<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
    <channel>
        <title>TheTorah.com</title>
        <link>https://www.thetorah.com/</link>
        <description>Torah study informed and enriched by contemporary scholarship. The tools and insights of academic biblical scholarship deepen our engagement with Torah as a living text in a modern world.</description>
        <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2025 07:08:28 GMT</lastBuildDate>
        <docs>https://validator.w3.org/feed/docs/rss2.html</docs>
        <generator>BagelStudio</generator>
        
        <copyright>Copyright © 2025 Project TABS, All Rights Reserved</copyright>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[The Covenant of the Pieces: A Promise for All Generations?]]></title>
            <link>https://thetorah.com/article/the-covenant-of-the-pieces-a-promise-for-all-generations</link>
            <guid>https://thetorah.com/article/the-covenant-of-the-pieces-a-promise-for-all-generations</guid>
            <pubDate>Thu, 07 Nov 2024 16:21:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[After Abram expresses doubt that Sarai will have children and questions how he can be sure his descendants will inherit the land, YHWH establishes the Covenant of the Pieces, lasting 400 years, extending through Israel&rsquo;s time in Egypt up to their entry into the land. Does this covenant hold lasting significance for later generations, or is it replaced by God&rsquo;s &ldquo;everlasting&rdquo; Covenant of Circumcision?]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[In Genesis, God establishes two covenants with Abraham. The first is Berit Bein ha-Betarim, &ldquo;the Covenant of the Pieces&rdquo; (Gen 15), and the second is Berit Mila, &ldquo;the Covenant of Circumcision&rdquo; (Gen 17). Although only a single chapter separates the two, there is at least a fourteen-year gap between them,[1] and they are very different from each other.
The Covenant of Circumcision requires Abraham and all future descendants to circumcize all males of the community. In turn, God promises to make Abraham the progenitor of many nations and to be the God of Abraham&rsquo;s descendants. This is לְדֹרֹתָם לִבְרִית עוֹלָם, &ldquo;an everlasting covenant throughout the ages&rdquo; (Gen 17:7).
The Covenant of the Pieces
By contrast, the Covenant of the Pieces is completely one-sided. God promises Abram progeny and land, but Abram does not have to do anything actively to fulfill his part of the covenant. It is, as Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik (1903&ndash;1993) describes, a covenant of fate,[2] what will happen to him and his offspring.
At the same time, the way the story is presented, it appears that YHWH only offers Abram this covenant as a response to his doubts.[3] YHWH had previously promised Abram land and progeny (Gen 13:14&ndash;16).[4] When the account of the Covenant of the Pieces opens, YHWH begins to make another promise to Abram:
בראשׁית טו:א אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה הָיָה דְבַר יְ־הוָה אֶל אַבְרָם בַּמַּחֲזֶה לֵאמֹר אַל תִּירָא אַבְרָם אָנֹכִי מָגֵן לָךְ שְׂכָרְךָ הַרְבֵּה מְאֹד.
Gen 15:1 Some time later, the word of YHWH came to Abram in a vision. He said, &ldquo;Fear not, Abram, I am a shield to you; your reward shall be very great.&rdquo;
Abram&rsquo;s First Interruption
Abram, however, is so concerned that Sarai has not yet had a child that he interrupts YHWH to express doubt, despite the existence of prior promises:
&rlm;בראשׁית טו:ב וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם אֲדֹנָי יֱ־הוִה מַה תִּתֶּן לִי וְאָנֹכִי הוֹלֵךְ עֲרִירִי.... טו:ג וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם הֵן לִי לֹא נָתַתָּה זָרַע וְהִנֵּה בֶן בֵּיתִי יוֹרֵשׁ אֹתִי.
Gen 15:2 But Abram said, &ldquo;O Lord YHWH, what can you give me seeing that I shall die childless&hellip;?&rdquo; 15:3 Abram further said, &ldquo;Behold, you have granted me no offspring and my steward will be my heir.&rdquo;
YHWH immediately reassures Abram (v.4) and responds:
בראשׁית טו:ה וַיּוֹצֵא אֹתוֹ הַחוּצָה וַיֹּאמֶר הַבֶּט נָא הַשָּׁמַיְמָה וּסְפֹר הַכּוֹכָבִים אִם תּוּכַל לִסְפֹּר אֹתָם וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ כֹּה יִהְיֶה זַרְעֶךָ.
Gen 15:5 He took him outside and said, &ldquo;Look toward heaven and count the stars, if you are able to count them.&rdquo; And He added, &ldquo;So shall your offspring be.&rdquo;
After crediting Abram with trusting YHWH (v. 6), YHWH continues the promise He had intended to make Abram:
בראשׁית טו:ז וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אֲנִי יְ־הוָה אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִיךָ מֵאוּר כַּשְׂדִּים לָתֶת לְךָ אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת לְרִשְׁתָּהּ.
Gen 15:7 Then He said to him, &ldquo;I am YHWH who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to assign this land to you as a possession.&rdquo;
Abram&rsquo;s Second Interruption
Before YHWH can conclude his new promise with a listing of the peoples whose lands Abram will possess (v. 19),[5] Abram again interrupts Him:
בראשׁית טו:ח וַיֹּאמַר אֲדֹנָי יֱ־הוִה בַּמָּה אֵדַע כִּי אִירָשֶׁנָּה.
Gen 15:8 And he said, &ldquo;O Lord YHWH, how shall I know that I am to possess it?&rdquo;
At this point, YHWH decides to give this promise the weight of a covenant by adding a ritual act. He first instructs Abram to cut in two several animals (v. 9). After Abram complies, a deep sleep falls upon him, during which YHWH tells him that his descendants one day will suffer enslavement in a foreign land:
בראשׁית טו:יג וַיֹּאמֶר לְאַבְרָם יָדֹעַ תֵּדַע כִּי גֵר יִהְיֶה זַרְעֲךָ בְּאֶרֶץ לֹא לָהֶם וַעֲבָדוּם וְעִנּוּ אֹתָם אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה.
Gen 15:13 And He said to Abram, &ldquo;Know well that your offspring shall be strangers in a land not theirs , and they shall be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years.&rdquo;
Only after these 400 years of exile will YHWH bring the Israelites back to the land to possess it:
&rlm;בראשׁית טו:יד וְגַם אֶת הַגּוֹי אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹדוּ דָּן אָנֹכִי וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן יֵצְאוּ בִּרְכֻשׁ גָּדוֹל. טו:טז וְדוֹר רְבִיעִי יָשׁוּבוּ הֵנָּה כִּי לֹא שָׁלֵם עֲוֹן הָאֱמֹרִי עַד הֵנָּה.
Gen 15:14 But I will execute judgment on the nation they shall serve, and in the end they shall go free with great wealth&hellip; 15:16 And they shall return here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.[6]
This covenant is not a step forward in Abram&rsquo;s relationship with YHWH, but YHWH&rsquo;s reworking of prior promises to adjust for Abram&rsquo;s doubts. In fact, some Talmudic opinions suggest that the extended period of slavery and oppression for the Israelites is punishment for Abram&rsquo;s question:
בבלי נדרים לב. אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִפְּנֵי מָה נֶעֱנַשׁ אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ וְנִשְׁתַּעְבְּדוּ בָּנָיו לְמִצְרַיִם מָאתַיִם וְעֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים...
b. Nedarim 32a Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Elazar said: For what reason was Abraham our Patriarch punished, and his children enslaved to Egypt for 210 years?...
וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִפְרִיז עַל מִדּוֹתָיו שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בַּמָּה אֵדַע כִּי אִירָשֶׁנָּה״ (בראשית טו:ח).
And Shmuel said: Because he greatly examined [hifriz] the characteristics of the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is stated: &ldquo;Whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?&rdquo; (Genesis 15:8).[7]
The Covenant of the Pieces has a limited lifespan: It will last for four hundred years and will achieve its fulfillment when YHWH brings Abram&rsquo;s descendants into the land He promised and gives it to them. Indeed, Rashbam (R. Samuel ben Meir, ca. 1085&ndash;1158) connects God&rsquo;s remembering of his promise in Exodus with this promise in particular:
רשב"ם שמות ב:כד "ויזכר אלהים את בריתו" &ndash; שנשבע לשלשתם לתת להם את ארץ כנען (שמות ו:ד), ועתה נתקרב הזמן של ד' מאות שנה שאמר לאברהם.
Rashbam Exod 2:24 &ldquo;God remembered his covenant&rdquo;&mdash;that he had sworn to the three forefathers to give them the land of Canaan. And now the four hundred years that were mentioned to Abraham were about to elapse.[8]
Abram&rsquo;s Covenant Applies to Later Generations
Extending this covenant beyond its original 400-year term, Genesis Rabbah (mid-1st millennium C.E.) interprets the animals that Abram takes[9] as representing four kingdoms that had subjugated Israel:
בראשית רבה (תיאודור-אלבק) מד ד[בר] א[חר]: "קחה לי עגלה משולשת"&mdash;זו בבל שמעמדת שלשה נבוכדנצר ואויל מרודך ובלשצר. "ועז משולשת"&mdash;זו מדי שמעמדת שלשה כורש ודריוש ואחשוירוש. "ואיל משולש"&mdash;זו יוון....
Gen Rab 44 &ldquo;Take for me Eglah (calf) meshuleshet&rdquo;[10] this is Babylon, which had three kings &ndash; Nevukhadnezzar, Evil Merodakh, and Belshatzar. &ldquo;Ez (goat) meshuleshet&rdquo; refers to Media, which had three kings&mdash;Cyrus, Darius, and Achasveirosh. &ldquo;Ayil (ram) meshulash&rdquo; refers to Greece&hellip;[11]
The Bird Is Rome
בראשית רבה (תיאודור-אלבק) מד "ותור וגוזל"&mdash;זו אדום תור הוא אלא גוזלני.
Gen Rab 44 &ldquo;The turtledove and the young bird&rdquo;&mdash;[Hebrew: gozal] refer to Edom [i.e., Rome], it is a bird, but it steals [playing on the Hebrew gozal (young bird) which sounds like gezel (theft)].
Thus, despite the Torah&rsquo;s limitation of the Covenant of the Pieces to the period from Abram to the conquest of the land, Genesis Rabbah interprets the enslavement of Israel as hinting at later exiles as well.
The Bird Is the Muslim Empire
Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer (late first millennium C.E.) further imagines the covenant to be saying that, like the Egyptians, those who subjugate Israel will meet their own fate and disappear. Given the late date of this midrash, it adds the Muslim (Yishmaelite) empire:
פרקי דרבי אליעזר כח רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: הֶרְאָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְאַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ בֵּין הַבְּתָרִים מַלְכֻיּוֹת מוֹשְׁלִין וְאוֹבְדִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: "וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו קְחָה לִי עֶגְלָה מְשֻׁלֶּשֶׁת"&mdash;זוֹ מַלְכוּת רְבִיעִית שֶׁהִיא מַלְכוּת אֱדוֹם שֶׁהִיא כְּעֶגְלָה דָשָׁה. "וְעֵז מְשֻׁלֶּשֶׁת"&mdash;זוֹ מַלְכוּת יָוָן... "וְאַיִל מְשֻׁלָּשׁ"&mdash;זוֹ מַלְכוּת מָדַי וּפָרָס. "וְתֹר"&mdash;אֵלּוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.... "וְגוֹזָל"&mdash;אֵלּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל...
Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer 28 R. Akiva says: In Berit Bein ha-Betarim, the Holy One, Blessed be He, showed Abraham our Patriarch the empires which would dominate [Abraham&rsquo;s descendants] but afterwards disappear, as it says &ldquo;take a three year old calf&rdquo;&mdash;the calf refers to the fourth empire, Edom [Rome], for it tramples like a calf. The goat refers to the empire of idol-worshipers [the Greeks?]... The ram refers to the kingdom of Persia and Media... The turtledove is the Yishmaelites&hellip; The small bird is Israel&hellip;[12]
Moreover, by cutting the animals that represent the nations, Abraham sufficiently weakens them, causing their eventual decline:
פרקי דרבי אליעזר כח רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: לָקַח אַבְרָהָם חַרְבּוֹ וּבִתֵּר אוֹתָם כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד לִשְׁנַיִם... אִלּוּלֵי לֹא בִתֵּר אַבְרָהָם לֹא הָיָה הָעוֹלָם יָכוֹל לַעֲמֹד, הוֹאִיל וּבִתֵּר אוֹתָם הִתִּישׁ אֶת כֹּחָם.
Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer 28 R. Yehoshua says: Abraham took his sword and sliced each one of them in two.&hellip; Had Abraham not split those animals the world would not have survived [their reigns]. Once he split [the animals] he weakened [the nations]&hellip;.
The Bird Is Israel
Rashi (Rabbi Solomon b. Isaac; 1040&ndash;1105) builds on these midrashim, explicitly painting the bird, which is not split, as Israel, which will never disappear:
רש״י בראשית טו:י לְפִי שֶׁהָאֻמּוֹת נִמְשְׁלוּ לְפָרִים וְאֵילִים וּשְֹעִירִים..., וְיִשְֹרָאֵל נִמְשְׁלוּ לִבְנֵי יוֹנָה..., לְפִיכָךְ בִּתֵּר הַבְּהֵמוֹת, רֶמֶז שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הָאֻמּוֹת כָּלִים וְהוֹלְכִים, ״ואת הצפור לא בתר,״ רֶמֶז שֶׁיִּהְיוּ יִשְֹרָאֵל קַיָּמִין לְעוֹלָם.
Rashi Gen 15:10 Since the nations of the world are compared to bulls and rams and goats&hellip;, while Israel is compared to a young dove&hellip;, he split the animals, hinting that the nations would be destroyed and disappear, but the bird he did not split, since they [Israel] will continue eternally.
This metaphorical reading is consonant with Rashi&rsquo;s encouragement of his fellow Jews that despite the difficulties&mdash;both physical and spiritual&mdash;that they were enduring in Christian-Crusader Ashkenaz, that God loves them eternally.[13]
The Haggadah: A Covenant for All Generations
The most extreme version of this shift in understanding the Covenant of the Pieces is found in a source which appears in the Haggadah. It begins:
בָּרוּךְ שׁוֹמֵר הַבְטָחָתוֹ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, בָּרוּךְ הוּא. שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא חִשַּׁב אֶת־הַקֵּץ, לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶּׁאָמַר לְאַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ בִּבְרִית בֵּין הַבְּתָרִים....
