justify the complete rejection of its findings. In addition, a
large portion of archaeological discoveries do indeed accord with the
biblical narrative, shedding light on our understanding of various
stories, and helping to deepen our connection with the world of
the Tanakh.

We shall briefly examine the discussion in terms of the various

Biblical periods that are subject to controversy. For each period we
will first note the seeming contradictions between the biblical account
and the relevant archaeological discoveries; we will then address the
question of whether the findings represent a scientific consensus,
and if so how they may be reconciled with the biblical narrative,
and to what extent they require a new understanding of it. Thereafter,
we will examine the opposite perspective the correspondence
between the archaeological findings of each period and the biblical
narrative, and the arguments for the reliability of the text that arise
from these discoveries. Obviously, much has been written on these
subjects and we will only present here very briefly some of the central
points, in the hope that they may serve as an introduction to
understanding the broader discussion.
(To be continued)
Translated by Kaeren Fish

[1]

Concerning the various trends in the relationship betweenTanakh and archaeology, see,
for example, S. Bunimowitz and A. Faust, "Ha-Archeologia shel Tekufat ha-Mikra bi-Shenot
ha-Alpayim," in A. Barukh, A. Levi-Raifer and A. Faust (eds.), Chiddushim be-Cheker
Yerushalayim ha-Kovetz ha-14, Ramat Gan 5769, pp. 7-23.
[2]
This so-called "nihilist" approach rejects completely the historical record of the Tanakh,
claiming that it was written only in the Hellenistic or even the Roman period. This approach
has sometimes been prompted by considerations that are not necessarily scientific and
objective, and for this reason it has attracted vehement criticism; see Bunimowitz and Faust
(above, n. 1), p. 10.
[3]
We addressed these claims themselves in chapter 3.
[4]
Z. Herzog, "Ha-Tanakh Ein Mimtzaim ba-Shetach," Haaretz, 29 October 1999. The
article was translated into English and published in Biblical Archaeology Review and can be
found athttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/704190/posts.
[5]
Such as: Al Atar 7, 5760; Y.L. Levin and A. Mazar (eds.), Ha-Pulmus al ha-Emet haHistorit ba-Mikra, Jerusalem 5761; Beit Mikra49, 1 (176), 5764.
[6]
Among them is A. Zertal, who writes in his book Am Nolad Ha-Mizbeach be-Har Eival veReshit Yisrael, Tel Aviv 2000, p. 12: "For most of the biblical descriptions of the nation's
origins there exists a real basis, both archaeological and topographical."
[7]
To illustrate this point, we might note that Jerusalem one of the main focuses of the
controversy concerning the united kingdom, as we shall see is proof of the limitations of
th
archaeological findings. We lack archaeological artifacts from Jerusalem in the 14 century
B.C.E., but among the Amarna Letters, seven letters from this period were discovered which
were sent by Abdi-Khepa, the Canaanite king of Jerusalem, to the king of Egypt, testifying to
the importance of the city (B. Mazar, "Jerusalem" in the Encyclopedia Mikrait III, Jerusalem
5718, columns 795-796.)
[8]
This denotes a group of historians aligned with post-Zionism, including scholars such as
Avi Shlaim, Benny Morris, Tom Segev and Ilan Pappe, who, since the 1980s, have sought to
challenge the accepted version of Israeli and Zionist history.

[9]

For a discussion of this phenomenon see Y. Elitzur, "Al Ofnot be-Cheker Toldot Yisrael," Al
Attar 7 (above, n. 5), pp. 23-25.
[10]
Z. Talshir, "Matai Nikhtav ha-Tanakh," Beit Mikra 49, 1 (above, n. 5), p. 18, notes the
statement by T.L. Thompson, a leading minimalist scholar in Denmark, that "current political
developments indicate that an understanding of the heritage of Israel is extremely important
not only for the academic community, but also for the community in general." She adds,
"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, interdisciplinary regional reviews of Palestine. The overt point of departure is 'on behalf of' and 'for
the sake of,' rather than on study of the history for its own sake."
[11]
S. Japhet, "Ha-Tanakh ve-ha-Historia," in: Ha-Pulmus al ha-Emet ha-Historit baMikra (above, n. 5), pp. 85-86.

Shiur #6b: Tanakh and Archaeology

B. 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, in the first half of the 9th century B.C.E.,
onwards.[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, and therefore scholars acknowledge the
basic reliability of the Tanakhs historical descriptions from this period
onwards. These discoveries are very exciting in their own right,
lending a powerful sense of connection to the world of
the Tanakh through a direct, unmediated encounter with the remains
of the concrete reality described in the text. Indeed, the discovery of
the first relevant findings, in the 19th century, refuted some prevalent
critical approaches which had maintained that all the biblical
narratives were later creations, severed from any historical context.
We shall discuss some of the most famous findings relating to
narratives about the Israelite kingdom from the period of Achav
onwards.
1.

In Sefer Melakhim we read:

"And Mesha, king of Moav, was a sheepmaster, and he
delivered to the king of Israel a hundred thousand lambs, and a
hundred thousand rams, with the wool. But it was, when Achav
died, that the king of Moav rebelled against the king ofIsrael"
(Melakhim II 3:4-5)

In 1868, a stele (inscribed stone) dating to the 9thcentury

B.C.E. was discovered in what is now Jordan. Its inscription shows
that it was established by this same Mesha, king of Moav.[2] It opens

with the words, "I am Mesha, son of Kemosh, king of Moav."[3] Mesha
records that the people of Moav were subservient to Omri, king
of Israel, for a long time ["Omri, king of Israel, and they afflicted Moav
for many days"] and describes at length how he prevailed against
Omri's son, untilIsrael was annihilated. The Mesha Stele, then, is the
earliest external evidence of Moav's battle againstIsrael, as recorded
in the text, and of the existence of the House of Omri.[4]
2.
Achav also appears in the Kurkh Monolith (Kurkh is located in
south-eastern Turkey), describing the military campaigns of the
Assyrian king Shalmanesser III.[5] The inscription is written in
cuneiform, against an engraved image of a king. Extensive attention
is given to the battle of Karka, which took place in the sixth year of
Shalmanesser's reign (863 B.C.E.). It records that an enormous
army, led by twelve kings, was ranged against him, including the "two
thousand chariots, ten thousand foot-soldiers of Achav the Israelite,"
and that amongst this alliance against him, Achav was the king with
the largest army. There is no mention whatsoever of this battle in
the Tanakh, lending support to the view that the Tanakh is not a
history book that records every event (or even every major event),
unless the event is considered to have some element that is worth
recording for posterity. In any event, the inscription does support the
textual description of Achav, king of Israel, as a warrior with a large
and significant army.
3.
Sefer Melakhim describes the water system devised by King
Chizkiyahu[6]:
" and how he made the pool and the aqueduct, and brought
water into the city..." (Melakhim II 20:20)
The system is described in greater detail in Divrei Ha-yamim:
"And when Yechizkiyahu saw that Sancheriv had come, and
that he intended to fight againstJerusalem, he took counsel
with his ministers and his mighty men, to stop the water of the
springs which were outside of the city, and they helped him. So
a great many people gathered together, and they stopped up
all the springs, and also the stream that ran through the midst
of the land, saying, Why should the kings of Assyria come and
find abundant water?" (Divrei Ha-yamim II 2-4)

"And this same Yechizkiyahu stopped up the upper

watercourse of the Gichon, and brought it straight down to the
west side of the city of David" (ibid., verse 30).
More explicit still is the description in Sefer Ben Sira (48:22-23):
"Yechizkiyahu fortified his city by bringing water into its midst.
He dug into the hard rock with iron, and make wells for water."
In 1880 an inscription was found in Chizkiyahu's (Hezekiah's)
Tunnel, dating to the 8th century B.C.E., describing the final stages of
the digging of the tunnel designed to lead water from the Gichon
spring, outside of the city, to a pool inside of the city.[7]
Since, as we have seen, there is a relative abundance of
archaeological material from the period of Achav onwards, 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.
There have been scholars of both the nihilist and minimalist
schools[8] who questioned even the historical existence of the House
of David, but in 1993-1994 fragments of an Aramaic inscription were
found by a delegation of researchers headed by Avraham Biran, at
Tel Dan.[9] The author of the Tel Dan Stele (apparently Chazael, king
of Aram), which dates to the 9th or 8thcentury B.C.E., describes his
victory over the king ofIsrael and over the king of the "House of
David".[10]This finding also shed light on the inscription on the Mesha
Stele,[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,
including those affiliated with the minimalist school, although not
those of the nihilist school.[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; the
Children of Israel in Egypt; the conquest of the land; the period of
settlement of the land; and the period of the unified kingdom, in the
days of David and Shlomo.
(To be continued)
Translated by Kaeren Fish

[1]

See Melakhim I, ch.16 onwards

Concerning the inscription and its interpretation, see S. Achituv,Ha-Ketav ve-haMikhtav, Jerusalem 5765, pp. 355-373. At the end of his discussion he refers the reader to a
bibliography pertaining to the inscription.
[3]
Kemosh is well known in the Tanakh as the god of Moav. For example, "Woe to you, Moav!
You are done for, O people of Kemosh!" (Bamidbar 21:29); "Then Shlomo built a high place
for Kemosh, the abomination of Moav" (Melakhim I 11:7).
[4]
The inscription includes many other aspects and details of Moav's war against Israel which
do not appear in the biblical text. Inter alia, the stele records that Moav conquered some cities
in Israel, and destroyed others; 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; 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. On this
subject see E. Samet, Pirkei Elisha, Jerusalem5767, pp. 99-100. Concerning the connection
between the content of the Mesha Stele and the "burden of Moav" in Yishayahu 15-16 and
inYirmiyahu 48, see Y. Elitzur, Yisrael ve-ha-Mikra, Jeursalem 5760, pp. 175-182.
[5]
For more on the inscription see, inter alia, S. Yaron, Olam ha-Tanakh: Melakhim I, Tel Aviv
1994, pp. 205-206.
[6]
Chizkiyahu, king of Yehuda, lived c. 739 B.C.E. to c. 687 B.C.E.
[7]
Concerning the inscription, and for a bibliography in its regard, see Achituv (above, n. 1),
pp. 15-20. Some scholars of the minimalist school sought to suggest that the inscription was
from the Hasmonean period, but this possibility was rejected outright by paleographic experts;
see Talshir, p. 20, and no. 18 ad loc.
[8]
See the previous shiur.
[9]
For more on this inscription see A. Biran and Y. Naveh, "Ketovet Aramit mi-Tekufat Bayit
Rishon mi-Tel Dan," Kadmoniot 26, 3-4 (5754), pp. 74-81; A. Biran, "Ha-Ketovet mi-Dan, haMatzevot ve-ha-Chutzot," Kadmoniot 28, 1 (5755 1995), pp. 39-45.
[10]
The inscription is not intact, but scholars have concluded that, with the missing letters, it
should read: "[And I killed Yeho]ram son of [Achav] the king of Israel, and I killed [Achaz]yahu
son of [Yehoram, the ki]ng of the House of David." This would seem to contradict the textual
record (Melakhim II 9:14-27) which attributes the killing of these two kings to Yehu. Some scholars
have granted greater reliability to the account on the stele than to the biblical account, arguing
that the story about Yehu is not historically correct (see, for example, N. Neeman, "HaKetovet ha-Aramit be-Tel Dan be-He'ara Historit," Eretz Yisrael 29, 5759, pp. 112-118).
However, 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.M. Levi and Y. Rothstein, Mikra veArcheologia, Jerusalem 5768, pp. 202-204). Even if the completion of the inscription were
certain, this version does not necessarily represent a contradiction: Yehoram, son of Achav,
was indeed wounded in the war against the army of Aram(Melakhim II 8:28-29), and it was in
these circumstances that he found his death. It is therefore no wonder that the king
of Aram credits himself with killing Yehoram, and he does the same concerning Achazyahu,
king of Yehuda. 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. Binenfeld, "Mi Harag et ha-Melakhim Yehoram ve-Achazya,"Beit Mikra 48, 3
(174), pp. 302-308). For this reason, there is no reason to assume that Yehu was connected
in any way to Chazael, king of Aram, and acting as his agent. (See, for example, Y.
Finkelstein and N.A. Silverman, David u-Shelomo Beit Metziut Historit le-Mitos, Jerusalem
5766, p. 243; the authors themselves tend towards the view that the contradiction arises from
the tension between historical reality and the biblical legend.) However, this explanation, too,
may be derived directly from the text, especially from Eliyahu's prophecy at Chorev: "He who
escapes the sword of Chazael shall be slain by Yehu" (Melakhim I 19:17).
[11]
On the Mesha Stele, the king mentions (line 12) his capture of "". Many scholars
have interpreted this expression, too, as being related to King David, perhaps meaning "Ariel
of David" as a reference to one of David's warriors: cf. "And Benayahu, son of Yehoyada, the
son of a valiant man of Kavtze'el, who had performed many acts, killed two lion-hearted
[2]

men (shenei ariel) of Moav" (Shmuel II 23:20). Further on (line 31), the inscription records
that "" [ ] . Following the discovery of the Tel Dan Stele, many scholars
have suggested that the full sentence is meant to read, " [ ]" "the
House of David dwelled in Chouranen," i.e., the city (known to us as Choronayim see
Yishayahu 15:5; Yirmiyahu 48:3) was under the rule of the House of David (Achituv, pp. 371372).
[12]
See, for example, Y. Finkelstein and N.A. Silberman, Reshit Yisrael Archeologia, Mikra
ve-Zikaron Histori, Tel Aviv 2003, pp. 135-136. Concerning the attempts by the "nihilists" to
minimize the significance of the finding, see A. Lipschitz, "Pulmus 'Beit David' be-Ikvot haKetovet mi-Tel Dan," in: Y. Zakovitch et al. (eds.), David Melekh Yisrael Chai veKayam, Jerusalem 5757, pp. 9-77. Z. Talshir, p. 19, summarizes:
"The appearance of the House of David as a consolidated political concept
represented a real problem for deniers of Ancient Israel. They went to great lengths
to try to rid themselves of this most inconvenient evidence. Davisproposed impossible
alternative readings, which no self-respecting scholar would dare to mention; Lemke,
despairing of any other solution, decided that the inscription was a forgery. No other
scholar in the academic world has cast the slightest doubt on the reliability of the
inscription, the circumstances of its discovery, or its epigraphic identity. There is
nothing problematic about this inscription, other than the fact that it deals a mortal
blow to a priori claims against the history of the House of David."

