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 in-depth 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 head-on 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 world-view 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 well-known 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 ha-torah 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 27:4-5:

"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; Theodor-Albeck 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 Ha-yamim (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 the 12th century, see A. Weisel, Ha-Perush ha-Meyuchas le-Rashi le-Sefer Divrei Ha-yamim, 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 of these details do, however, appear in Vayikra (23:33-43).[1] 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 Moshe.[2]

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

way as to indicate a clear connection to verses throughout the Torah.[3] 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" (Bereishit 1:2).[4]

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,

much attention has been devoted to the literary parallels in Tanakh.[5] 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 the story of Yaakov's marriage to Rachel.[6] 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 interpretation,[7] 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 of Yehuda and Tamar.[8] 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 Torah.[9] 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' (Yirmiyahu36:18)." (Sifrei, Devarim piska 357; and see Bava Batra 15a)[10]

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 end of the fortieth year."[11]

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 commandments.[12] 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" (Bamidbar 33:2).[13] 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 Torah was complete. It is interesting to note that according to the French 13th 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

Torah.[14] 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

from antiquity, and was later included in whole or in part[15] 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-ha-Megamot 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, 'va-yemal'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 be-Aspaklariya 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 Moshe received at Sinai. (This represents the view of the 16th 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. Moshe's involvement in the writing of the Torah

I. 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 va-chomer, 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 ha-shamayim) 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[5] in his commentary on the Torah. For example, the commentators discuss Yaakov's instructions to the messengers who carry his gift to Esav:

"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 ha-Gadol (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 le-Rabbi 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] One of the greatest of the commentators on the midrash; Vilna, 19th 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 la-Torah, 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 12th 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 ha-Tosafot, vol. 1, Jerusalem 5714, pp. 132-140). [6] For more on Rabbi Yosef Bekhor Shor's approach, see R. Harris, "Muda'ut le-Arikhat ha-Mikra Etzel Parshanei Tzefon Tzarfat,Shenaton le-Cheker ha-Mikra ve-ha-Mizrach ha-Kadum 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 ha-gevul) 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 be-Sifrut ha-Talmud, be-Lashon Chazal, u-ve-Parshanut ha-Mikra, Tel Aviv 5743, pp. 221-223. [11] This midrash was compiled in the 11th 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. From "Eight Verses" to "the Secret of the Twelve"

I. 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 of rational considerations within the context of Tanakh study.

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, concerni