Blessed is the One who has kept His promise to Israel&mdash;blessed is He. For the Holy One calculated the end [of the Egyptian enslavement] and fulfilled what He had spoken to our father Abraham in the Covenant between the Pieces&hellip;.[14]
Unlike the midrashim and Rashi, which expand God&rsquo;s promise to two, three, or four specific empires, the geonic author of this passage generalizes the covenant to include that God will save Israel from any force in any generation which threatens it:
וְהִיא שֶׁעָמְדָה לַאֲבוֹתֵינוּ וְלָנוּ. שֶׁלֹּא אֶחָד בִּלְבָד עָמַד עָלֵינוּ לְכַלּוֹתֵנוּ, אֶלָּא שֶׁבְּכָל דּוֹר וָדוֹר עוֹמְדִים עָלֵינוּ לְכַלּוֹתֵנוּ, וְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַצִּילֵנוּ מִיָּדָם.
And this [promise] (the Covenant of the Pieces) is what has stood by our ancestors and us; for it was not only one man who rose up to destroy us, rather, in every single generation people rise up to destroy us&mdash;but the Hoy One, Blessed be He, saves us from their hands.
It is this interpretation, which has become the most popularized through its inclusion in the Haggadah, one of the most beloved texts in Jewish tradition.
Dialing the Covenant Back
With the Emancipation (18th/19th cent.) came a sense that the era of Jewish alienation and persecution was coming to an end, and a new era of acceptance of Jews into mainstream society was dawning. Beginning with R. Naftali Hertz Wessely (1725&ndash;1805), an important figure in Jewish eduction, who worked together with Mendelssohn on his Beur (commentary on the Torah), and continuing through R. David Zvi Hoffmann (1843&ndash;1921), a Bible and Talmud scholar who headed the Rabbinical Seminary of Berlin, the Covenant of the Pieces was often interpreted based on its literary context, thereby restoring its original, limited scope:
וויזל בראשית טו:ט ולפי הפשט נראה לי ששלשה מיני בהמות טהורות רומזים לשלשה האבות אברהם יצחק ויעקב, שעמהן נכרת הברית.[15]
Wessely Gen 15:9 According to the simple reading, it seems to me that three pure animals alude to the three patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with whom the covenant was made.
הופמן בראשית טו:ט וייתכן שפרט זה בא כדי לסמל את עם ישראל בתקופה הרביעית, כאשר מושלם יהיה, לאחר שקדמו לו שלושת האבות הראשונים &mdash; אברהם, יצחק ויעקב.[16]
Hoffmann Gen 15:9 It would seem that this detail (the three years of age) came to symbolize the people of Israel in the fourth period, when they were ready (to become a nation?), after the three patriarchs preceded them&mdash;Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Hoffmann offers an alternative explanation understanding the three as referring to the number not age of the animals:
הופמן בראשית טו:ט וגם ייתכן, כי שלוש הבהמות באות לסמל את שלושת הדורות הראשונים, שלא סבלו מן השיעבוד, ואילו תור וגוזל מסמלים את הדור הרביעי, אשר אמנם שועבד;
Hoffmann Gen 15:9 But it would also seem that the three animals come to symbolize the three first generations [in Egypt], who did not suffer enslavement (which only began with the Pharaoh preceding the exodus), and the turtledove and chick symbolize the fourth generation, which did suffer enslavement.
Both Hoffmann and Wessely limiting the covenant to past generations, highlighting the sense that Jews are no longer under persistent attack and that God does not need to perpetually swoop in to save them.
Abram&rsquo;s First Covenant Is Not Overshadowed
In Abram&rsquo;s story, the limited Covenant of the Pieces appears to be eclipsed, two chapters later, by the Covenant of Circumcision, which is everlasting, demands commitment, and promises an eternal relationship between YHWH and Abraham&rsquo;s descendants. The reinterpretations of the Covenant of the Pieces, however, have ensured that it has not been overshadowed. They not only match the zeitgeist of the times and places in which they were written, but shape the very notion of Abram&rsquo;s first covenant with God.
Moreover, despite 19th century attempts to limit the Covenant of the Pieces to the originally intended patriarchs, the Hagadah&rsquo;s application to all generations retains a place in Jewish consciousness.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure url="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b8fd783bee52c8fb59b1fac/672cc9d3d375a1f386772b2c_The%2520Covenant%2520of%2520the%2520Pieces%2520A%2520Promise%2520for%2520All%2520Generations.jpeg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Israel Will Be as Numerous as the Stars: But There Are Only 1022 Stars!]]></title>
            <link>https://thetorah.com/article/israel-will-be-as-numerous-as-the-stars-but-there-are-only-1022-stars</link>
            <guid>https://thetorah.com/article/israel-will-be-as-numerous-as-the-stars-but-there-are-only-1022-stars</guid>
            <pubDate>Thu, 07 Nov 2024 15:14:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[God promises Abram that his descendants will be as numerous as the stars of the sky, assumed to be uncountable. In 10th century Baghdad, scholars were well-versed in Ptolemy&rsquo;s Greek astronomy, including his official limited count of stars. This challenged the Karaite Jewish exegete Ya&lsquo;qub al-Qirqisani to reinterpret the meaning of God&rsquo;s promise.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[After the war with the four kings, Abram expresses his concern to YHWH about having no heir:
בראשית טו:ג וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם הֵן לִי לֹא נָתַתָּה זָרַע וְהִנֵּה בֶן בֵּיתִי יוֹרֵשׁ אֹתִי.
Gen 15:3 Abram said, &ldquo;But You have granted me no offspring, so my steward will be my heir.&rdquo;
YHWH responds with a promise that Abram&rsquo;s steward will not be the one to inherit him, and to make the point stronger, he has Abram go outside and look up at the stars:
בראשית טו:ה וַיּוֹצֵא אֹתוֹ הַחוּצָה וַיֹּאמֶר הַבֶּט נָא הַשָּׁמַיְמָה וּסְפֹר הַכּוֹכָבִים אִם תּוּכַל לִסְפֹּר אֹתָם וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ כֹּה יִהְיֶה זַרְעֶךָ.
Gen 15:5 He (YHWH) took him (Abram) outside and said, &ldquo;Look toward heaven and count the stars, if you are able to count them.&rdquo; And He added, &ldquo;So shall your offspring be.&rdquo;
YHWH later reiterates this promise with a comparison to the sand of the seashores:
בראשית כב:יז כִּי בָרֵךְ אֲבָרֶכְךָ וְהַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה אֶת זַרְעֲךָ כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם וְכַחוֹל אֲשֶׁר עַל שְׂפַת הַיָּם....
Gen 22:17 I will bestow My blessing upon you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars of heaven and the sands on the seashore&hellip;.
When Jacob, in fear of Esau, prays to YHWH and reminds YHWH of the blessing at Bethel (Gen 28:14), Jacob makes it clear that his understanding was that sand is uncountable:
בראשית לב:יג וְאַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ הֵיטֵב אֵיטִיב עִמָּךְ וְשַׂמְתִּי אֶת זַרְעֲךָ כְּחוֹל הַיָּם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִסָּפֵר מֵרֹב.