Shiur #6c: Tanakh and Archaeology

C. The era of the forefathers
Let us start with the first period that arouses controversy the
era of our forefathers Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov.[1] We might
start out by noting that the very concept of the "era of the forefathers"
is contested in itself. The concept was accepted by the early
archaeologists studying the Land of Israel, led by William
Albright,[2] as essentially equivalent to the Middle Bronze
Age.[3] However, 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, but rather reflect a far later reality. Thus, for example,
Nadav Na'aman writes:
"With regard to the era of the forefathers, which introduces the
description of the period of the people of Israel in the Bible,
there is widespread agreement among scholars. It is generally
accepted that this is not a historical period, and that the vast
majority, if not all, of the traditions included in the series of
narratives about the forefathers, reflect a reality that is later, to
a greater or lesser degree, 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]."[4]
Obviously, the stories of the forefathers in and of themselves
cannot be proved or disproved from an archaeological point of view.

The main discussion in this regard therefore centers on the

surrounding reality depicted in these narratives. 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.[5]The theme
common to these arguments is that the Torah's description displays
elements of anachronism i.e., the projection of various phenomena
dating from a later period to the period of the forefathers. Their claim
is that the author of the accounts in the Torah uses some facts and
information that he possessed from his own era, which did not belong
to the era that he describes.
1.
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. This issue was first raised at
the end of the 19th century, but it received a renewed boost from
none other than William Albright, who, as we have mentioned in the
past, was generally motivated by a desire to use archaeology to
corroborate the biblical account. In this particular matter, however,
Albright noted that the domestication of camels took place only in the
12thcentury B.C.E., with the stirrings of a fundamental change in the
nature of nomadism. Up until that time, he argued, nomads had
depended on donkeys for transport, since they lived in peripheral
areas of civilization, and for this reason "Our oldest certain evidence
for the domestication of the camel cannot antedate the end of the
twelfth century B.C."[6] Only at a later stage did nomadism evolve into
the form of wandering tribes deep in the wilderness, with occasional
raids on camel-back on settled agricultural territory, as described, for
example, in the introduction to the story of Gid'on:
"And it was, when Israel had sown, that Midian and Amalek
and the children of the east came up against them. And they
encamped against them, and destroyed the produce of the
earth as far asGaza, and left no sustenance for Israel neither
sheep, nor oxen, nor donkeys. For they came up with their
cattle and their tents, and they came like locusts for multitude,
for both they and their camels were without number and they
entered the land to destroy it." (Shoftim 6:3-5)
Albright, admittedly, was cautious in suggesting that
"These facts do not necessarily prove that earlier references to
the camel in Genesis and Exodus are anachronistic, but they
certainly suggest such an explanation."[7]

However, many other archaeologists viewed this as absolute proof of

anachronism in the descriptions found in Sefer Bereishit.
Since Albright's time, we have come to know much more about
camels. For example, in a document discovered in Alalakh, in
northern Syria, dated to the 17th century B.C.E., mentions "one
portion of food for [each] camel."[8] In excavations carried out in Har
ha-Negev (Be'er Resisim), dating to the end of the third millennium
B.C.E., camel bones were found along with bones of goats.[9] There
is also evidence of the early domestication of camels from the
4th millenium B.C.E. from the deserts of Iran,[10] and elsewhere.[11]
The
accumulation
of
this
archaeological
evidence
demonstrates that the domestication of camels had, indeed, already
commenced in these ancient times, but in a limited way; only later did
the phenomena expand to include large numbers of camels. This
finding sits well with the biblical account, in which camels did not play
a central role, and their numbers were relatively small, until the time
of the Judges. In the story of Avraham's servant and Rivka, the Torah
mentions "ten of his master's camels" (Bereishit 24:10); in the gifts
that Yaakov offers Esav, we find "thirty milk camels with their young"
(ibid. 32:16); and in the account of the sale of Yosef we find a
"caravan of Yishme'elim came from the Gil'ad, with their camels
carrying gum balm and ladanum" (ibid. 37:25). We may therefore
conclude that camels were not common, and were used mainly to
carry expensive merchandise. The camels that Avraham's servant
brought with him apparently represented a factor in the estimation of
the avaricious Lavan (ibid., 30-31). In other narratives in the Torah,
camels are absent: in the descent of Yosef's brothers toEgypt we find
only donkeys (ibid. 42:26-27, and elsewhere); in the spoils seized
from Midian we find "sixty-one thousand asses" (Bamidbar 31:34),
but no mention of any camels. In contrast, from the period of the
Judges onwards we find a great many camels. In the war of the
children of Gad and the children of Reuven against the Hagri'im, we
find: "And they captured their cattle, [and] of their camels fifty
thousand" (Divrei Ha-yamim I, 21). Iyov, at the end of his life, had six
thousand camels (Iyov 42:12).
This phenomenon shows the extent to which our knowledge in
the realm of biblical archaeology is fragile, and changes in
accordance with circumstances. Albright himself indeed changed his
opinion later on, and wrote,inter alia:
"In summary, the real domestication of the camel was no
earlier than the end of the Bronze Age, although partial and

sporadic domestication may already have existed a few

hundred years earlier."[12]
However, 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.[14]
2. 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. For example, this
argument is raised especially in relation to the city of Beer Sheva
which, according to archaeological evidence, was not inhabited
during the era of the forefathers, nor even during the period that
followed.[15]
This argument, which sounds quite convincing at first, is based
on two assumptions:
a. that Beer Sheva is mentioned in the stories of the forefathers
as an ancient city;
b. that this ancient city is the place identified as such today, at Tel
Sheva.
The first assumption does not conform with the biblical
narrative. The Torah refers to Beer Sheva in two places, and in both
cases it is clear that the reference is not to a city, but rather to an
encounter at wells. Following the covenant and the oath between
Avraham and Avimelekh, we are told, "Therefore the called
thatplace Be'er Shava, for there they both swore (nishbe'u)"
(Bereishit 21:31). Thereafter, in the encounter between Yitzchak and
Avimelekh, we find:
"And they rose up early in the morning and theyswore (vayishav'u) to each other, and Yitzchak sent them, and they
parted from him in peace. And it was on that day that the
servants of Yitzchak came and told him about the well which
they had dug, and they said to him, We have found water. And
he called it Shiv'a; therefore the name of the city is Beer
Sheva, until this day." (ibid. 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, Sitna, and
Rechovot ibid. 20-22). Only later on was the city called "Beer

Sheva" owing to its proximity to the well (be'er) which was called
Shiv'a). There is therefore no basis to the argument that the Torah is
talking about a fortified city from the time of the forefathers, of which
some sort of evidence should logically remain;[16] rather, it refers to
the site of the city at a later period.[17]
As to the identification of the ancient city of Beer Sheva with
Tel Sheva, here too there is room for doubt. Ironically, it was
Na'aman himself who proposed identifying the biblical city with Bir alSaba, within the boundaries of the Turkish/Ottoman section of the
modern day city of Beer Sheva, some 5km west of Tel Beer
Sheva.[18] This argument was supported by the fact that this location
"was suited to large-scale civilian settlement that was
constantly growing, in terms of proximity to far more accessible
sources of water than Tel Sheva, whose water sources are
poorer."[19]
Artifacts have been discovered at this site dating back to the
Early Chalcolithic period, and to the Early Iron Age,[20] but the site has
not been fully excavated: there are walls whose top level has
revealed remains from the Later Iron Age, but their foundations
extend at least two meters further down, and these have not yet been
exposed.[21] Thus, it may be that artifacts from the Middle Bronze
Period will yet be found at Bir al-Saba; or, alternatively, the biblical
Beer Sheva may actually lie elsewhere.[22]
3. Another argument concerns the appearance of ethnic groups
in Sefer Bereishit including the Philistines (Pelishtim), Hivvites
(Chivvim), and Hittites (Chittim). According to Egyptian and other
sources, the Pelishtim appeared in Eretz Yisrael only at the
beginning of the Iron Age i.e., during the period of the Judges. How
is it, then, that they are mentioned several times
in Sefer Bereishit?[23] Here, again, the claim is that such accounts are
anachronistic, and that the author made a mistake in referring to the
Pelishtim who did not exist at that time at all.[24]
However, closer examination of the biblical text shows clearly
that there are significant differences between the Pelishtim of the
period of the Judges, and the Pelishtim referred to during the period
of the forefathers.[25] For example, during the earlier period the
Pelishtim are located in Gerar, in the Negev:

"And Avraham journeyed from there to the land of the Negev,

and he dwelled between Kadesh and Shur and he sojourned in
Gerar" (Bereishit 20:1),
while the Torah notes that during this period the coastal areas
were under the control of the Canaanite nations (ibid.
10:19; Bamidbar 13:29). Furthermore, the Pelishtim of the earlier
period were ruled by a king with a Semitic name (Avimelekh).[26] In
contrast, the Pelishtim who appear during the period of the Judges
lived in cities along the sea shore Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ashdod,
and not in the Negev region. These Pelishtim were led by "seranim"
(local lords). Had mention of the Pelishtim indeed been anachronistic,
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, and their cities in the narratives of the forefathers; likewise,
we would expect to find some consistency in their form of rule.
In addition, 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, whereas the Pelishtim during the earlier period
forged covenants and swore oaths with Avraham and Yitzchak (and it
is for this reason, apparently, that the land of these ancient Pelishtim
is not included within the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael). This
represents clear proof that when the Torah was written, the later
Pelishtim who would compete with the lsraelites over the inheritance
of the land were unknown.
"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; in terms of
their area of habitation; in terms of their period in history; in
terms of their form of government; and in terms of the historical
relations between them and Israel. The only thing that they
share is the name."[27]
This phenomenon of the common name may be explained as
an ancient name that first belonged to the ancient Pelishtim, and
which was later adopted by the Pelishtim who lived on the coast.
(To be continued)
Translated by Kaeren Fish

[1]

There are some biblical scholars who declare this ancient period to lie "outside of the
discussion," since there is "zero chance of discovering artifacts that would testify to the
forefathers' wanderings in the land and in neighboring regions, and about the journey of the
tribes of Israel through the wilderness; or of finding pharaonic monuments mentioning the
mass enslavement of the men, and the Exodus. This, then, is a manifestly 'prehistoric' period,
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. Simon,
"Archeologia Post-Mikrait u-Post Tzionit," in Ha-Pulmus al ha-Emet ha-Historit ba-Mikra, p.
138). Nevertheless, there has been extensive discussion surrounding the period of the
forefathers, and our enquiry is whether the findings that exist support or contradict what we
know from the Torah.
[2]
See, for example, his book, The Archaeology of Palestine(London, 1949).
[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, the Chalcolithic Age (named for the
word "bronze" in Greek), the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age. Since each of these periods
lasted many hundreds of years, they are divided by convention into sub-periods (early, middle
and late), and even these are further sub-divided. Obviously, the boundaries of these periods
are not absolute, since the transition from the use of one type of utensils to another was
gradual. In general, the Middle Bronze Age refers to the years 2000-1550 B.C.E.
[4]
N. Na'aman, "Parashat 'Kibbush ha-Haretz' be-Sefer Yehoshua u-va-Metziut ha-Historit,"
in: N. Na'aman and Y. Finkelstein (eds.), Mi-Navadut li-Melukha, Jerusalem 1990, pp. 286287.
[5]
A summary of most of these arguments is to be found in Na'aman, p. 287, and in the notes
ad loc.
[6]
W.F. Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine, p. 207.
[7]

Ibid.
See W.Y. Wiseman, 'Ration Lists from Alalakh VII,' JCS 8, 1959, p. 29, line 59; R.W.
Bulliet, The Camel and the Wheel, London 1975, p. 64.
[9]
R. Cohen, Ha-Yishuvim be-Har ha-Negev, doctoral dissertation submitted to the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, 1986, p. 303.
[10]
Y. Bar-Yosef, "Reshitan shel Chevrot Pastoraliot ba-Levant," in: S. Achituv
(ed.), Mechkarim be-Arkheologia shel Navvadim ba-Negev u-ve-Sinai, Beer Sheva 5758, pp.
7-25.
[11]
Other sources are cited by Y.M. Grintz, Yichudo ve-Kadmuto shel Sefer
Bereishit, Jerusalem 5743,
p.
17,
n.
32.
L.
Resnick, Ha-Tanakh
Min
haShetach 1, Jerusalem 5771, pp. 116-123 notes seventeen archaeological proofs for the
domestication of camels in the ancient period.
[12]
Cited by Grintz.
[13]
Such as Na'aman, who, in 1990, could still write (ibid., p. 287), "The narratives contain
many elements which are absolutely inconsistent with the ancient date. For example the
presentation of the camel as the forefathers' beast of wandering, although the domestication
of the camel for labor and for wandering took place only in the last third of the second
millennium B.C.E." Finkelstein and Silverman, p. 54, similarly write, "We know that camels
were not domesticated for carrying burdens until the end of the second millennium"; Y.
Knohl, Me-Ayin Banu, Or Yehuda 2008, p. 52.
[14]
Here is it worth citing Kenneth Kitchen, a well-respected scholar of biblical archaeology
and Professor Emeritus at Liverpool University, referred to by The Times newspaper (Oct. 13,
2002) as "the very architect of Egyptian chronology." In commenting on the approach of
Finkelstein and Silverman, whom he mentions inter aliain note 30 and in various contexts
throughout the chapter, Kitchen writes: "On the patriarchal and exodus periods our two
friends are utterly out of their depth, hopelessly misinformed, and totally misleading Camels
are not anachronistic in the early second millennium (Middle Bronze Age)" (K.A. Kitchen, On
the Reliability of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids and Cambridge 2003, p. 465).
[15]
Na'aman, ibid., p. 287.
[8]

[16]