Gen 32:13 &ldquo;Yet You have said, &lsquo;I will deal bountifully with you and make your offspring as the sands of the sea, which are too numerous to count.&rsquo;&rdquo;
By comparing the number of Abraham&rsquo;s descendants to stars, YHWH is assuring him that not only will Abram not remain &ldquo;childless,&rdquo; but in reality, he will be the father of descendants too numerous to count&mdash;like the stars of the heaven and the sands of the seashore.
Al-Qirqisani: But There Are Only 1022 Stars
Ya&lsquo;qub al-Qirqisani, a Karaite Jewish scholar writing in Baghdad in the first third of the tenth century, notes in his Judeo-Arabic commentary on Genesis that contemporaneous astronomy has demonstrated that only a finite amount of stars appear in the sky:[1]
If someone asks: The mathematicians, specifically, the astronomers, discuss the form of the heavenly orb and clarify it via geometrical proofs that are established by the intellect and the senses. They have stated that the stars in the heavens total one thousand and twenty-two stars. The senses also make this determination, for one who examines the heavens thoroughly does not see more than one hundred stars in a hemisphere at the same time.
One should not accept what the simple folk imagine, which is that there exist an uncountable number of stars, due to distance and intermixing of the rays of light (issuing from the stars). Rather, the matter is as these people [= the astronomers] have stated and according to what is required and attested to by people drawing on intellect.
In the late classical and medieval periods, the pre-eminent work on stars was Claudius Ptolemy&rsquo;s Greek Mathematical Treatise,[2] also known as the Great or Greatest Treatise; Ptolemy wrote in 2nd century C.E. Alexandria, Egypt. Centuries before Hans Lipperhey and Galileo Galilei invented the telescope (17th cent.), and Heber Curtis and Henrietta Leavitt discovered that the universe was made up of multiple galaxies (20th cent.), Ptolemy counted the stars in the sky and declared that the sum total is 1,022.
As al-Qirqisani explains, reading such a conclusion into the Torah raises difficult issues for the provocative divine promise as formulated to Abram. The verse implies, he notes, that the stars are infinite in number, or at least uncountable by human standards, and as he will note, the same problem inheres in the speech of Moses in Deuteronomy:
דברים א:י יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם הִרְבָּה אֶתְכֶם וְהִנְּכֶם הַיּוֹם כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם לָרֹב.
Deut 1:10 YHWH your God has multiplied you until you are today as numerous as the stars in the sky.
Al-Qirqisani queries how the finite number of stars that is common astronomical knowledge in his time can coexist with a commitment to the validity of verses like that in Genesis and Deuteronomy:
Given that this is the case, and that our Book is valid from all points of view, and given that two valid things [= statements] may not negate or contradict each other - then is it not the case that the scriptural verses (Gen 15:5), &ldquo;Look toward heaven and count the stars, if you are able to count them&rdquo; and &ldquo;so shall your offspring be&rdquo; contradict the statement that the stars of the sky total one thousand and twenty-two? Likewise (Deut 1:10), &ldquo;And you are today as numerous as the stars in the sky,&rdquo; when they were at that time something close to six hundred thousand (men) of twenty years old and up, and likely the same number of those under twenty (years).
In comparing the Israelite numbers and the stars of the sky, the Torah makes it clear that divine promises regarding fecundity are premised on the stars being innumerable. Stating that &ldquo;two valid things may not negate or contradict each other,&rdquo; al-Qirqisani interrogates the contradiction, seeking to remain faithful to the scientific works available in Arabic in the vibrant intellectual center that was Baghdad, but no less so, to the Torah which for him, as a Karaite Jew, was sacred in its every word.
The Stars in the Milky Way are Possibly Infinite
Al-Qirqisani bases his response on more astronomy: the stars called uncountable, he argues, likely refer to the Milky Way, which consists of &ldquo;small stars with little light, numerous, and close together.&rdquo; That is, it is indeed true that the total of stars observable and measurable in the heavens is one thousand and twenty-two, but the Milky Way contains a seemingly infinite number of stars, and this specifically is what the Bible refers to in its metaphor.[3]
Greek Science and Philosophy, in Arabic
Why, though, does this question arise for the first time in Jewish Bible exegesis, in Judeo-Arabic and in Baghdad? Why, in tenth-century Baghdad, did al-Qirqisani take it for granted that his audience of readers would be interested in a question premised on knowledge from the al-Magest (&ldquo;The Great&rdquo;), the Arabic translation of Claudius Ptolemy&rsquo;s Great (Megistē) Treatise, written seven centuries earlier? The reason a Jewish commentator in Baghdad was the first to introduce the limited-number-of-stars problem has to do with how the spread of Arabic and Islamic governance fundamentally changed what Jewish scholars &ndash; and their readership &ndash; considered basic and essential knowledge.
During the course of the seventh century, conquests by the Islamic armies emerging from the Arabian Peninsula had toppled the vast and ancient Greek- and Persian-speaking empires in the Near East. By 711 these armies had extended Muslim rule all the way from North Africa in the West to the borders of India in the East.
These political changes brought on sweeping linguistic change in the Near East, North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula. Prior to the sixth century, the Arabic language had been spoken in relatively circumscribed areas including the Arabian Peninsula and perhaps on its northern borders. With the Muslim conquests of the seventh and early eighth centuries, the Arabic language soon became the lingua franca of many areas of the region, and of the varied religious and ethnic communities living within it.
But Arabic was not only a language for daily communication in the Near East. It had become the foundation of a new &ndash; or renewed &ndash; intellectual community. At the behest of the &lsquo;Abbasid rulers of the eighth century, ruling from their newly-established capital in Baghdad, books of a wide variety of genres had been translated into Arabic from their original Greek, Syriac, Persian and even Sanskrit. These genres included philosophy, medicine, geography, astronomy, and more.
The Abbasids sponsored these translations for political as well as intellectual reasons; they had interest in materials that would help them establish their authority over broad geographic areas and over diverse ethnic and religious groups.[4] These translations, though, revolutionized the Arabic literary sphere, and led to an intellectual efflorescence in the urban centers of the Near East.
Judeo-Arabic Education
The Jewish communities of this region were active participants in this intellectual revolution. These communities represented the majority of the Jews in the world, and they appear in sources from about the second half of the ninth century to be native Arabic speakers, most comfortable in that language.
Acquiring Arabic as a spoken language, and increasingly, a language that they could read, meant that Jewish scholars as well as the educated laypeople became part of a cosmopolitan and international world of learning in Arabic, which is often referred to as &ldquo;Islamicate,&rdquo; a term coined by the historian Marshall G. S. Hodgson. These sources, made available as part of the &lsquo;Abbasid translation movement, enabled access to a wealth of sources which had previously been inaccessible to Jewish communities.
Judeo-Arabic Works, Including Bible Commentary
Arabic, furthermore, was not only a language for everyday communication and for reading. Over the course of the ninth century, Arabic gradually gained acceptance as a language in which Jewish scholars would compose their works. The traditional world of the Babylonian yeshivot, as well as the newly flourishing Karaite centers of study in Baghdad, Jerusalem and Fustat, became powerhouses of Jewish composition in Arabic.[5]
Jewish scholars read, it seems, everything they could in Arabic, and they also began to write in Arabic, innovating numerous new genres of writing, and including new types of discussions and points of view in those works. Their writing was at one traditional and innovative, incorporating views from earlier bodies of Jewish tradition, but melding these with the new subjects and points of view they found in contemporaneous Arabic literature.
The field of Bible exegesis was one of the fields that flourished among Jews in the new Arabic intellectual environment. By the late ninth century, Jewish scholars composed their exegesis in the form known as Judeo-Arabic, a means of writing the Arabic language that was often in Hebrew letters. This genre was an amalgam: While some of the questions asked about the Bible, and some of the answers given, were traditional and identifiable from earlier sources, much was new. Bible commentaries were structured in a new verse-by-verse method; they were composed by individual authors who asserted their authorship of their work; and many dimensions of their contents were dizzyingly new.
It is in this Arabophone intellectual context, in which Jews were native and active participants, that the contradiction between the Ptolemaic star count and the biblical verses about uncountable stars first arose.
The fact that this specific question arises among Jewish scholars in the Arabic-speaking period, and that it did not arise in earlier Greek-speaking contexts, in which Ptolemy would have been known at least to some degree, underscores a more general point: The deep and long-lasting involvement of large numbers of Jewish scholars in the Arabic-Islamicate intellectual environment is an unparalleled phenomenon in other &ldquo;Jewish languages&rdquo; (ex: Yiddish and Ladino), and was unparalleled in Jewish history until the modern era.
Why Command Abram to Count the Uncountable Stars of the Milky Way?
Al-Qirqisani&rsquo;s lengthy astronomical discussion brings him to question why, if the stars of the Milky Way are indeed uncountable, why does God even suggest to Abraham that he count them:
Now we will return to mention an objection that was raised to the first issue, which is that someone may say, If the number of the stars and counting them is impossible for humans, then what is the meaning of his commanding him to count them, in the verse &ldquo;and count,&rdquo; (Gen. 15:5) and is this not a vain act?
Al-Qirqisani&rsquo;s question is based on contemporaneous theological conceptions, in which God never does a vain act (Arabic &lsquo;abath). God&rsquo;s acts are always carried out for a purpose which is achieved.[6] This perfection of action contrasts to human acts, which can in the end be vain or useless, despite the effort put forth. To command or request someone to carry out an action which God knows to be impossible to fulfill, would be a vain act, and is impossible. This concept of divine perfection is stated and becomes a basis for exegetical questions during this period of Judeo-Arabic scholarship, for the first time.
Here, al-Qirqisani explains that the verse should not be taken as an actual command to Abraham, but rather, should be reclassified rhetorically. According to his explanation, God&rsquo;s statement is actually &ldquo;an exposition of fact and a declaration&rdquo; of the fact that Abraham will be unable to count the stars.
As a careful reader of the Bible, al-Qirqisani is able to cite a panoply of other verses that exhibit the same rhetorical status. One of these is Elihu&rsquo;s argumentative statement to Job:
איוב לג:ה אִם תּוּכַל הֲשִׁיבֵנִי עֶרְכָה לְפָנַי הִתְיַצָּבָה.
Job 33:5 If you can, answer me; argue against me, take your stand.
Al-Qirqisani explains that here too, an apparent command should actually be understood as a declaration, and what Elihu really means is that Job will not be able to respond to the arguments he will put forth.
A Vast Library of Judeo-Arabic Commentary
Al-Qirqisani&rsquo;s solution to this theological difficulty is typical to his approach, and is likely one of his innovations as an exegete: He was keenly interested in the analysis and categorization of the style of biblical narrative and indeed, authored a list of thirty-seven exegetical principles, currently preserved only in manuscript, devoted specifically to the narrative sections of the Torah. (Al-Qirqisani authored a separate work on biblical law, The Book of Lights and Watchtowers, which was published in the 1940&rsquo;s in a Judeo-Arabic edition but which remains untranslated.)[7]
Al-Qirqisani&rsquo;s keen interest in narrative was unique to him, however it is important to note that a focus on biblical narrative was also the spirit of the times, among Rabbanite and Karaite scholars alike. During the ninth century and beyond, in the spirit of &ldquo;book-centered religions&rdquo; and likely due to the rise of Karaite Judaism, Bible exegesis became a central interest of many Jewish scholars in both Karaite and Rabbanite Judaism.[8]
A massive body of Judeo-Arabic Bible exegesis was created during this time period. These works were available to Iberian scholars, who were also literate in Judeo-Arabic, and shaped the development of Bible exegesis there. As Iberian scholars began to compose their works in Hebrew instead of in Judeo-Arabic, their Bible commentaries penned in Hebrew became a conduit for echoes &ndash; sometimes strong, sometimes faint &ndash; of the vast body of scholarship in Judeo-Arabic upon which they depended.[9]
The approach to the Bible exemplified in the brief citations above provides a glimpse of the many new dimensions of Bible exegesis which developed in Judeo-Arabic. As part of a thriving intellectual center of the world, Jews writing in Judeo-Arabic in the tenth century strived to be faithful to a variety of fonts of knowledge, ancient and new. The approaches they innovated, and the structures and methods that they incorporated into their writing, shaped much of what we consider to be inherent parts of Jewish Bible commentary to this day.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure url="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b8fd783bee52c8fb59b1fac/672cbf355ec1126bb05161a0_Israel%2520Will%2520Be%2520as%2520Numerous%2520as%2520the%2520Stars.jpeg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Sodom and Shechem: Villages, Not Cities]]></title>
            <link>https://thetorah.com/article/sodom-and-shechem-villages-not-cities</link>
            <guid>https://thetorah.com/article/sodom-and-shechem-villages-not-cities</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2024 14:06:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[After Cain is exiled for killing Abel, he founds the first עִיר (ʿir), usually translated as &ldquo;city.&rdquo; But the biblical depictions of Shechem and Sodom, and the archaeology of ancient Israel, show that the average ʿir was a &ldquo;village&rdquo; or &ldquo;town&rdquo; at most.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[ʿIr in the Bible
The word עִיר (ʿir) occurs some 1,093 times in the Hebrew Bible. English translations of the Bible render almost all occurrences of ʿir as &ldquo;city.&rdquo; [1] This fits many occurrences of the word, but is that what ʿir always means?
The word עִיר is probably related to the verbal root ע.ו.ר (ʿur), which carries the sense of &ldquo;protect.&rdquo;[2] Chicks find safety inside the nest, when the mother bird watches over them:
דברים לב:יא כְּנֶשֶׁר יָעִיר קִנּוֹ עַל גּוֹזָלָיו יְרַחֵף...
Deut 32:11 Like an eagle who protects his nestlings, gliding down to his young&hellip;
Similarly, Bildad says to Job that God will protect him if he is righteous:
איוב ח:ו אִם זַךְ וְיָשָׁר אָתָּה כִּי עַתָּה יָעִיר עָלֶיךָ וְשִׁלַּם נְוַת צִדְקֶךָ.
Job 8:6 If you are blameless and upright, He will protect you, and grant well-being to your righteous home.