See Rabbi Yoel Bin Nun, "Historia u-Mikra ha-Yelchu Shenayim Yachdav? Sefer
Bereishit," Al Atar 7, p. 56; Y. Rosenson, "Sippur Avar Sifrut ve-Historia be-Tanakh Stira o
hashlama?", Al Atar 7, p. 132.
[17]
There is still room to question the Torah's mention of the city at this site, even if the
reference is not to a city from the time of the forefathers, since according to archaeological
evidence, Beer Sheva was settled only at the beginning of the period of the Judges, not at the
time of Moshe. This question relates to our discussion in chapter 2 of later verses in the
Torah. All of this, however, assumes that the biblical Beer Sheva is in fact Tel Sheva, for
which see below.
[18]
See N. Na'aman, 'The Inheritance of the Sons of Simeon', ZDPV96, 1980, pp. 132-152; Y.
Meitlis, Lachpor et ha-Tanakh, Jerusalem 5766, p. 116.
[19]
Y. Gilad and P. Fabian, "7,000 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: Y.
Gardos and A. Meir-Glitzenstein (eds.), Beer Sheva: Metropolin be-Hithavut, Jerusalem 5768,
p. 314.
[20]
The Iron Age followed the Bronze Age (see above); it refers generally to the period from
1200 to 586 B.C.E. It is conventionally divided into the Early and Late Iron Age, with the
division between them paralleling the transition between the period of the Judges and the
period of the Monarchy i.e., around the year 1000 B.C.E. In a later shiur we will address the
conflict over this transition and when it took place, which pertains to the scope of David's
kingdom.
[21]
Meitlis, p. 116, n. 5, argues that perhaps the biblical Beer Sheva should be identified with
Tel Mashosh (Tel Masos), which lies about 12 km east of Beer Sheva; remains of habitation
from the Middle Bronze Period have been found there.
[22]
Gilad and Fabian, pp. 312-313; see ibid. 311-314 for a summary of the findings from Bir
al-Saba.
[23]
For instances, in the encounters between Avimelekh, king of the Pelishtim, with Avraham
(Bereishit 21:32) and with Yitzchak (ibid. 26).
[24]
This well-known claim has been raised by many scholars. See, for example, T. Dotan, HaPelishtim ve-Tarbutam ha-Chomrit, Jerusalem 5727, p. 15; B. Mazar, Kena'an ve-Yisrael
Mechkarim Historiim, Jerusalem 1974, p. 136; Na'aman, ibid., p. 287; Finkelstein and
Silverman, ibid., n. 18, p. 54.
[25]
My explanation here is based on Y.M. Grintz, Motzaei Dorot, Jerusalem 5729, pp. 99-129.
[26]
The name of the commander of Avimelekh's army, Fikhol (Bereishit 21:22), also appears
to be western-Semite (see Tzadok,Olam ha-Tanakh: Bereishit, Tel Aviv 2000, p. 139). Some
scholars have argued that the name is Egyptian, although their arguments have been
rejected (see Y. Yellin-Kalai, "Fikhol", Encyclopedia Mikrait VI, Jerusalem 5732, column 456).
[27]
Grintz, p. 114.

Shiur #6d: Tanakh and Archaeology The Era of the Forefathers

(continued)

Let us now consider the evidence that supports, rather than

conflicts, with the depictions of Sefer Bereishit. As we will see, there
are many findings that do conform to the biblical narratives from the
time of the forefathers, and indicate that these narratives were
indeed written with a profound familiarity with the period.[1]
1. In a previous chapter we undertook a linguistic analysis
showing that the language of the Torah is a more ancient form
of Hebrew, different in several respects from the language
during the period of the monarchy. This conclusion has

ramifications pertaining directly to the language of Sefer

Bereishit, and particularly the names appearing in it. In
general, 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, long after even the
most revisionist estimations of the authorship of Sefer
Bereishit. Moreover, these names follow the structure known
to us from other cultures dating to the first half of the second
millennium B.C.E., the same period identified as the period of
the forefathers.[2]
Another specific example is the fact that during the period of
the monarchy, the phenomenon of personal names containing
some element of God's Name was quite common (e.g.
Yehoram, Yehoshafat, Yehoyakim, Yishayahu, Yirmiyahu,
Yoel, etc), whereas in the earlier period it was rare. In fact, the
Torah records only two people with names of this sort: Yehuda
and Yehoshua.
Had the Torah indeed been written during the period of the
monarchy, we might reasonably expect to find many names
that were more common during that later era, including some
that integrated an element of God's name. How could the later
authors, as proposed by this approach, have known of the
structure and nature of names from the period more than a
thousand years earlier?
2. 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, given at a later time, explicitly forbade some
of these practices. The presentation of the forefathers as
people who were active within a socio-legal framework that
partly contravened the Torah, proves the familiarity of Sefer
Bereishit with the world within which its characters functioned.
It is also testimony to the authenticity and honesty of the
biblical account, which makes no pretense of presenting the
forefathers as operating in accordance with the laws of the
Torah, which came later. Let us examine some examples of
this phenomenon.
a. The relationship between Sarai and Hagar, as described
in Bereishit 16, is quite easily understood in light of the laws
of the Hammurabi Code.[3] These laws state explicitly that

"If a man takes a wife and she give a maidservant to her

husband, and that maidservant bears children and
afterwards would take rank with her mistress; because
she has borne children, her mistress may not sell her for
money, but she may reduce her to bondage and count
her among the maidservants."[4]
Firstly, this shows that the practice of taking a
maidservant, in the event that one's first wife did not bear
children, was indeed a known phenomenon, although no
such practice appears in the Torah later on. Secondly, this
law from the Hammurabi Code sheds light on Sarai's
attitude towards Hagar:
"And he went in to Hagar, and she conceived; and when
she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was
despised in her eyes. And Sarai said to Avram: 'My wrath
is upon you: I gave my handmaid into your bosom, and
when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in
her eyes; may God judge between me and you.' And
Avram said to Sarai: 'Behold, your handmaid is in your
hand; deal with her as you see fit.' And Sarai dealt
harshly with her, and she fled from before her."
(Bereishit 16:4-6)
It seems, then, that Sarai was familiar with the prevailing
custom at the time, and that this was the basis for her
acting towards Hagar as she did.
b. When Reuven tries to persuade Yaakov to send Binyamin
together with his older brothers to Egypt, he offers a most
surprising assurance: "You shall slay my two sons if I do
not bring him [Binyamin] to you" (Bereishit 42:37). How
does Reuven arrive at this very strange idea, which
contravenes the position of the Torah "Fathers shall not
be slain for their sons, nor shall sons be slain for their
fathers; 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, is
punished by having his own son put to death. For instance:
"If a builder builds a house for a man and does not make
its construction firm, and the house which he has built

collapse and cause the death of a son of the owner of

the house, they shall put to death a son of that builder."
(Sections 229-230)[5]
The Torah objects to this idea, but the very fact that
Reuven expresses it arises from the prevalent practice at
the time.
c. Avraham expresses his anguish before God at his lack of a
son who can inherit from him:
"What will You give me, seeing that I go childless, and
the steward of my house is Eliezer of Damascus
Behold, to me You have given no seed, and now one
who is born in my house is to be my heir" (Bereishit 15:23).
The Torah offers no basis for the idea that the steward of
the house inherits. However, the laws of Nuzi and
of Babylon do include several such instances.[6]
3. In terms of the geographical reality, too, the descriptions in the
stories of the forefathers accord well with archeological
findings.[7] These findings indicate that the Middle Bronze Age
had its own special characteristics, including, first and
foremost, the existence of fortified settlements as well as rural
villages, around which nomads wandered. These nomads
maintained relations with the inhabitants of the villages, and
their graves are located at a slight distance from them.
Moreover, diverse groups, including the Emorites and the
Hurrians, made their way from the north to the Judean
mountains. During later eras, such as during the period of the
settlement of Eretz Yisrael, nomadic groups no longer resided
in the land. These findings sit well with the biblical narratives,
according to which the forefathers, who were nomads,
maintained contacts with the inhabitants of the towns (e.g. the
story of Shekhem, inBereishit 34), and people of different
ethnic origins dwelled in the land, including Canaanites and
Perizzites (Bereishit 13:7), Emorites (ibid. 14:13), Hittites (ibid.
23:3), and Hivvites (ibid. 34:2; 36:2).
These points and others lend support to the reliability of the
biblical descriptions of the period of the forefathers. To these we
must add Rav Yoel Bin Nun's important comment:

"The argument often offered by scholars, and hinted at by N.

Na'aman,[8] according to which all of these data could also have
been known to a later author, from the First Temple Period (or
even writers of a later period), is unfounded and unscientific.
No one, during the period of the monarchy, engaged in
historical research of the sort that is undertaken by modern
scholars, and no author at that time could have written a book
so brimming with details, customs and names that had been
common and well-known a thousand years previously."[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. We have presented a
few examples representative of this discussion, and they offer a basis
for an understanding of the nature and limitations of this controversy.
(To be continued)
Appendix
Chazal's Understanding of the Forefathers Observance
of Mitzvot
In apparent contrast to the argument we made
above, Chazal interpret the verse, "Because Avraham obeyed Me
and observed My custody, My commandments, My statutes, and My
teachings" (Bereishit 26:5) as teaching "that Avraham observed the
entire Torah, even before it was given" (Mishna Kiddushin 4:14).
However, Ramban, in his commentary on Bereishit, questions this:
"If this is so, how could Yaakov establish a monument
(matzeva) (Bereishit 28:18), or marry two sisters and Amram
married his aunt (Shemot 6:20), and Moshe established twelve
monuments (ibid. 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, and the
assumption common to most of them is that Chazal's teaching here
should not be understood literally.
1. The first possibility Ramban suggests is that perhaps the
reference is only to observance of Shabbat.Chazal do teach

that Yaakov "observed Shabbat and established set

boundaries," and observance of Shabbat is considered as
important as the entire Torah.
2. A second possibility is that Chazal refer here only to the
Noachide commandments, in all their details.
3. 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.
4. According to the plain meaning of the text, the verse is not
talking about observance of the entire Torah, but rather of the
specific commands given to Avraham, such as going to Eretz
Kena'an and the binding of Yitzchak, the performance of
righteousness and justice, and the commandment of
circumcision. This last option is adopted by Rashbam in his
commentary on the same verse.
Indeed, there is a certain irony in the fact that the very
testimony that the forefathers did not observe the entire Torah on
the contrary, in certain instances they acted in accordance with the
accepted norm at their time, 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. Had the Torah depicted the
forefathers as acting in accordance with the laws of the Torah, it
would be easy to claim that such descriptions were anachronistic,
and influenced by trends and beliefs prevalent during the period of
the monarchy.
Translated by Kaeren Fish

[1]

Our discussion here is based mainly on the following sources: S. Yevin, "Iyyunim bi-Tekufat
ha-Avot," Beit Mikra 7, 4 (16), 5727, 13-47; Y.M. Grintz, pp. 30-38; Bin-Nun, pp. 45-64. These
articles cite dozens of other examples of the phenomena which they discuss; we will address
only a few examples. In addition, in a future chapter we shall discus at length the relationship
between the story of the Flood and parallel narratives in the Mesopotamian culture, and
especially in the Epic of Gilgamesh. The great similarity between the descriptions not only
in general content, but even in the more specific details offers further proof of the ancient
authorship of the biblical account.
[2]
See Yevin, pp. 15-17. A. Mazar, "Ha-Zika bein ha-Arkheologia le-Cheker ha-Historia,"
in: Ha-Pulmus al ha-Emet ha-Historit ba-Mikra, p. 105, notes that "it is unthinkable that there
appeared ex nihilo from the seventh century [B.C.E] onwards the 'Emorite' names
characteristic of the second millennium B.C.E., in the narratives of Sefer Bereishit."
[3]
The Hammurabi Code is the most extensive legal codex discovered among the legal
th
systems of the ancient Near East. A stele discovered at the beginning of the 20 century
displays 282 laws, enacted at the command of the Babylonian king Hammurabi, who lived
th
during the 18 century B.C.E. We will discuss the relationship between the laws of the Torah

and the Hammurabi Code in a later chapter; for the time being, we refer to the Code as
evidence that Sefer Bereishit demonstrates familiarity with the world reflected in such
findings.
[4]
The Code of Hammurabi, King of Babylon", section 146. Translated by Robert Francis
Harper, Ph.D.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4e/The_code_of_Hammurabi.pdf
[5]
Ibid. For additional examples, see sections 116; 209-210. Grintz, pp. 58-59.
[6]
See Grintz, p. 58.
[7]
For a discussion on this topic see Y. Meitlis, pp. 117-118.
[8]
N. Na'aman, p. 287: "These undated elements may belong to ancient periods, but by the
same token might also belong to much later periods."
[9]
Rabbi Y. Bin-Nun, p. 54. See footnote 1.

Shiur #6e: Tanakh and Archaeology (continued) The Exodus

D.

Slavery in Egypt and the Exodus

Let us now look at the next period in Israelite history the

period of slavery in Egypt, and the exodus.
Until recently, doubts as to the veracity of the story of the
exodus were rejected out of hand by most biblical scholars in Israel.
Thus, for example, in theEncyclopedia Mikrait,[1] under "Exodus," we
find:
"All in all, there is no doubting the slavery in Egypt and the
exodus from Egypt, for no people would invent a tradition of
subjugation at the very outset of their existence."
The Olam Ha-Tanakh[2] series notes, 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; Shmuel I 12; Tehillim 105-106, and
elsewhere). This refutes the claim that this important event in
the history of Israel is nothing but a literary creation, devoid of
any kernel of historical fact."
These two weighty arguments[3] would seem to suffice to
remove any doubt in this regard. Nevertheless, let us review briefly
the arguments that are raised regarding the exodus, and the
responses to them.
The arguments of those who deny the servitude in Egypt and
the exodus are based, inter alia, on the following considerations.[4]

1. The name "Israel"[5] has not been found on any Egyptian

artifact walls of temples, inscriptions on graves, or papyrus
scrolls.
2. Likewise, there is no sign of the wandering in the wilderness of
Sinai. Nowhere in this region including in such locations as
Kadesh Barne'a, where the nation encamped for lengthy
periods have there been any discoveries attesting to the
ancient encampment of such a large group of people.
3. Here, too, instances of anachronism are cited: the city of
Pitom, according to some scholars, was only built at the end of
the 7th century B.C.E.;[6] the description from the time of the
exodus "and God did not lead them on the way of the land of
the Philistines, 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.C.E. (as discussed in a previous shiur);[7] the Torah records
that Moshe sends messengers to the king of Edom
(Bamidbar20:14), but the kingdom of Edom did not exist,
according to these scholars, until the 7th century.[8]
First of all, 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.
Many of the central theories in the historio-archaeological world
arose or were refuted on the basis of chance discoveries; had these
not been stumbled upon, the research assumptions would have been
quite different. Yet even if no traces were ever to be found of the
exodus, 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 state of
preservation of remains is very uneven therefore the
absence of possible Hebrew campsites is likewise
meaningless."[9]
As to the absence of any mention of the exodus in Egyptian
records, we must take into account that kings of the ancient world,
including the pharaohs, used to construct monuments glorifying their
victories and achievements, not their defeats and failures.[10]

From the opposite perspective, 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 especially the sort of details that changed
in later times. Had the biblical account indeed been written only in the
7th century B.C.E, 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. The following are some
examples.[11]
1. The phenomenon of subjugating slaves for massive building
projects, such as that described in the Torah with regard to Bnei
Yisrael, is corroborated in several findings. 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. These tribes are referred to, in this
papyrus as well as in other sources, by the Accadian term "abiru. If
we allow for the exchange of "peh" and "bet" in the Semitic
languages, it is altogether possible that the "abiru" 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.
However, even if they are not the actual slaves referred to,[12] the
record concerning the "abiru" 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 abiru.[13]
2. The Torah describes the backbreaking labor forced upon Bnei
Yisrael with the words, "And they embittered their lives with hard
labor, with mortar and with bricks, and all manner of labor in the
fields" (Shemot 1:14), and later on the situation is further
exacerbated at Pharaoh's command:
"You shall no longer give straw to the people to bake bricks, as
until now; let them go and gather straw for themselves. But the
quantity of bricks that they made until now shall you lay upon
them; you shall not diminish it" (ibid. 5:7-8).
The responsibility for making the bricks was placed upon the "officers
of Bnei Yisrael":

"And the officers of Bnei Yisrael, who Pharaoh's taskmasters

had set over them, were beaten, saying, Why have you not
completed your quota for making bricks, both yesterday and
today, as until now?" (ibid., verse 14).
Many Egyptian papyruses discuss the brick industry at length,
and they also speak of supervisors who were required to maintain
production of a daily quota. For instance, in one papyrus a supervisor
laments, "There are no men to make bricks or straw in the vicinity";
another notes, "they are making the daily quota of bricks.[14]
3. The account of the subjugation in Egypt makes extensive use
of words and expressions that are familiar to us from archaeological
discoveries. For instance, in the description of the creation of the box
for the baby Moshe, we read:
"She took for him a box of papyrus, and she coated it with tar
and with pitch, and she put the child in it, and placed it in the
reeds by the bank of the Nile" (Shemot 2:3).
Discoveries from Ancient Egypt indicate that sedge was used to
make mats and boats, by binding it with ropes and coating it with
pitch.
"The biblical author makes extensive use of words drawn from
the Egyptian conceptual world the Nile, sedge, reeds and
creates an authentic Egyptian atmosphere. Moreover, he even
employs details borrowed from Egyptian social life a wetnurse, procedures for adoption and raising a child in Pharaoh's
palace that are suited to the period of the new kingdom."[15]
Egyptian names such as "Moshe" are also familiar to us from other
sources.[16]
4. As to the plagues, here too there is clear evidence of a
close familiarity with ancient Egyptian culture and its characteristics,
such as the fear of snakes and crocodiles, the centrality of the Nile,
and the responses of the magicians.[17]
5. In the description of the exodus we read: "And it was, when
Pharaoh had let the people go, that God did not lead them on the
route of the land of the Philistines, although it was near, for God said,
Perhaps the people will change their minds when they see war, and
return to Egypt" (Shemot 13:17).[18] Indeed, archaeological findings

indicate a route fortified with a network of fortresses, dating to the

13th century B.C.E., along the northern coast of Sinai.[19] In addition, a
number of papyruses have been found testifying to the very strict
control over entry into and departure from Egypt.[20] These sources
explain quite clearly why Bnei Yisrael did not enter Eretz Yisrael via
the shorter route, and also shed light on the impossibility of leaving
Egypt without Pharaoh's approval.[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. For example,
the description of the Land of Egypt and its inhabitants would
resemble that which appears in the writings of the Greek
historian Herodotus, who lived and wrote during the Persian
era; Bnei Yisrael would be engaged not in making bricks and
labor in the field, but rather would be engaged in commerce;
and the capital of Egypt would be Sais Even after the
minimalist fashion dies out and passes from the world, to be
replaced by a different theory, the tradition of the exodus will
still continue to escort us."[22]
Appendix: The Dating of the Exodus
Our discussion in this shiur is essentially unrelated to the
question of the date of the exodus, yet it is somewhat connected.
Briefly, the issue of the date may be summarized as follows. On the
one hand, in recording the construction of the Temple in the time of
Shlomo, the text notes that it was completed "four hundred and
eighty years after Bnei Yisrael left the land of Egypt" (Melakhim I
6:1), and since scholars generally agree that Shlomo built the Temple
approximately in the year 960 B.C.E., the exodus would have to have
taken place in the mid-15th century B.C.E. This calculation sits well
with Yiftach's words to the king of Amon, recalling how "Israel
dwelled in Cheshbon and its surrounding areas, and in Ar'or and its
surrounding areas, and in all the cities around Arnon, for three
hundred years" (Shoftim 11:26). Since Yiftach was active at the end
of the period of the Judges (he seems to have been a contemporary
of Shimshon, see Shoftim 10:7), i.e., the end of the 12th or beginning
of the 11th century B.C.E., the settlement of Bnei Yisrael in the Gilad
area would have been some three hundred years previously
around the year 1400 B.C.E., and the exodus was 40 years prior to

that, in the mid-15th century B.C.E. (See Y. Elitzur, Yisrael ve-haMikra, pp. 51-53).
However, the more widely accepted view maintains that the
exodus took place during the 13thcentury B.C.E. The rationale behind
this conclusion includes, inter alia, the fact that it makes sense to
assume that construction of the city of Ra'amses, as mentioned
in Shemot (1:10), would have been undertaken at the order of
Ramesses II, who ruled during the 13th century B.C.E. Egyptian
documents indicate that the city of Pi-Ramesses was built at that
time. In the mid-15th century, the pharaoh who ruled over Egypt was
Thutmose III, who conquered the land of Canaan and brought Egypt
to immense political and military strength.
In addition, some argue that the kingdoms of Edom and
Moav, located on the eastern bank of the Jordan, which refused to
permit Bnei Yisrael to journey through their land, did not exist prior to
the 13th century (see: N. Glick, Me'ever la-Yarden, Tel Aviv 5720, p.
321). According to this approach, 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), based on a calculation of forty years as a generation (as
per Tehillim99:10 and elsewhere); this would then refer to the twelve
generations of kohanim from Aharon until Achima'atz, son of Tzadok,
as recorded in Divrei Ha-yamim I 6:35-38.
Without preferring one approach the other, 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, which
are not meant to reflect their actual value, appears in various places
in the Tanakh. First and foremost, we might note the instance most
relevant to our discussion the length of the subjugation in Egypt.
In Sefer Shemot (12:40) we read, "And Bnei Yisrael's dwelling which
they dwelled in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years,"
but Chazal already point out that this verse cannot be meant literally,
and they therefore propose that Bnei Yisrael dwelled in Egypt for only
210 years (see Rashi ad loc). In addition, in the verse introducing the
rebellion of Avshalom we find, "And it was, at the end of forty years,
that Avshalom said to the king: Let me go, I pray you, and fulfill my
vow which I vowed to God in Chevron" (Shmuel II 15:7): here too,
since the entire period of David's reign was no longer than forty years
(ibid. 5:4-5), the verse cannot be meant literally. Similarly, the verse
that repeats itself over and over in Sefer Shoftim "and the land was

peaceful for forty years" indicates that the number forty is used to
refer to a generation, rather than a precise figure.
For further on this subject, see Y. Meitlis's extensive
discussion, "Li-she'elat Tiarukh Yetziat Mitzrayim," in: A. Bazak
(ed.), Be-Chag ha-Matzot, Alon Shvut (forthcoming).
Translated by Kaeren Fish

[1]

S.A. Levinstam, "Yetziat Mitzrayim," Encyclopedia Mikrait 3, Jerusalem 5718, column 754.
B. Oded, "Yisrael be-Mitzrayim ha-Reka' ha-Histori," in: S. Talmon and Y. Avishur
(eds.), Olam ha-Tanakh: Shemot, Tel Aviv 1993, p. 12.
[3]
It should be noted that both arguments have been raised by many different scholars. See,
for example, S. Yeivin, "Yetziat Mitzrayim,"Tarbiz 31, 5731, pp. 1-7:
"If a nation were to invent a fable about a 'golden age' at the dawn of its
consolidation, this would be perfectly understandable. However, the recounting of a
legend about subjugation and oppression at the dawn of any nation is quite
improbable, and the very illogic of it serves as faithful proof of the historical veracity of
such an account. Moreover, the tradition concerning the forced sojourn in Egypt, and
the exodus from there, from subjugation to redemption, is bound up with Jewish
culture in all its shapes and forms, to such an extent that the nature and development
of this culture over all the generations cannot be understood without it."
[4]
See, for example, Finkelstein and Silverman, pp. 64-83, summarizing the central
arguments of the supporters of this view.
[5] With the exception of the Merneptah Stele, which we shall discuss below, and which
speaks of Israel as a nation already dwelling in its own land.
[6]
Finkelstein and Silverman.
[7]
Within the framework of the same discussion we pointed out the distinction that must be
made between two different groups called Pelishtim. Here, too, the route that the Torah is
referring to is named after the ancient Pelishtim, and not the sea-faring people who would
later invade the land. U. Cassuto, in his Perush al Sefer Shemot, Jerusalem 5725, pp. 106107, explains that the verse does not refer to the north-eastern road, "the road of the sea,"
which was under strict Egyptian surveillance (see below), but rather the middle road, which
cut through the land of the Pelishtim (thus the term "derekh ha-Pelishtim" here means
"through/in the midst of the Pelishtim"), which would likewise have been a shorter route, but
which was rejected by God for the reason explained in verse 5.
[8]
This claim is actually baseless, as argued quite passionately by Kitchen, p. 467:
"Edom did exist [emphasis in the original A.B.] as a pastoral, tented kingdom and
th
was not a deserted land either then or in the 13 century, as the Edomites entering
Egypt prove clearly. It was so much a land with active people that both Ramesses II
and Ramesses III chose to attack it militarily. So Edom was no ghost in Moses time.
Tented kingdoms may be unknown to dumb-cluck socio-anthropologists, but they are
solidly attested in the Near East from of old."
In recent years, studies have been undertaken which indicate the presence of copper mines
th
and a fortress at Khirbat a-Nachas, dating to the 11 century B.C.E. and perhaps even
earlier, and an organized entity dwelling permanently south of the Dead Sea. See Meitlis, p.
158; Resnick, pp. 330-332.
[9]
Kitchen, p. 467. Nadav Na'aman agrees with this specific argument: "Since nomads do not
leave remains that scholars might trace, 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]

argument of the historical veracity of the exodus" (N. Na'man, "Sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim bein
Zikaron Histori li-Yetzira Historiografit," Tarbiz 79 3-4, 5770-5771, p. 360). In any event,
Na'aman himself believes that the story of the exodus was first committed to writing in the
th
7 century B.C.E. and then later redacted, and that it does not reflect the reality of Ancient
Egypt.
[10]
As noted, for example, by N. Shopak, "Ha-Chamor ha-Mitzri ke-Kli le-Libbun Sugiyat
Reshit Yisrael," Beit Mikra 49 1, p. 1.
[11]
In the last generation, several studies appeared that noted a very close correlation
between the Torahs description of slavery in Egypt and the exodus, and what we know of
Egyptian culture at the time. For a brief review of these see A. Mazar, pp. 98-99, and Shopak,
pp. 71-88. Penina Galpaz-Feller discusses these points in her book Yetziat Mitzrayim
Metziut o Dimyon, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv 5763, p. 24; her concluding chapter is entitled,
"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., p. 135).
[12]
The question of the connection between the "abiru" and Bnei Yisrael has been
addressed by many scholars; the discussion relates also to the conquest of Eretz Yisrael and
to other biblical narratives. See, for example, M. Greenberg, "abiru (apiru) Ivrim," in: HaHistoria shel Am Yisrael 2, Jerusalem Ramat Gan 1967, pp. 95-102; M. Greenberg, "IvriIvrim," Encyclopedia Mikrait 6, Jerusalem 5732, column 50; Y. Bin-Nun, "Ha-Ivrim ve-Eretz
ha-Ivrim," Megadim15, 5752, pp. 9-25; Shopak, p. 73 n. 11. In contrast, see N.
Na'ananJNES 45 (1986), 271-288; A. F. Rainey, in: Dever & Gitin (eds.),Symbiosis,
Symbolism, and the Power of the Past, 2003, pp. 174-176 for a refutation of this connection.
[13]
Shopak, p. 72.
[14]
See Galpaz-Feller, p. 27.
[15]
Ibid., p. 45. With these words the author summarizes the findings that she cites on pp. 33
onwards. For more words and expressions that are unique to the story of the exodus, and
which relate to the reality of the period in question, see Shopak, pp. 84-86.
[16] Moshe's name seems to be derived from the Egyptian noun ms, meaning "child," or from
the Egyptian verb msy, meaning "to give birth" or "to be born." There are at least three known
individuals with this name from the period of Ramesses II. (Of course, 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. For a discussion of the phenomenon of biblical explanation of
names, see Galpaz-Feller, p. 39; Shopak, p. 80-81.)
[17]
See Galpaz-Feller, pp. 33-45.
[18]
Above, we noted Cassuto's suggestion that this verse refers not to the north-eastern road,
the "sea route," but rather the more eastern route, which passes through the ancient land of
the Philistines. In any event, even according to his interpretation, 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.
[19]
See A. Malamat, "Yetziat Mitzrayim Makbilot Mitzriyot," in:Eretz Yisrael 25, Jerusalem
5756, pp. 231-235. Malamat cites additional sources which we have not mentioned here,
concerning the corroboration between archaeological findings and the biblical account of the
exodus.
[20]
These papyruses are named after Anastasi, the Swedish consul who purchased them in
th
1839. Most of them date to the 13 century B.C.E.
[21]
In this regard it is puzzling that Finkelstein and Silverman, pp. 73-75, try to use these
findings to negate the veracity of the story of the exodus. They argue that the remnants of the
fortresses indicate the difficulty of escaping from Egypt via the border fortifications, and note
without any apparent recognition of the contradictory nature of their claim, that "the biblical
account itself hints that the attempt to escape along the coastal route was dangerous." If this
is so, 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.C.E. (as they claim) knew
of the existence of this network of fortresses, which by his own account was the reason why
Bnei Yisrael did not take that route, preferring the route via the wilderness of Sinai?
In fact, 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. They argue, "If
we ignore miraculous intervention, 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, and from
there to Canaan, during a period of such impressive Egyptian presence." This is a sentence

with which any religious believer can agree wholeheartedly. The whole question is whether
we are to "ignore the possibility of miraculous intervention," or to believe in Divine Providence
and God's guidance of His nation. This argument, of course, has nothing to do with any
question of archaeology.
[22]
Shopak, pp. 86-88. It is important to note that Shopak does not accept the biblical account
as a description from the actual time of the events; she maintains that the story underwent
later redactions which included "mythical and legendary elements" (p. 86). Nonetheless, this
again boils down to the question of a theological world-view, rather than to archaeological
data.