The safety of towns/villages contrasts with dangers &ldquo;in the field&rdquo; &ndash; that is, outside of settlements, whether out of fear of wild animals (as in Judg 14:5, 1 Sam 17:34&ndash;36, 1 Kgs 13:24, 2 Kgs 2:24, among others) or bands of marauders (Judg 6:3&ndash;4, 18:11; 1 Sam 27:8&ndash;9; 2 Sam 15:18&ndash;20, etc.) Living in the vicinity of relatives and like-minded neighbors, inside a space with a surrounding wall, obviated much of that danger.[3]
Safety for Stored Items
In addition to bodily safety, ʿarim (plural of ʿir) also provided centralized storage space for harvested crops and other goods. Thus, Joseph builds ʿarim on Pharaoh&rsquo;s behalf when he begins the process of storing grain from the seven years of bumper crops:
בראשית מא:מח וַיִּקְבֹּץ אֶת כָּל אֹכֶל שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם וַיִּתֶּן אֹכֶל בֶּעָרִים אֹכֶל שְׂדֵה הָעִיר אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹתֶיהָ נָתַן בְּתוֹכָהּ.
Gen 41:48 And he gathered all the grain of the seven years that the land of Egypt was enjoying, and stored the grain in the ʿarim; he put in each ʿir the grain of the fields around it.
Farmers and herders could bring yields to storage sites in ʿarim and receive a measure of precious metals (the silver shekel is the common biblical unit) in exchange. Shekels could later be redeemed for stored goods or given to artisans and merchants in exchange for goods and services (as in 1 Sam 9:8 and 13:21).[4]
The Pleasant ʿIr
Composed in the early Persian period,[5] Psalm 107 offers us a glimpse of an Israelite ʿir moshab, &ldquo;inhabited ʿir,&rdquo; held up as the ideal destination, a place of safety and security:
תהלים קז:לה יָשֵׂם מִדְבָּר לַאֲגַם מַיִם וְאֶרֶץ צִיָּה לְמֹצָאֵי מָיִם. קז:לו וַיּוֹשֶׁב שָׁם רְעֵבִים וַיְכוֹנְנוּ עִיר מוֹשָׁב. קז:לז וַיִּזְרְעוּ שָׂדוֹת וַיִּטְּעוּ כְרָמִים וַיַּעֲשׂוּ פְּרִי תְבוּאָה.
Ps 107:35 He (YHWH) turns the wilderness into pools, parched land into springs of water. 107:36 There He settles the hungry; they build an ʿir in which to settle. 107:37 They sow fields and plant vineyards that yield a fruitful harvest.
For the psalmist, the ʿir, a place in which to reside, is central to the good life of farming and winemaking.
Cain&rsquo;s ʿIr
The first ʿir in the Bible is built by Cain. After being forced out of farming as a punishment for killing his brother, YHWH tells Cain to wander the earth. But Cain, instead, builds an ʿir:
בראשית ד:טז וַיֵּצֵא קַיִן מִלִּפְנֵי יְ־הוָה וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּאֶרֶץ נוֹד קִדְמַת עֵדֶן. ד:יז וַיֵּדַע קַיִן אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וַתַּהַר וַתֵּלֶד אֶת חֲנוֹךְ וַיְהִי בֹּנֶה עִיר וַיִּקְרָא שֵׁם הָעִיר כְּשֵׁם בְּנוֹ חֲנוֹךְ.
Gen 4:16 Cain left the presence of YHWH and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. 4:17 Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he then founded an ʿir and named the ʿir after his son Enoch.
Given the placement of this story in the early narratives of Genesis, speaking about the establishment of the world order, some scholars connect Cain&rsquo;s ʿir with Assyrian and Babylonian metropolitan cities founded by Nimrod, representing Israel&rsquo;s future enemies:
בראשית י:י וַתְּהִי רֵאשִׁית מַמְלַכְתּוֹ בָּבֶל וְאֶרֶךְ וְאַכַּד וְכַלְנֵה בְּאֶרֶץ שִׁנְעָר. י:יא מִן הָאָרֶץ הַהִוא יָצָא אַשּׁוּר וַיִּבֶן אֶת נִינְוֵה וְאֶת רְחֹבֹת עִיר וְאֶת כָּלַח. י:יב וְאֶת רֶסֶן בֵּין נִינְוֵה וּבֵין כָּלַח הִוא הָעִיר הַגְּדֹלָה.
Gen 10:10 The mainstays of his kingdom were Babylon, Erech, Akkad, and Calneh in the land of Shinar. 10:11 From that land Ashur went forth and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-ir, Calah, 10:12 and Resen between Nineveh and Calah, that is the great city.
The negative perception of cities is especially clear in the story of the Tower of Babel, which begins when all the people of the earth wish to build an ʿir with a very high tower:
בראשית יא:ד וַיֹּאמְרוּ הָבָה נִבְנֶה לָּנוּ עִיר וּמִגְדָּל וְרֹאשׁוֹ בַשָּׁמַיִם וְנַעֲשֶׂה לָּנוּ שֵׁם פֶּן נָפוּץ עַל פְּנֵי כָל הָאָרֶץ.
Gen 11:4 And they said, &ldquo;Come, let us build us an ʿir, and a tower with its top in the sky, to make a name for ourselves; else we shall be scattered all over the world.&rdquo;
YHWH sees what the people are up to and puts a stop to it:
בראשית יא:ה וַיֵּרֶד יְ־הוָה לִרְאֹת אֶת הָעִיר וְאֶת הַמִּגְדָּל אֲשֶׁר בָּנוּ בְּנֵי הָאָדָם.... יא:ח וַיָּפֶץ יְ־הוָה אֹתָם מִשָּׁם עַל פְּנֵי כָל הָאָרֶץ וַיַּחְדְּלוּ לִבְנֹת הָעִיר.
Gen 11:5 YHWH came down to look at the ʿir and tower that man had built&hellip; 11:8 And YHWH scattered them from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the ʿir.
The story ends by explaining that this ʿir&mdash;clearly a city in this context&mdash;was Babylon itself.
The parallel with Cain is stark: the account of the tower of Babel features people moving east (v. 1) before building the ʿir to establish their name, reminding readers of Cain&rsquo;s eastward journey followed by his construction of an ʿir named after his son.[6]
Nevertheless, one of the recurring motifs of Genesis 1&ndash;11 is the perversion of things that are created to be good. This is typified by Cain&rsquo;s descendant Lamech converting YHWH&rsquo;s gift of protection to Cain into a &ldquo;license to kill&rdquo; without fear of retribution (Gen 4:23&ndash;24). Thus, Cain&rsquo;s establishment of an ʿir may have been a positive development that was perverted by Nimrod and his mega-cities.
Indeed, unless this is dismissed as an anachronism or simply a desire to make Cain the inventor of cities, the story can hardly be envisioning Cain&rsquo;s ʿir as a large city like Nineveh or Babylon. Unlike Nimrod, Cain is not depicted as a king or warrior. He is just an ordinary farmer who offers some of his produce to YHWH, and when the offering is rejected, gets angry and kills his brother in a rage of jealousy.