Shiur #6f:Tanakh and Archaeology (continued) Yehoshua and

the Conquest of the Land
E.

The conquest of the land

The conquest of the land of Israel is described at length

in Sefer Yehoshua, and the conventional view, based on a superficial
reading of the text, is that the process was completed in a short time,
as was the subsequent process of the settlement of the tribes
ofIsrael. However, various archaeological findings cast grave doubts
on this view, and in fact a more in-depth reading of the relevant
chapters likewise leads to a different conclusion.[1]
The view of the conquest and settlement as a quick transition
was accepted among archaeologists of the previous generation, and
especially Albright and Yadin, who noted a wave of destruction that
swept over Canaanite cities in the 13th century B.C.E. and effectively
ended the Middle Bronze Period. This wave of destruction was
explained by Albright and Yadin as the work of the tribes of Israel in
their conquest of the land.
One of the most important findings from this period pertains to
the city of Chatzor. In Sefer Yehoshuawe read about Yavin, king of
Chatzor, who was the leader of the kings of the north, and about the
conquest of the city by Yehoshua:
"And at that time Yehoshua turned back and he took Chatzor,
and he smote its king by the sword, for Chatzor had until then
been the chief of all of these kingdoms. And he smote all the
souls who were in it by the sword; there remained no one
breathing in it, and he burned Chatzor with fire But all the
cities that stood upon their mounds Israel did not burn them,
except for Chatzor alone, which Yehoshua burned."
(Yehoshua11:10-13)

The wording here suggests that Chatzor was indeed a large and
important center, but at the time of the redaction of Sefer Yehoshua,
long after the conquest, the city had already lost its glory. Both parts
of Chatzor the lower part and the upper part (acropolis) were
excavated by Yigael Yadin, in the years 1955-1958, and again in
1968-1969. The archaeological findings indicated a large city, with
impressive public structures, which existed hundreds of years before
the conquest by Yehoshua. The importance of the city is attested to
in the archives discovered in the city of Mari, which was located on
the western bank of the Euphrates, and which maintained
correspondence with various other cities through letters. About
twenty of these relate to Chatzor the only city in Eretz Yisrael with
which it maintained such correspondence.[2] Concerning the lower
city, Yadin writes:
"We have evidence that this tremendous city, with thousands of
inhabitants, came to an end with a sudden fire in the second
half of the 13th century, and was not rebuilt The surprising
similarity between the size of Chatzor as revealed in the
excavations, on one hand, and its description in the Bible as
the chief of all these kingdoms, on the other, and the
emphasis of the biblical author that Chatzor alone was
destroyed by Yehoshua and set on fire, leave little doubt, to my
mind, that we have indeed found the Canaanite city of Yavin,
which was destroyed by Yehoshua."[3]
Likewise, Amichai Mazar states, concerning the definition of
Chatzor as "the chief of all these kingdoms," that
"it is difficult to imagine that this definition would have been
dreamed up from nowhere by an author in the 7th century, or
even later."[4]
The city was excavated again, starting in 1990, by a delegation
led by Amnon Ben-Tor. Both Yadin and Ben-Tor discovered, among
the ruins of the palace, fragments of statues whose heads and arms
appear to have been destroyed deliberately. Ben-Tor concludes, on
the basis of this finding, that "it is only the settling tribes of Israel that
could have been responsible for the conquest and destruction of
Chatzor."[5]
However, more recent developments have made clear that the
approach that treats the conquest and settlement of the land as a
uniform, quick phenomenon, contradicts the archaeological findings

in several respects.[6] In most of the cities mentioned in the process of

the conquest, along the coast and in the valleys, such as Megiddo,
Afek, and Gezer, no remains of Israelite settlement were found
among the ruins of the Canaanite cities. By contrast, in most of the
regions of settlement along the mountain range, where the major
settlement revolution at that time took place, there are few Canaanite
sites. From the evidence we may conclude that the Canaanite
centers were not attacked all at the same time, but rather over a long
period; also, while the period of settlement in the mountains was
already well underway, some Canaanite cities, such as
Lakhish,[7] were still standing.
Actually, 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. Indeed, had Sefer Yehoshua been
comprised of only its first twelve chapters, we would have been left
with the impression of a "uniform military conquest," with a string of
victories and the complete annihilation of the Canaanites:
"And Yehoshua smote all of the hill country, and the Negev,
and the plain, and the slopes, and all of their kings; he left none
remaining, but destroyed completely all that breathed, as the
Lord God of Israel had commanded. And Yehoshua smote
them from Kadesh Barne'a to Aza, and all the country
of Goshen, as far as Giv'on. And Yehoshua took all these kings
and their land at one time, because the Lord God
ofIsrael fought for Israel." (Yehoshua 10:40-42)[8]
However, the text then goes on to paint a picture that is quite
different:
"And Yehoshua was old and advanced in age, and God said to
him, You are old and advanced in age, yet there remains much
of the land still to be possessed." (Yehoshua 13:1)
This is followed (verses 2-13) by a long list of the "land that
remains" i.e., places in the land which Bnei Yisrael had yet to
conquer and settle. Likewise, throughout the verses detailing the
inheritances, the text mentions again and again the places not yet
conquered (ibid. 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-13). 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, serving as an introduction
to the period as a whole, including the problems arising from the fact

that Bnei Yisrael had failed, in so many areas of the country, to

conquer the Canaanites.[9]
Hence, we should regard some of the descriptions in the early
chapters of Sefer Yehoshua as referring to events that occurred later
on. The reason for such a literary device that describes events out of
chronological order is presumably to attribute these processes to
Yehoshua himself, even though he may have been able to oversee
only their initiation.
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 Yehoshua10:36-37, in the context of
the war against the five kings of the south, the text records that
Yehoshua conquered Chevron:
" And they took it and they smote it with the sword, and its
king, and all its cities, and all the souls that were in it; he left
none remaining but destroyed it utterly, and all the souls that
were in it."
Later on, however (14:6-15) we read of Kalev's request of
Yehoshua that he be given Chevron, in accordance with God's
promise following the sin of the spies. Here we find that the city had
not yet been conquered, and the 'anakim' were still there:
"For you heard on that day that the anakim were there, and
that the cities were great and fortified; if the Lord will be with
me, perhaps I shall be able to drive them out, as God has
spoken." (verse 12)
And later on we read (15:13-14),
"And to Kalev, son of Yefunneh, he gave a portion amongst the
children of Yehuda, at God's command to Yehoshua the city
of Arba, the father of the anak which is Chevron. And Kalev
drove out from there the three sons of the anak Sheshai and
Achiman and Talmai, the children of the anak."
Likewise we find at the beginning of Sefer Shoftim(1:20),
"And they gave Chevron to Kalev, as Moshe had spoken, and
he expelled from there the three sons of the anak."

This leaves us with the question: when was Chevron

conquered, and the giants expelled? Was it during Yehoshua's time,
or was it after his death? It would seem that the original conquest
was carried out by Kalev,[10] apparently after the death of Yehoshua.
This account appears already in Yehoshua 15, but Rashi notes there
that these verses were written
"after the death of Yehoshua, for during Yehoshua's time the
city of Chevron had not yet been captured, as we are told
in Sefer Shoftim, and the matter is noted here only for the
purposes of the division [of the land]."[11]
In any event, these verses appear in Sefer Yehoshua too, as
part of the general literary aim of attributing the entire process of the
conquest to Yehoshua, who led the nation at its start of its presence
in the land.
It turns out, then, that the two descriptions of the conquest
in Sefer Yehoshua express "two aspects"[12]of the conquest of the
land. One depicts the ideal picture a uniform, continuous military
conquest, representing God's willingness to give the land to Bnei
Yisrael, and crediting Yehoshua, God's servant, with the entire
process. The other aspect shows the objective reality in which Bnei
Yisrael were in no rush to take on the challenges awaiting then,
resulting in the processes taking much longer and lasting several
years.[13]
Alongside the correlation between the complex picture arising
from the biblical description of the process of conquest, and the
archaeological evidence, 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. Yericho
Sefer Yehoshua (chapter 6) describes in great detail the
conquest of Yericho, and especially the miraculous collapse of the
city walls. Yet the archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon, who was involved
in the excavations of Tel Yericho in the 1950s, concluded that
Yericho had not been fortified with a wall during the Late Bronze
Period,[14] and this assertion is accepted by many scholars today.

However, the proofs in support of this view are not

unequivocal. In excavations carried out in Yericho during the 1930s
by the British archaeologist John Garstang, fortifications were
discovered dating back to the Early Bronze Period, and Kenyon
herself agreed that "it is possible that this rampart served as
fortification for the city from the Late Bronze Period, and it is possible
that a new wall was built atop it, of which nothing remains."[15] Other
scholars disagreed with Kenyon's conclusions and argued that a
fortified city from this period can indeed be identified.[16]
It is also possible that the remains of the later city were slowly
eroded, through natural phenomena, which have greatly influenced
the discoveries in Yericho,[17] or even through human intervention.
Obviously, 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, as it has been by a
number of scholars,"[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."[19] Clearly, this again is a controversy based on questions that
are not purely academic in nature; rather, it rests on one's
fundamental view of the reliability of the biblical account.
In our attempt to weigh up the degree of correlation between
the archaeological evidence in Yericho and the biblical description,
another perspective must also be taken into account. According to
theTanakh, Yericho was completely abandoned under the threat of
Yehoshua's curse (Yehoshua 6:26-27), and was not re-inhabited
until the time of King Achav, when it was reestablished by Chiel of
Beit El (Melakhim I 16:34). This is noteworthy, in view of the fact that
Yericho was a central and important city, which had been inhabited
for thousands of years, and which had access to convenient sources
of water - the spring of Elisha and the spring of Na'aran. The peculiar
abandonment of Yericho is backed up by archaeological
evidence,[20] and were it not for the biblical record of Yehoshua's
curse, it would be quite inexplicable. In any event, 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 citys abandonment does
seem reasonable.
2. Ai

A different controversy concerns Ai, whose conquest is

likewise described at length in Sefer Yehoshua (chapters 7-8).
The Tanakh offers a few topographical details that help us to identify
the location of Ai "beside Beit Aven, to the east of Beit El"
(Yehoshua 7:2), with a valley to its north: "And they encamped to the
north of Ai, with a valley between them and Ai" (ibid. 8:11).
Archaeological research has identified Ai with Khirbat A-Tel, northeast of Jerusalem, to the east of the biblical Beit El (which itself is
identified with the village Bittin).[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, "Yehoshua burned Ai and made it an
eternal mound [tel], a desolation to this day" ibid. 28).
The site yields extensive remains of a large city from the
Early Bronze Age, which was destroyed about a thousand years
before the story in Sefer Yehoshua, but there are no remains from
the Late Bronze Age. This led even a moderate scholar like Amichai
Mazar to the following conclusion:
"The narrative in Sefer Yehoshua, chapter 8, is not anchored in
the historical reality matching the period of the conquest, 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,[22]created during a
period in which Am Yisrael had already settled in Ai. Such
settlement did in fact exist there during the period of the
judges; the inhabitants must have realized that their village was
built on the ruins of a huge, destroyed city, and over time there
developed a legend of the conquest of the city, which was
attributed to Yehoshua bin Nun."[23]
This claim is based entirely on one single assumption, and that
is the identification of Ai with Khirbat A-Tel. However, this
identification is not proven, and it presents several difficulties. For
example, the biblical Giv'on is identified with Tel Giv'on in AlJib,[24] but the area of this mound is about half of that of Khirbat A-Tel,
which is the largest archaeological site in the Binyamin region.[25]
Moreover, Grintz proves[26] that there is no connection between
the name "Ai" and the word "tel" in the sense of ruins. On the other
hand, Grintz argues, 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. This city was already in ruins during the

period of Yehoshua's conquest, and therefore there was no need to

conquer it. 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."
Grintz offers no alternative location for Ai, but several hypotheses
have been raised in recent years:
a. Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun[27] proposes that Ai be identified with
Khirbat al-Marjama. Excavations undertaken there revealed a
fortified Israelite city from the period of the monarchy, but
further exploration of a section of the southern wall exposed a
layer of habitation from the Later Bronze Age.[28]
b. Y. Meitlis[29] argues that many regions of settlement during the
Middle Bronze Age were spread on a slope, rather than at the
top of a hill. It is therefore possible that Ai, which was indeed
located at Khirbat A-Tel during the Early Bronze Age, and was
destroyed, was rebuilt on the slope, by the village of Deir
Debwan. An archaeological survey at this site produced a
pottery fragment from the Middle Bronze Age.
While neither of these suggestions has been proven, 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. The small habitation at Khirbat A-Tel from the time of the
judges lasted only a short time. If Sefer Yehoshua was indeed written
only in the 7th century B.C.E., how would its authors know of the
identity of a city named Ai, to the east of Beit El, and provide such an
accurate topographical description? Given this, 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, see M. Weinfeld, Mi-Yehoshua ve-ad Yoshiyahu, Jerusalem 5752, pp. 54-65.
[2]
See: Y. Yadin, Chatzor, Tel Aviv 1975, p. 15.
[3]
Yadin, p. 145.
[4]
Mazar, p. 105.
[5]
A. Ben-Tor, "Ha-Chafirot ha-Mechudashot be-Tel Chatzor,"Kadmoniot 111, 5756, p. 18.
Later on, however, Ben-Tor changed his approach: "We may establish that Chatzor still
th
existed in the 13 century, and that it was destroyed not before the middle of this century. At
present there is no archaeological evidence as to the identity of its destroyers" (Ben-Tor,
"Chofrim be-Chatzor," Be-Shevil ha-Aretz, Dec. 2005, p. 24).

[6]

For a summary see Y. Finkelstein, Ha-Archeologia shel Tekufat ha-Hitnachalut ve-haShoftim, Tel Aviv 1986, pp. 269-275.
[7]
th
Lakhish, too, was destroyed, but only during the second half of the 12 century B.C.E.,
about a hundred years after the destruction of Chatzor. D. Ussishkin, "Levels VII and VI at Tel
Lachish and the End of the Bronze Age in Canaan," in: J.N. Tubb (ed.), Palestine in the
Bronze and Iron Ages: Papers in Honor of Olga Tufnell, London1985, pp. 213-228.
[8]
The same idea is conveyed by the verses summarizing the inheritance of the land, ibid.
21:41-42.
[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. Because Bnei Yisrael forged a covenant with the inhabitants of the land and did not shatter
their altars, they were punished by God: "I shall not drive them out from before you, and they
shall be as snares for you, and their gods shall be a trap for you" (Shoftim 2:3);
2. 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, and they have not
obeyed Me, I shall likewise not continue to drive out from before them any of the nations
which Yehoshua left when he died" (ibid. 20-21);
3. As a test of Israel's loyalty: "To put Israel to the test, whether they will observe the way of
God, to follow it, as their forefathers did, or not" (ibid. 22);
4. In order that Bnei Yisrael will learn to fight in the future: "Only that the generations of Israel
might know, to teach them war, at least those who did not know of such things previously"
(ibid. 3:2).
The first two reasons express punishments that come retroactively, while the last two
represent a pre-planned reality. To these four reasons we might add a fifth, which is actually
the first, as set forth explicitly in the Torah: "I shall not drive them out from before you in a
single year, least the land become desolate and the wild beasts multiply against you. Little by
little shall I drive them out from before you, until you grow numerous and inherit the land"
(Shemot 23:29-30).
[10]
It is highly symbolic that it is specifically Kalev who drives out theanakim, since it was this
aspect of the spies' report that so concerned Am Yisrael (Bamidbar 13:28, 33; Devarim 1:28).
It is Kalev son of Yefunneh, who never feared the children of the anak from the outset, who
drives three of them out.
[11]
We have discussed previously the matter of the redaction of the Books of the Prophets.
[12]
We have discussed previously the "aspects approach" to seemingly contradictory sources
in the biblical text.
[13]
Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun, "Ha-Mikra be-Mabat Histori ve-ha-Hitnachalut ha-Yisraelit be-Eretz
Kena'an," in: Ha-Pulmus al ha-Emet ha-Historit ba-Mikra, pp. 13-16, argues that the
description of the conquest in Sefer Yehoshua reflects not necessarily different literary
aspects, but rather a distinction between military victory and conquest with settlement.
Following the invasion and the great victories, especially against the kings of the south
(Yehoshua 10) and the north (ibid. 11), there were effectively no kings left, although these
victories also prevented other kings from waging war against Israel, and allowed the nation to
embark on a decades-long program of settlement, undisturbed at least in the mountain
region. Rabbi Bin-Nun arrives at this understanding on the basis of the difference between
Chatzor, which as noted above was the only city to be burned (other than Yericho and Ai),
and the other cities that remained intact: "But all the cities that stood upon their mounds
Israel did not burn them, except for Chatzor alone, which Yehoshua burned"
(Yehoshua 11:13). Although the text describes Yehoshua as taking and utterly destroying the
other cities, too, the reference there is to military victory. For this reason, Yehoshua did not
burn Lakhish, as indeed is recorded in the text; its destruction, a hundred years later, appears
to have taken place during the period of the judges.
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, whose
practical resolution may well be in accordance with Rabbi Bin-Nun's explanation.
[14]
K.M. Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho, London 1957. A different discussion concerns the very
existence of any habitation in Yericho during the Late Bronze Period, but a later study
showed that the city had indeed been inhabited at this time, although it ceased to exist at the
th
th
end of the 14 century or beginning of the 13 century B.C.E. See P. Bienkowski, Jericho in
the Late Bronze Age, Warminster 1986.
[15]
Kenyon, ibid.

[16]

See B. G. Wood, BAR 16 (1990), 44-58. Wood rejects Kenyon's conclusions and brings
various arguments in support of the authenticity of the biblical account. Inter alia, he relies on
pottery shards from the Late Bronze Age that were found in clay from Jericho. He points to
the remains of another brick wall, from around the year 1400 B.C.E., which in his view was
destroyed in an earthquake, following which the city was burned. He also brings many more
arguments for the authenticity of the biblical narrative. See also H.J.
Bruins, Radiocarbon 37,2 (1995), 213-220, who subjected the burned grain from Jericho IV to
th
carbon dating, and concluded that the fire took place at the end of the 14 century B.C.E.
[17]
See Kenyon, pp. 197-198.
[18]
A. Mazar, "Tekufat ha-Barzel I," Mavo le-Archeologia shel Eretz Yisrael bi-Tekufat haMikra, Tel Aviv 5750, p. 43.
[19]
Z. Herzog, "Ha-Mahapecha ha-Mada'it be-Archeologia shel Eretz Yisrael," in: Ha-Pulmus
al ha-Emet ha-Historit ba-Mikra, p. 57.
[20]
Kenyon, p. 200
[21]
See S. Yeivin, "Ai, ha-Ai," in the Encyclopedia Mikrait VI, Jerusalem 5732, columns 169192.
[22]
In other words, a story that explains topographical or other phenomena by attributing them
to some event that took place in the distant past, without necessarily having any historical
basis. [Mazar himself provides this explanation in a note ad loc.]
[23]
Mazar, p.43
[24]
See, for example, the entry for "Giv'on" (written by the editorial board), Encyclopedia
Mikrait II, Jeurslaem 5714, columns 417-418.
[25]
I heard this argument raised by Prof. Yoel Elitzur.
[26]
Grintz, pp. 278-289
[27]
Y. Bin-Nun, "Ba al Ayit: Pitaron Chadash le-Zihui ha-Ai," in: Z.H. Ehrlich and Y. Eshel
(eds.), Mechkerei Yehuda ve-Shomron, Ariel 1993, pp. 63-64.
[28]
Some scholars have questioned this possibility: see Y. Elitzur's comments ad loc., pp. 6364.
[29]
Meitlis, pp. 62-64.

Shiur #6g: Tanakh and Archaeology (continued) The Era of

Settlement
F.

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, starting from the
13th century B.C.E., as manifest in the establishment of hundreds of
small points of settlement bearing a unique character. These villages
stand out in their modesty and simplicity, with no decorations on the
clay vessels and almost no jewelry; they possess a special form of
construction of houses, and a number of other characteristics.[1]
The main controversy among archaeologists concerns the
question of the identity of these new settlers. 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, and settled in
these new areas. Not only was there no sojourn in, and no exodus
from, Egypt, but there is no evidence as to the invasion of

the land of Israel by an external population. Rather, the process of

settlement described above is a phenomenon that began from within
the country, by the ancient inhabitants of the land. These settlers
slowly invented for themselves an Israelite identity and stories about
the origins of their existence, such as the stories about the
forefathers and the Exodus. Hundreds of years later, these stories
were committed to writing, and thus the majority of theTanakh came
into being.
Scholars who disagree with the minimalist school raise several
arguments against their approach. We shall examine some of their
main points.
1. One of the main questions is whether the characteristics of
these settlements are unique, indicating a specific national
identity, or whether they are part of a more general
phenomenon, with similar examples in other places. One of
the phenomena which, to all opinions, is unique to the
communities formed in this region, is the absence of pig bones
in clear contrast to the other inhabited areas in the land
during the same period. How is this phenomenon to be
explained? The simple answer would seem to be that the
inhabitants, Bnei Yisrael, observed the biblical prohibition
against pork (Vayikra 11:7). The minimalists, who maintain
that the Torah would be written only hundreds of years later,
are forced to propose their own explanations, and ultimately
they conclude that the phenomenon arises "from causes that
have yet to be properly clarified."[3]
Moreover, the question of whether the form of settlement is
unique likewise depends to some extent on the basic
assumptions of the researcher, rather than on the findings
themselves. In contrast to the conclusions drawn by
Finkelstein and Silverman, Amichai Mazar writes:
"The settlement phenomenon, whereby hundreds of
points of settlement were established in the mountain
region during the Bronze Age I, reflects a socio-economic
structure which, to my mind, accords with the nature of
Israelite society during the period of the Judges, 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, whose way of life

cannot be equated with any other Canaanite population

group known to us from the Late Bronze Period. The
term "proto-Israelite," which is employed by a number of
scholars to define this population, seems to me a way of
evading their obvious identification with the Israelites of
the period of the Judges."[4]
As we have seen many times before, the interpretation given to
identical material varies dramatically from one researcher to
the next.
2. One of the most important findings pertaining to this period is
the Merneptah Stele (Israel Stele), discovered in 1896 during
excavations in the ancient Egyptian capital of Thebes (the
biblical No-Amon).[5] This large stone stele celebrates the
victories of King Merneptah, son of Ramesses II, and it
includes a list of conquests during the campaign undertaken
by the king in the year 1208 B.C.E., including the following:
"Ashkelon has been overcome;
Gezer has been captured;
Yano'am is made non-existent."
The inscription then goes on to state,
"Israel is laid waste and his seed is not."
Clearly, this claim represents a wild exaggeration not only
concerning Israel, but also in other aspects (a common feature
of victory inscriptions in the Ancient East), but the important
point is the mention of an entity named "Israel", living in the
country already by the end of the 13thcentury B.C.E., and the
(exaggerated) pride of Merneptah upon annihilating it.[6] This
indicates that "Israel" was an independent body of some
importance, on the northern border of Egypt, and this testimony
is well suited to the period of settlement, before Israel became
a real kingdom. The inscription represents a substantial
challenge to the minimalist approach, which is forced into
various different attempts at explaining or evading it.[7]
3. The claim that there are no traces of invasion by an external
population and a specific process of expansion is likewise
highly
contentious.
An
extensive
archaeological

survey,[8] known as the "Menashe Hills Survey,"[9] discovered

thousands of previously unknown sites, including some 450
that were dated to the period of the settlement of the tribes
of Israel. According to the survey, the direction of expansion of
the Israelite villages was from the east westward, and from the
center both southward and northward. These findings accord
with the biblical account, as well as with the shifting of the
spiritual center of Am Yisrael from Mount Eval to Shilo, and
from Shilo to Jerusalem.
The survey area included, inter alia, the strip stretching from
Beit Shean to Wadi Petzael, the region through which Bnei
Yisrael entered the land, according to Sefer Yehoshua. More
than 100 sites have been discovered in this region with
artifacts dating to the period of settlement (13th-12th centuries
B.C.E.), most of them belonging to just a single period.
Another important finding concerns the vessels discovered at
these sites. The pottery vessels are rather primitive in the
eastern sites, and show increasing sophistication as one with
the development of settlement westwards.
All of the above suggests "gradual settlement from east to
west, or an entry from the eastern side of the Jordan to the
western side, towards the mountain range."[10] Indeed, some
signs of settlement have also been discovered on the eastern
side of the Jordan, to the north of theDead Sea, that are very
similar to the discoveries on the western side.[11]
4. In the 1980s, archaeologist Adam Zertal discovered a large
rectangular structure (7x9 m) at the Mount Eval site.[12] The
only access to the top of the structure is via a ramp that
ascends to the center of it. To the left of the ramp there is
another ramp, leading to the'sovev' a foundation wall
surrounding the central structure on three sides. Within this
area approximately 1,000 burned bones of young male
animals were found, all belonging to species defined as "pure"
in the Torah. No figurines, bones of pigs, or any other familiar
indications of Canaanite worship sites were discovered.[13] The
findings at the site match the period of the beginnings of the
settlement period i.e., the end of the 13th century
B.C.E.[14] The altar belongs to just one period, and it was left in
an orderly state, not destroyed. 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,[16] and may even allow an identification of this
structure with the altar which Bnei Yisrael are commanded

in Devarim 27:4-5 to build, the enactment of which is

described inYehoshua 8:30-35.[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.
We once again come back to the issue of whether this is a genuine
archaeological dispute, or a dispute over fundamental world-views,
whose roots have nothing to do with archaeology.
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, along with other Books, was
written in the 7th century, at the earliest, and that the reliability of its
account is therefore in question. Had the Book indeed been written
from within the perspective of the later Davidic monarchy, 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." (21:43)
Could such a sentence have been written centuries after the
events described, 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, with three parallel oblong
living areas and a fourth area stretching across the back of all three. These villages were also
characterized by special pottery, including jugs and cooking pots with an outward-pointing
folded rim; as well as various inscriptions, indicating that their inhabitants were literate; and
more (see Meitlis's summary, pp. 147-150).
[2]
For a summary of this approach, see Finkelstein and Silverman, pp. 107-128.
[3]
Finkelstein and Silverman, p. 128.
[4]
A. Mazar, p. 106
[5]
For more on this stele, the inscription, and its translation, see Na'aman, p. 310.
[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", says the
former, while the latter asserts, "Israel has perished; it has perished forever!"
[7]
See, for example, Na'aman, pp. 311-312, who concludes his discussion of this important
finding with the words, "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

of Israel, and despite the temptation to try to integrate this ancient finding into Israelite history,
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.C.E."
[8]
An archaeological survey examines a broad area; the historical sites discovered within it
are mapped, measured, and dated by means of a careful gathering of the pottery shards
found on the ground.
[9]
The survey, headed by Adam Zertal, was carried out over a period of thirty years, covering
some 3,000 square kilometers. The findings of the survey have been published in four
volumes to date: A. Zertal,Sekker Har Menashe, published in Hebrew, between the years
1992 and 2005 (Tel Aviv-Haifa).
[10]
A. Zertal, "Tanakh, Archaologia ve-Reshit Yisrael," in: Ha-Pulmus al ha-Emet ha-Historit
ba-Mikra, p. 79.
[11]
See also Meitlis, p. 159.
[12]
For an extensive discussion of the subject, see Zertal's Sekker Har Menashe.
[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).
[14]
This conclusion is partly based on the discovery of Egyptian scarabs and pottery. The
discovery of the Egyptian scarabs also indicates some sort of connection with Egypt.
[15]
It should be noted that bones of deer were discovered at the site, and these are not
mentioned in the Torah as animals suitable for sacrifice. Nevertheless it should be noted that
the deer is in fact a "pure" animal (Deut. 14:5), and there is no explicit prohibition in the Torah
against offering a pure animal (see Zertal, p. 100). Rabbi Yoel bin-Nun ("Ha-Mivneh be-Har
Eval ve-Zihuyo ke-Mizbeach," Lifnei Efraim u-Vinyamin u-Menashe, Jerusalem 5745, pp. 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, brought as a general
mass free-will offering to fill the stone altar or the remains of the sanctified meal inaugurating
the site."
[16]
The discovery of the altar gave rise to a great debate, since it presents a problem both for
Bible critics (as we have seen in previous chapters) and for the minimalists, who date the
th
texts to the 7 century and deny their historical authenticity. The minimalists, in response to
the discovery of the structure on Mount Eval, proposed that the site was a "watch tower"
(Zertal, pp. 190-206). Zertal also discusses the political motivations behind the resistance to
identifying the structure as an altar (ad loc., pp. 133, 296 and more).
[17]
As Zertal notes. However, there are some scholars who oppose this identification because
the altar at Mount Eval shows initial worship upon natural rock, 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. The text, in contrast, 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. In any
event, the assumption that this was an Israelite altar from the period of the settlement seems
most probable.
[18]
This point is noted by Y. Elitzur, pp. 29-30.