After finding himself wandering in exile, Cain recovers enough to marry, have children, and become productive, yet he is not described as having great power or a large following. The construction of a large, metropolitan city (as per Genesis 11) would have been a superhuman feat for an individual, perhaps comparable to the hundred years needed for Noah to construct the ark (compare Gen 7:6 with 5:32).[7] And, narratively speaking, what would have been the point of building a city in the early days of humanity, before people &ldquo;began to multiply on the face of the ground&rdquo; (Gen 6:1)?
In contrast to a &ldquo;city,&rdquo; a typical village, familiar to Israelite scribes, required only a simple wall surrounding a few acres of land, and some planning within that acreage of space for housing and storage for a few hundred people. And this is very likely the meaning of ʿir in this story. Indeed, the word ʿir has a broad range of meanings from a giant metropolis to a tiny village, or anything in between.
The Difference Between Cities and Villages
In the 1950s, V. Gordon Childe (1892&ndash;1957), an Australian/British archaeologist of European prehistory, argued that what distinguishes cities from towns and villages were a series of urban features, including the presence of full-time artisans, artists, and scribes, and a political organization based on residency rather than kinship.[8]
As Greg Woolf, a scholar who specializes in the study of ancient cities, notes, some of these features are identifiable in the archaeological record: Just as modern cities feature structural variety according to the needs and preferences of different peoples, businesses, and government institutions, the presence of specialists and the mixing of unrelated peoples would have stimulated tangible variations in the structures within an ancient city. [9]
Specialists are a feature of a &ldquo;surplus&rdquo; society, in which most individuals strive to produce more than enough of one commodity that can be exchanged for money or credit, which can be used to purchase other needs and wants.[10] This organization of labor enhances a society&rsquo;s economic output as individuals and groups typically produce more when they focus on one type of item, than when they are entirely self-sufficient.[11]
Ancient Settlements
The ancient world did have settlements with populations in the tens of thousands that can properly be described as cities. Several of these were likely known to Israelite scribes, including Memphis (peak Iron Age population of 100,000 residents) and Thebes (50,000) in Egypt, and Babylon (200,000) and Nineveh (100,000) in Mesopotamia.[12] But settlements in ancient Israel were far smaller.
Following Childe and Woolf, the only settlements in ancient Israel that possibly qualified as ancient cities were Jerusalem at its 8th&ndash;7th century peak, which may have attained a population of 15,000; and Samaria, whose population in the 8th century may have been as high as 12,000.[13] After the capitals, the next largest settlement was probably 8th century Dan, with some 5,000 residents. Other than these, it is unlikely that any settlement in biblical Israel had a population greater than 3,000, too few to support many full-time specialists.[14]
Given that archaeology and sociology of the biblical era demonstrate that most ancient Israelite settlements are best described as villages, not cities or even towns, absent literary indicators to the contrary, the word ʿir in the biblical texts should likely be translated as &ldquo;village,&rdquo; whose main function was to provide safe housing and storage facilities.[15] This helps clarify not just the story of Cain&rsquo;s ʿir, but also other stories in Genesis which make little sense if we envision them taking place in full-fledged cities as opposed to more modest towns and villages.
The Sinful Village of Sodom
The story of Lot&rsquo;s escape from Sodom is a good example. When the angels come to the &ldquo;city,&rdquo; and Lot takes them in for the night, all the men of Sodom surround his home:
בראשית יט:ד טֶרֶם יִשְׁכָּבוּ וְאַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר אַנְשֵׁי סְדֹם נָסַבּוּ עַל הַבַּיִת מִנַּעַר וְעַד זָקֵן כָּל הָעָם מִקָּצֶה.
Gen 19:4 They had not yet lain down, when the townspeople, the men of Sodom, young and old&mdash;all the people to the last man&mdash;gathered about the house.
Even the earlier story, which describes Sodom as one of five ʿarim at war with the rulers of four empires, tips its hand when it describes Abram&rsquo;s decisive intervention with an army of only 318 men (Gen 14:14). In other words, the authors are imagining towns with populations of only a few hundred each at most.
The Destruction of the Village of Shechem
Similarly, when the sons of Jacob trick the Shechemites into having themselves circumcised, Hamor, ruler of Shechem makes a speech to the people:
בראשית לד:כ וַיָּבֹא חֲמוֹר וּשְׁכֶם בְּנוֹ אֶל שַׁעַר עִירָם וַיְדַבְּרוּ אֶל אַנְשֵׁי עִירָם לֵאמֹר. כ:כא הָאֲנָשִׁים&nbsp;הָאֵלֶּה שְׁלֵמִים הֵם אִתָּנוּ וְיֵשְׁבוּ בָאָרֶץ וְיִסְחֲרוּ אֹתָהּ וְהָאָרֶץ הִנֵּה רַחֲבַת יָדַיִם לִפְנֵיהֶם אֶת בְּנֹתָם נִקַּח לָנוּ לְנָשִׁים וְאֶת בְּנֹתֵינוּ נִתֵּן לָהֶם.
Gen 34:20 So Hamor and his son Shechem went to the public place of their ʿir and spoke to their fellow townsmen, saying, 34:21 &ldquo;These people are our friends; let them settle in the land and move about in it, for the land is large enough for them; we will take their daughters to ourselves as wives and give our daughters to them&hellip;&rdquo;
A town meeting of this sort, with everyone gathered around the gate, does not make sense in a city of thousands of men. Moreover, how many daughters could Jacob and his sons have such that it would make a difference to the locals and they can think of merging? The story is clearly envisioning a small village. This is also clear from when the entire male population is circumcised in one day, after which they are all slaughtered by only two brothers:
בראשית לד:כד וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ אֶל חֲמוֹר וְאֶל שְׁכֶם בְּנוֹ כָּל יֹצְאֵי שַׁעַר עִירוֹ וַיִּמֹּלוּ כָּל זָכָר כָּל יֹצְאֵי שַׁעַר&nbsp;עִירוֹ. לד:כה&nbsp;וַיְהִי בַיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי בִּהְיוֹתָם כֹּאֲבִים וַיִּקְחוּ שְׁנֵי בְנֵי יַעֲקֹב שִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי אֲחֵי דִינָה אִישׁ חַרְבּוֹ וַיָּבֹאוּ עַל הָעִיר בֶּטַח וַיַּהַרְגוּ כָּל זָכָר.
Gen 34:24 All who went out of the gate of his ʿir heeded Hamor and his son Shechem, and all males, all those who went out of the gate of his town, were circumcised. 34:25 On the third day, when they were in pain, Simeon and Levi, two of Jacob&rsquo;s sons, brothers of Dinah, took each his sword, came upon the city unmolested, and slew all the males.