**********************************************************
Dedicated by the Wise and Etshalom families
in memory of Rabbi Aaron M. Wise, whose yahrzeit is 21 Tammuz.
Y'hi Zikhro Barukh.

*********************************************************
*********************************************************
In loving memory of Fred Stone, Ya'acov Ben Yitzchak, AH
beloved father and grandfather, by Ellen and Stanley Stone and their
children Jake and Chaya, Zack and Yael, Ezra, Yoni, Eliana and Gabi.
*********************************************************

Shiur #6h: Tanakh and Archaeology (continued)

G.

The Unified Kingdom

We will now address the final period that we will be reviewing

here the kingdom of David and Shlomo, known as the period of the
"unified kingdom" (11th-10th centuries B.C.E.). Here, too, there are
many facts that are universally agreed upon, and scholarly
discussion turns mainly upon the interpretation of those facts.
All agree that in Eretz Yisrael during the period of the
monarchy (referred to by archaeologists as the Bronze Period II),
there was a real upheaval, with a new culture growing upon the ruins
of the Canaanite cities. This culture is characterized by a higher
quality of construction (use of hewn stone, pillars, etc.) and
sophisticated ceramics. Fortified cities appeared, along with public
structures and water supply systems, all showing evidence of a
centralized government. This construction stands out prominently
against the background of the meager, scattered construction of the
Bronze Period I. Another undisputed fact, with significant implications
for the entire discussion, is the absence of any external findings
(such as Egyptian, Assyrian or Babylonian inscriptions) during this
period.
The main question is when these changes took place i.e.,
when the transition from the Bronze Period I (identified, as we have
noted previously, with the period of the Judges) to the Bronze Period
II occurred. The classic view of biblical archaeology (known in this
context as the "High Chronology") connected this phenomenon with
David and Shlomo, 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),
including Chatzor, Megiddo, and Gezer. This view rested partly on
artifacts discovered at the sites of the excavations of the three
aforementioned locations. In addition to impressive buildings some
identical structures were found at the various locations consisting of
large, six-chambered gates, with three chambers on each side of the
opening. In each instance, the finding indicates the Bronze Period II.
As a result, these structures came to be known as "Solomon's
Gates."[1]
However, in recent years this evidence has been rejected by
some scholars.[2] The gate at Megiddo is connected to the wall built
above the palaces, and since the wall thus dates from a period later
than the palace, these scholars have assumed that the gate, too, is
from a later period. They argue that additional six-chamber gates
have been discovered in various cities (includingAshdod, Lakhish

and Tel Ira) which were unquestionably later than Shlomo's period. In
addition, they claim that the gates attributed to Shlomo cannot be
dated, since the archaeological findings provide only a relative
chronology (i.e., which came earlier and which came later), 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, they argue that the text cannot be relied upon
for determining the dating of "Solomon's Gates," and hence there is
no archaeological proof that they were built in Shlomo's time.
Finkelstein and Silverman add further questions about the
attribution of the construction in these cities to Shlomo:
1. There is a disparity between the construction works evident in
other cities, and the paucity of findings in Jerusalem and its
environs. Admittedly, the entire area of study is plagued by the
objective problem that no archaeological excavation is
permitted on the Temple Mountitself, and therefore no
evidence can be found supporting any dating of
the First Temple.
However,
excavations
in
and
around Jerusalemhave not yielded significant findings from the
10thcentury B.C.E.; the general impression is one of a "typical
mountain-region village," with a sparse population living
around it.[3]
"Can it be possible that a king who built such splendid
hewn-stone palaces in the capital city, ruled over his
kingdom from a small, remote, backward village?"[4]
2. In addition, there are many similarities between the palaces
discovered at Megiddo and the palace in the city of Shomron,
which was built during the period of Omri and Achav, at the
beginning of the 9th century B.C.E. This would seem to
indicate that they were built around the same time. Thus,
these scholars conclude that the construction of Megiddo must
also have been undertaken later on, during the time of Omri.[5]
3. Carbon 14[6] samples from major sites attributed to Shlomo,
such as Megiddo and Chatzor, indicate more uniform dates for
the destruction of these cities and hence also for their
construction by the kings of Israel. Finkelstein and Silverman
contend that these tests represent the "final nail in the coffin of
the theory of the Solomonic period."[7] On the basis of these
arguments and others, they conclude that the beginning of the
Bronze Period II must be postponed by a hundred years ("Low
chronology"). Thus, all the trappings of an opulent and welldeveloped kingdom are stripped from Shlomo's period and

attributed instead to the period of Omri. The period of David

and Shlomo can now no longer be regarded as a "golden
age". Instead of the tremendous unified kingdom described
in Tanakh, Finkelstein proposes a view of Yehuda as a small,
sparse and isolated rural society. To his view, 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, attributing the
entire construction enterprise of the House of Omri to King
Shlomo.
The
first
argument,
regarding
the
disparity
betweenJerusalem and other settlements, is based on an absence of
findings for the reliability of the biblical account. Yair Hoffman has
noted in this context, that "the attempt to draw conclusions from the
absence of artifacts is highly questionable, for archaeological and
epigraphic findings are sometimes extremely serendipitous."[8]
Beyond this objection, there is evidence in support of the biblical
description that presents the "Low chronology" with some challenges:
1. An important basis for the discussion is an inscription found at
the Temple of Amun at
Karnak,
in Egypt,
describing
[9]
Shishak's invasion of Eretz Yisrael, which brought destruction
to several cities. The campaign, somewhere around the year
925 B.C.E., was waged primarily against the Northern
Kingdom of Israel, yet also affected the region of the Negev.[10]
This inscription in and of itself represents real proof of the
reliability of the narrative in Sefer Melakhim, since the
campaign is mentioned there explicitly:
"And it came to pass in the fifth year of King Rechav'am
that Shishak, king ofEgypt, came up against Jerusalem.
And he took away the treasures of the House of God,
and the treasures of the king's house, and he took all;
and he took away all the shields of gold which Shlomo
had made" (Melakhim I 14:25-26).[11]
In Divrei Ha-yamim the account is expanded upon. We read
that Shishak came up to Jerusalem
"with twelve hundred chariots, and sixty thousand horsemen,
and the people were without number who came with him from
Egypt Luvim and Sukkiyim and Kushim" (Divrei Ha-yamim II
12:3),
and thereafter:

"And he took the fortified cities which belonged to Yehuda, and

he came to Jerusalem" (ibid 4),
But after Am Yisrael repents, following the call by Shema'ya the
prophet, they are promised thatJerusalem will not be destroyed:
"I shall grant them some deliverance, and My wrath shall not be
poured out upon Jerusalem by the hand of Shishak.
Nevertheless, they shall be his servants, that they may know
My service and the service of the kingdoms of countries" (ibid.
7-8).
Thus, Shishak suffices with the plunder but does not destroy
Jerusalem. His campaign is described in Tanakhonly in this
context.[12] Although Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Karnak
inscription,[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, and the fact that the campaign reached
the region of Kiryat Ye'arim, to the north of Jerusalem, testifies
to the existence of a political entity in the Judean mountains
that was of great significance in the eyes of the Egyptians.
Such an entity could only have been Shlomo's kingdom, 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, out of concern that a strong Israelite
kingdom might harm Egyptian interests."[14]
The inscription about Shishak's campaign also contributes to
the discussion surrounding the question of construction during the
period of the unified kingdom.[15]
The inscription features about seventy unknown locations in
the Negev region. This datum sits well with the discovery of dozens
of settlements in the Negev, each surrounded by a double wall, the
great majority of them belonging to just one period, no later than the
10thcentury B.C.E. These sites, which, apparently, existed up until
Shishak's campaign, 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. 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.

For this reason, these sites can serve as an archaeological

anchor, dating the type of ceramic found in them to the 10th century
B.C.E. The ceramics in some of these locations parallel the layers of
excavation at Chatzor and at Megiddo which were, in fact, attributed
to the time of Shlomo, and thus we confirm the connection between
the six-chambered gates in these cities and the kingdom of Shlomo.
The impression that arises here is that Megiddo was indeed
built up extensively by Shlomo, and later destroyed by Shishak, as
Ben-Tor suggests. At Megiddo a fragment of Shishak's victory stele
was discovered, and this too indicates the importance of the city
during the 10th century, for it is difficult to imagine that Shishak would
have constructed a victory stele in a village devoid of any
importance.[16]
(to be continued)
Translated by Kaeren Fish

[1]

The subject is developed by Yigael Yadin; see, for example,Chatzor, pp. 187-205.
See: D. Ussishkin, 'Was the "Solomonic" city gate at Megiddo built by King
Solomon?', Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research,1980, pp. 1-18.
[3]
Finkelstein and Silverman, p. 140.
[4]
Ibid. p. 147.
[5]
Finkelstein and Silverman, p. 331; Finkelstein and Silverman,David u-Shlomo, pp. 256259. 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, while at the same
time accepting its reliability concerning the construction of Shomron by Omri) but do not see
this as a problem. To their view, "One may certainly doubt the historical veracity of one verse
while accepting as valid a different one" (Reshit Yisrael, p. 331). This is rather a weak
argument, for even if one is able to understand the logic underlying the considerations for
accepting some or other specific point, it is still very difficult to accept a view that proposes
accepting the reliability of one chapter of Tanakh, down to the tiniest details, while rejecting
completely all that has been described in preceding chapters, regarding them as later
legends.
[6]
The system of carbon dating was developed in 1950 by Nobel laureate Willard Frank
Libby. 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). Through photosynthesis, plants
absorb both forms from the atmosphere (in the form of carbon dioxide), and animals then
feed on these plants. When any plant or animal organism dies, it contains a ratio of C14 to C12,
but this ratio decreases at a regular rate because the level of C12remains constant, while
the C14 decays. Carbon-14 has a relatively short half-life of 5,730 years, meaning that the
fraction of carbon-14 in a sample is halved over the course of 5,730 years due to radioactive
decay. Thus, a comparison between the carbon-14 and carbon-12 in any organic matter
yields a fairly accurate estimate of its age.
[7]
Finkelstein and Silverman, p. 258. Despite these decisive pronouncements, the
conclusions that they present are open to question. Amnon Ben-Tor, director of the
excavation site at Chatzor, has noted that six significant layers of construction have been
discovered, the last of them dating unquestionably to the destruction of Chatzor at the hands
of Tiglat Pelasar in the year 732 B.C.E.. Given this, even if each layer represented only 40
years, we would arrive at the conclusion that the layer of construction which Yadin attributed
[2]

th

to Shlomo does indeed date to the mid-10 century B.C.E. Finkelstein's proposal that the
th
period of Chatzor begins only in the 9 century, would mean that only an extremely short
period can be attributed to each layer. Such an example "does not appeal to common sense"
(A. Ben-Tor, "Archaeologia-Mikra-Historia", in: Ha-Pulmus al ha-Emet ha-Historit ba-Mikra, p.
23). Finkelstein and Silverman's position is also questioned by other scholars; see A. Mazar,
p. 108.
[8]
Y. Hoffman, "Historia, Mitos, u-Politika," Ha-Pulmus al ha-Emet ha-Historit ba-Mikra, p. 31.
[9]
In these inscriptions he is called "Shoshenk." The identity of Shoshenk with Shishak is
universally accepted (see Finkelstein and Silverman, p. 70).
[10]
On the inscription and its significance see B. Mazar, Kena'an ve-Yisrael Mechkarim
Historiim, Jerusalem 5734, pp. 234-244; N. Na'aman, "Masa Shishak le-Eretz Yisrael be-Re'i
ha-Ketovot ha-Mitzriyot, ha-Mikra, ve-ha-Mimtza ha-Archeologi", Tzion 53, 5758, pp. 247-276.
For the relationship between Shishak's campaign and the biblical narrative, see Y.
Elitzur, Yisrael ve-ha-Mikra, p. 152-156.
[11]
Even Finkelstein and Silverman (p. 166) agree that this "fragment provides, perhaps, the
earliest corroboration between the external historical sources and the biblical account."
Nevertheless, they find it difficult to accept the reliability of the biblical narrative, even in this
context. 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), "Shoshenk's campaign could have been undertaken at
th
almost any time from the mid-10 century B.C.E. until its end, and not necessarily during the
rule of Rechavam" (David u-Shlomo, p. 72).
[12]
It seems that the main purpose of the inclusion of this story of Shishak is to show the
damage to the Temple, within a Sefer that comes to describe the process leading from the
building of the Temple to its destruction (see also A. Grossman, "Ha-Shimush be-Reka haHistori be-Hora'at Nevi'im Rishonim," Ma'ayanot 11 Hora'at ha-Mikra, Jerusalem 5746, pp.
292-294).
[13]
Finkelstein and Silverman (n. 16) refuse to accept the biblical record of Shishak having
sufficed with the plunder, without going up against Jerusalem. They write, "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, and is
therefore not included in the official list of cities that were conquered." It is difficult to
understand why this eminently reasonable hypothesis falls under the category of a "stubborn
striving". In any event, 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, sparse mountain village that would not have interested Shishak. We shall
address this point further later on.
[14]
A. Mazar, p. 108
[15]
The following paragraph is based on Meitlis, pp. 203-205, and see the sources cited in the
notes ad loc.
[16]
See A. Bornstein, "Ha-Im Nifredu Darkei ha-Archeologia u-Mekorot Tanakh? Al haVikuach he-'Chadash' al Mamlekhet David u-Shlomo, Talelei Orot 8, 5758-5759, p. 262.

*********************************************************
IN LOVING MEMORY OF
Jeffrey Paul Friedman
August 15, 1968 July 29, 2012
"

" " ' "
....
*********************************************************

Shiur #6i: Tanakh and Archaeology (continued)

H.

The Unified Kingdom

We shall now address the argument concerning the absence of

findings attesting to royal construction inJerusalem and Yehuda. On
this issue there have been significant developments in recent years.
Between 2007 and 2012, excavations were undertaken at Khirbet
Qeiyafa in the Ela Valley, by a team under the direction of Yosef
Garfinkel, Sa'ar Ganor, and Michael Hasel.[1]Upon a strategic hill at a
height of 325 meters, these archaeologists discovered the ruins of a
fortified city occupying an area of 23 dunams, surrounded by an
impressive casemate wall.[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.C.E. the period of David. In addition, further
discoveries have shown that the city was unquestionably an Israelite
not Philistine habitation:
a. No pig bones were found among the thousands of animal
bones found in the city, just as in the settlement villages, and in
contrast to Canaanite or Philistine towns.
b. Three rooms for religious ritual were discovered in the city,
containing gravestones, a basalt altar and libation vessels, but no
figurines depicting humans or animals were found. This contrasts
with Canaanite and Philistine ritual sites, where human and animal
figurines are usually found in abundance.
c. The city is surrounded by a casemate wall a double-wall with
the space in between partitioned into long, narrow rooms. The
houses adjacent to the wall include these rooms within themselves.
This sort of planning is familiar to us from other sites all within the
boundaries of the kingdom of Judea, while in the Canaanite and
Philistine cultures, a double-wall was not common.
d. The ceramic style is unique and characteristic of the Bronze
Period in Judea; it is different from the ceramic usually found at
Philistine sites.
e. Finally, one of the fascinating discoveries at the site was an
ostracon (an inscribed pottery shard) with five lines of protoCanaanite script. These lines include words that were almost
certainly written in Hebrew (there are verbs that are unique to the
Hebrew language),[3]representing the earliest evidence of an
inscription with content and meaning in this language.[4]

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, and that at the time of David's monarchy, fortified cities
already existed in Judea. 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, Jerusalem and Chevron arose from its position
on the main road from the coastal plain to those cities, and from its
position on the western border of the Israelite kingdom, facing the
Philistines.
These new findings have had a significant impact, and the
supporters of the "low chronology" have been hard-pressed to
explain them.[5] Efraim Stern, one of the most senior archaeologist
in Israel, summarizes as follows:
"Over the course of my lengthy involvement in the archaeology
of the Land of Israel, I have seen a great many 'fashions' that
arrived from different places; most survived for short periods of
time and then disappeared without a trace. It seems to me that
the approach of the 'minimalist chronology', with its harsh
historical conclusions, represents one such 'fashion'. I believe
that the sooner it disappears, the better, and the results of the
excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa are indeed aiding in this."[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.
In excavations undertaken at Tel Beit Shemesh, it became clear that
during the Bronze II period the city underwent significant changes,
including construction, fortification, a water reservoir, and a workshop
for metal processing:
"Thus, a 'view from the border' serves to establish that over the
course of the 10-9th centuries B.C.E. a central political entity
was consolidated in Jerusalem. Even if the archaeological
evidence of its existence at its seat of power is not yet
sufficiently clear, the traces of its activity in the periphery of the
area of its reign can tell us much about it."[7]
In fact, the situation is changing even inJerusalem itself. In
2005, Eilat Mazar, who heads the excavations in the City of David on
behalf of the HebrewUniversity's Institute for Archaeology,
discovered a large and impressive stone structure at the top of the
mound of the City of David, apparently the result of a unique

construction project of giant proportions.[8] Vessels discovered

beneath this structure are from the Bronze I period, while the later
additions to the structure have been dated, on the basis of the
ceramics, to the Bronze II period. 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.C.E. Mazar argues, on the basis of similar data, that
the famous stepped stone structure located in area G served as part
of the supporting wall for this great stone structure. All of this leads
her to argue that this is none other than thepalace of King David,
whose construction by Phoenician merchants is recorded in
the Tanakh,
"Chiram, king of Tyre, sent messengers to David, and cedar
trees, and carpenters, and masons, and they built David a
house" (Shmuel II 5:11)[9]
Mazar's findings are contested, 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 that
the building itself was also only built later, during the 9th century
B.C.E.[10]
Of course, it is entirely possible that these findings are only the
tip of the iceberg, and that many other discoveries in the future will
provide further evidence of the unified kingdom.[11] At the same time,
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 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, such that it is
difficult to find artifacts from the Bronze and Iron periods. It is
relatively easy to find artifacts from destroyed layers of cities, and this
explains why findings testifying to the destruction of
the Second Temple have been discovered. By contrast, no buildings
whatsoever have been found from the Persian or early Hellenistic
periods, even though no-one questions the existence of the city
during these times. Likewise, there are no findings from within the
city itself attesting to its existence during the much earlier period
the 14thcentury B.C.E. Most of the artifacts that have been
discovered in the City of David, from the Middle Bronze and Late
Bronze periods, were found on the eastern slope of the city an area
that was already abandoned by the Second Temple Period.

This applies not only to Jerusalem, but to the entire region

of Judea. Unlike Dan and Chatzor, which were almost completely
abandoned, and Megiddo, where construction during the Assyrian
period was scarce, the Judean cities also had continuous Jewish
settlement, in many cases lasting even through the Second Temple
Period.
Two further points should be noted in conclusion:
1. Throughout Sefer Shmuel, we find many descriptions of wars,
including their geographical and strategic aspects, attesting to
a high level of proficiency in this material on the part of the
author. It is very difficult to propose that an author during a
later period could have provided these descriptions of events,
field conditions, and roads which were sometimes far removed
from the areas where these books are assumed to have been
written (Jerusalem or Babylon).[13]
2. The fundamental argument of adherents of the "low
chronology" is that the narratives about David were created at
a later time, with a view to glorifying the founder of the
dynasty. This approach utterly ignores the simple fact that
there is no character who is criticized so closely and sharply
in Tanakh as David. 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,
Amnon and Tamar, 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.
J.

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. 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. 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. Many archaeological artifacts accord with the
biblical account, and these make it difficult to argue that the Books
of Tanakh were written much later than the events which they record.

At the same time, there is an undeniable lack of artifacts that

should be able to support the biblical account, and this phenomenon
may be interpreted in different ways: some scholars, taking as their
point of departure the assumption that the Books are later creations
and that they are characterized by a certain bias, view the lack of
artifacts as an expression of the lack of reliability of the biblical
account. 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, at most, as a phenomenon that has a logical explanation.
Our review has also revealed the transience of some central
theories in the world of archaeology. The Merneptah Stele is a proof
of utmost significance as to the existence at that time of an entity
known as "Israel", and "had it not been discovered, quite
coincidentally, the research on this subject would be in a completely
different situation to what it is today."[14]
Had the Dan Stele inscription not been discovered, some
twenty years ago, many scholars today would probably still deny the
existence of David and Shlomo, arguing that "no findings that confirm
their existence have yet been discovered." The amount of material
that has been excavated and studied is extremely small, relative to
what remains, and we must also take into consideration the fact that
in the most important regions, such as the City of David and the
Temple Mount, excavations are highly problematic if not altogether
impossible.
However, archaeology has contributed, and will continue to
contribute greatly to our understanding of and appreciation
of Tanakh. A walk through the sites where the stories of
the Tanakh took place, or standing before archeological findings from
that period, is a powerful and moving experience. Archaeological
research also influences and deepens our understanding of different
parts of Tanakh. Without the discoveries on the ground, it is doubtful
whether we would make the proper differentiation, for instance,
between the descriptions of settlement in Sefer Yehoshua and those
in Sefer Shoftim. In addition, archaeological findings have shed light
on the events described in the text, such as the campaign of Shishak
and the war against Mesha, king of Moav. It seems reasonable to
assume that further discoveries with ramifications for this sphere of
research still await us, and will continue to interest all those who hold
theTanakh dear.

Translated by Kaeren Fish

[1]

On the findings, see: H. Misgav, Y. Garfinkel and S. Ganor, "Ha-Ostrakon mi-Khirbet

Kiafa", Chiddushim be-Archeologia shel Yerushalayim u-Sevivata 3, 5770, pp. 111-123; Y.
Garfinkel, S. Ganor and M. Hasel, "Arba Onot Chafira Rishonot be-Churvat Kiyafa, Ir
Mevutzeret bi-Shefelat Yehud me-Reshit ha-Me'ah ha-10 Lifnei ha-Sefira", Kadmoniyot 141,
2011, pp. 2-12; Y. Garfinkel, "Hitpatchut ha-Ma'arakh ha-Yishuvi be-Mamlekhet Yehuda meReshit ve-ad Churban ha-Bayit ha-Rishon", Katedra 143, 5772, pp. 7-44; Y. Garfinkel , S.
Ganor and M. Hasel, Ikevot David ha-Melekh be-Emek ha-Ela, Tel Aviv 2012.
[2]
The wall displays an interesting phenomenon the presence of two gates. This led
Garfinkel and his associates to conclude that the city that they uncovered was the biblical
Sha'arayim. As proof of this they cite the appearance of this city in the description of the battle
between David and Goliat, which took place precisely in this region (Shmuel I 17:52). Some
have questioned this identification see, for example, Y. Ziv, "Khirbat Kiyafa Enena
'Sha'arayim'!", Kadmoniot 142, 2011, pp. 109-110. G. Galil, "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", in: A. Eyal, A. Levi-Reifer and A. Faust
(eds.), Chiddushim be-Chekker Yerushalayim ha-Kovetz ha-16, Ramat Gan 5771, pp. 2171.
[3]
The inscription is not clearly legible and is difficult to understand. One suggestion as to the
original text is proposed by G. Galil (n. 2 above); a more cautious proposal is offered by H.
Misgav, "Ostrakon mi-Churvat Keyafa", Kadmoniot 141, pp. 13-16. For more on the
inscription see A. Yardeni, "Ha-Ketovet mi-Churvat Keyafa",Chiddushim be-Archeologia shel
Yerushalayim u-Sevivata 3, 5770, pp. 124-125; A. Demsky, "Ha-Ketovet ha-Enigmatit miChurvat Keyafa: Tzuratah ve-Sugatah", ibid., pp. 126-129; S Achituv, "Ha-Ketovet mi-Churvat
Keyafa", ibid., pp. 130-132; Ikevot David ha-Melekh be-Emek ha-Elah, pp. 123-132.
[4]
The Izbet Sartah ostracon, discovered in the region of Rosh ha-Ayin, is dated even earlier,
to the period of the Judges, but its proto-Canaanite inscription consists only of the letters of
the alphabet, apparently as a reading exercise. For more on the ostracon see Y.
Finkelstein, Chafirot Izbet Sartah ve-ha-Hatnahalut ha-Yisraelit ba-Har, Tel Aviv, 5743. This
inscription, too, is of great importance, since it proves the existence of an ancient scribal
tradition, countering the claims of Naaman and others whose argument that biblical
historiographic literature was written hundreds of years after the events described is
based, inter alia, on the assumption that literacy in the earlier period was extremely rare. On
this argument see A. Demsky, Yedi'at Sefer be-Yisrael be-Et ha-Atika, Jerusalem 5772, pp.
28-33.
[5]
N. Naaman, "Khirbet Keyafa ve-ha-Maavak bein Pelishtim le-Kena'anim bi-Tekufat haBarzel ha-Keduma bi-Derom ha-Aretz",Katedra 143, 5772, pp. 65-92, argues that the
inhabitants of Khirbet Qeiyafa were Canaanites and not Israelites. He proposes that they
refrained from eating pork as a way of distinguishing themselves from the Philistines, and that
the ostracon discovered on site was inscribed in an as-yet unidentified dialect of protoCanaanite. For a discussion of the attempts by adherents of the school of "low chronology" to
deal with the findings at Khirbet Qeiyafa, see A. Shtull-Trauring, "The Keys to the Kingdom",
Haaretz, April 21, 2012http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/the-keys-to-the-kingdom1.360222.
The article also provides an interesting description of the internal power struggles within
archaeological circles, and principally between the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (with
which Garfinkel is associated) and Tel Aviv University (the academic home of Naaman and
Finkelstein). This description illustrates the extent to which issues with no bearing whatsoever
on science and objective truth become involved in the discussion. Garfinkel, Ganor and Hasel
(Ikevot David ha-Melekh be-Emek ha-Ela), pp. 49-50, describe the criticism with the following
words:
"All of the writers are from Tel Aviv University, which is today a hothouse for
flourishing minimalism. Why have no critical articles been penned to date by scholars
based in London,Paris, or New York?... The original minimalist approach was a

consolidated world-view, which argued that the ancient history of the Jewish People
must be written only on the basis of extra-biblical data. All the approaches that came
later are simply patchwork additions that try desperately to solve difficulties which
the earlier paradigm is incapable of addressing. These patchwork solutions are not
the fruit of real research, in which data are gathered and examined with a view to
reaching well-founded conclusions, but rather weak alternatives that run counter to
logic, 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."
It should be noted that it is specifically the minimalists, who do not necessarily declare
the Tanakh to be unreliable, but rather build their archaeological picture on the basis of actual
findings (or lack thereof), who should have the easiest time changing their position once new
findings appear. Surprisingly, however, they treat them with a suspicion that goes beyond the
accepted archaeological norm all of which calls their motives into question.
[6]
Editorial in Kadmoniot 141, p. 1
[7]
S. Bonimowitz and Z. Lederman, "Yerushalayim u-Beit Shemesh: Bein Birah u-Gevulah",
in: A. Barukh and A. Faust (eds.), Chiddushim be-Chekker Yerushalayim ha-Kovetz haAsiri, Ramat Gan 5765, p. 45.
[8]
See E. Mazar, Armon ha-Melekh David ha-Chafirot be-Rosh Giv'at Ir David, Jerusalem
2009, pp. 39-58.
[9]
Prior to the discovery of the large stone structure, A. Mazar had argued (p. 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). To this view, too, the finding from the City
of David accords with the biblical account of the conquest ofJerusalem.
[10]
Finkelstein and Silverman, p. 248.
[11]
For more findings supporting Jerusalem's status as a significant city during the period of
the unified kingdom, see G. Kahil, "Tekufat ha-Mamlakha ha-Meuchedet: ha-Edut haArcheologit", in: A. Faust and A. Barukh (eds.), Chiddushim be-Chekker Yerushalayim haKovetz ha-Shevi'i, Ramat Gan 5762, pp. 21-27; A. de Garotte, "Ha-Ir ha-Ne'elama' shel haMea ha-Asirit Lifnei ha-Sefira, ibid., pp. 29-34.
[12]
See Meitlis, pp. 206-214; M. Garsiel, "Shelavei Chibburo shel Sefer Shmuel", Beit
Mikra 54, 2, esp. pp. 46-48.
[13]
See Garsiel, pp. 34-35, and his notes ad loc.
[14]
J. Hoffman, Historia, Mythos vPolitika, in Y.L. Levine and A. Mazar, HaPulmus al
HaEmet vHistoria BMikra, Jerusalem 5761 pp31-32.