Clearly, the Shechem of this story, like Cain&rsquo;s ʿir and the ʿir of Sodom, is best described as a village, one small enough to covet Jacob&rsquo;s possessions and daughters, and to be conquered by his sons.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure url="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b8fd783bee52c8fb59b1fac/672a3c0758be8e97b4b45b0c_Sodom%2520and%2520Shechem%2520%2520Villages%252C%2520Not%2520Cities%2520Cain.jpeg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[In Search of Abraham’s Birthplace: Between Urfa and Ur]]></title>
            <link>https://thetorah.com/article/in-search-of-abrahams-birthplace-between-urfa-and-ur</link>
            <guid>https://thetorah.com/article/in-search-of-abrahams-birthplace-between-urfa-and-ur</guid>
            <pubDate>Thu, 31 Oct 2024 16:39:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[The Bible consistently points to Aram in Northern Syria as Abraham&rsquo;s place of origin. However, in a prequel added during the Babylonian exile, a later biblical author introduces Abram as being born in the famous city of Ur, near Babylon in Southern Iraq, from which he then migrates to Aram. When the city of Ur faded from historical memory, readers of the Bible associated the biblical Ur with Urfa in Turkey, aligning it with the Bible&rsquo;s dominant tradition regarding Abraham&rsquo;s origins.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[From Ur to Ḥarran
At the end of the post-flood genealogy, Genesis introduces Abram&rsquo;s father Terah, and the family genealogy:
בראשית יא:כז וְאֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת תֶּרַח תֶּרַח הוֹלִיד אֶת אַבְרָם אֶת נָחוֹר וְאֶת הָרָן וְהָרָן הוֹלִיד אֶת לוֹט. יא:כח וַיָּמָת הָרָן עַל פְּנֵי תֶּרַח אָבִיו בְּאֶרֶץ מוֹלַדְתּוֹ בְּאוּר כַּשְׂדִּים.
Gen 11:27 This is the line of Terah: Terah begot Abram, Nakhor, and Haran; and Haran begot Lot. 11:28 Haran died in the lifetime of his father Terah in the land of his birth, in Ur of the Chaldeans.
Later, Genesis again mentions that Abram/Abraham hailed from Ur of the Chaldeans:
בראשית טו:ז וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אֲנִי יְ־הוָה אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִיךָ מֵאוּר כַּשְׂדִּים לָתֶת לְךָ אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת לְרִשְׁתָּהּ.
Gen 15:7 Then [YHWH] said to him, &ldquo;I am YHWH who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to assign this land to you as a possession.&rdquo;[1]
At some point, Terah decides to leave Ur and take his family to Canaan. On the way there, Terah ends up stopping in Ḥarran, where he settles:
בראשית יא:לא וַיִּקַּח תֶּרַח אֶת אַבְרָם בְּנוֹ וְאֶת לוֹט בֶּן הָרָן בֶּן בְּנוֹ וְאֵת שָׂרַי כַּלָּתוֹ אֵשֶׁת אַבְרָם בְּנוֹ וַיֵּצְאוּ אִתָּם מֵאוּר כַּשְׂדִּים לָלֶכֶת אַרְצָה כְּנַעַן וַיָּבֹאוּ עַד חָרָן וַיֵּשְׁבוּ שָׁם.
Gen 11:31 Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot the son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and they set out together from Ur of the Chaldeans for the land of Canaan. They came to Ḥarran and settled there. [2]
The city of Ḥarran is located in southeastern Turkey, about 80 km (50 miles) east of the Euphrates. In ancient times, it was Upper Mesopotamia (biblical Aram-Naharayim or Paddan-Aram). It still exists today. By contrast, Ur cannot be found on even the most detailed modern maps, and with regard to its location in antiquity, the Bible and the historical record point in opposite directions. Let us consider both sources of information and then try to reconcile them.
The Ancestors&rsquo; Aramean Homeland
The brief historical retrospective that Deuteronomy prescribes reciting during the offering of the first fruit, begins with the statement, אֲרַמִּי אֹבֵד אָבִי &ldquo;A wandering Aramean was my father&rdquo; (Deut 26:5).[3] Arameans lived in Upper Mesopotamia and Syria.
Similarly, the story about Abraham&rsquo;s servant finding Rebecca locates his hometown in Aram-Naharayim:
בראשית כד:י ...וַיָּקָם וַיֵּלֶךְ אֶל אֲרַם נַהֲרַיִם אֶל עִיר נָחוֹר.
Gen 24:10 &hellip;and he (Abraham&rsquo;s servant) made his way to Aram-Naharayim, to the city of Nakhor.
When Isaac sends Jacob to find a wife in his father&rsquo;s hometown, he too refers to this geographical area as Paddan-Aram:
בראשית כח:ה וַיִּשְׁלַח יִצְחָק אֶת יַעֲקֹב וַיֵּלֶךְ פַּדֶּנָה אֲרָם אֶל לָבָן בֶּן בְּתוּאֵל הָאֲרַמִּי אֲחִי רִבְקָה אֵם יַעֲקֹב וְעֵשָׂו.
Gen 28:5 Then Isaac sent Jacob off, and he went to Paddan-Aram, to Laban the son of Bethuel the Aramean, the brother of Rebecca, mother of Jacob and Esau.
Finally, when Jacob arrives at the well where he will find Rachel, he is in Ḥarran:
בראשית כט:ד וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם יַעֲקֹב אַחַי מֵאַיִן אַתֶּם וַיֹּאמְרוּ מֵחָרָן אֲנָחְנוּ. כד:ה וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם הַיְדַעְתֶּם אֶת לָבָן בֶּן נָחוֹר וַיֹּאמְרוּ יָדָעְנוּ.
Gen 29:4 Jacob said to them, &ldquo;My friends, where are you from?&rdquo; And they said, &ldquo;We are from Ḥarran.&rdquo; 29:5 He said to them, &ldquo;Do you know Laban the son of Nakhor?&rdquo; And they said, &ldquo;Yes, we do.&rdquo;
It would seem, therefore, that the Bible places the homeland of Abraham&rsquo;s family in Upper Mesopotamia. Accordingly, we might expect to find Ur of the Chaldeans somewhere in that area. Instead, it was discovered in a completely different place.
The Southern Shift: The New Consensus
When cuneiform texts were unearthed and deciphered in the nineteenth century, it turned out that quite a few of these texts &ndash; some contemporaneous with Abraham according to the biblical chronology &ndash; mention a city by the name of Ur in Lower Mesopotamia, very far from ancient Aram. A careful reading of these texts pinpointed Tell el-Muqayyar on the right bank of the Euphrates, about 16 km (10 miles) from the Iraqi city of Nasiriyah.
The first study of Tell el-Muqayyar, in 1853&ndash;1854, confirmed that the mound contained ruins of a city founded well before Abraham. Subsequent research, especially the large-scale excavations undertaken at the site in 1922&ndash;1934 by the British archeologist Sir Leonard Wooley, established beyond any doubt that in the third and second millennia B.C.E. the southern Ur was one of the world&rsquo;s most populous cities well as an economic and political center. For a time (under the so-called Third Dynasty of Ur, 21&ndash;20 centuries B.C.E.), it was the capital of one of the first large states in human history. In the first millennium, the southern Ur lost much of its importance, but it remained a substantial population hub until at least the fifth century &ndash; by which time the book of Genesis was likely written.
Moreover, cuneiform documents showed that although Chaldean tribes (Kasdim) were related to Arameans, whose area of origin was in Syria and Upper Mesopotamia, sometime in the tenth century B.C.E., or perhaps slightly earlier, Chaldeans migrated to Lower Mesopotamia and settled there. A few centuries later, they were so firmly ensconced in the area that a part of it, possibly including Ur and certainly close to it, became known as Chaldu.
For Genesis to refer to Upper Mesopotamia as Chaldea, it had to have been written no later than the tenth century B.C.E., before the Chaldean migration. Such a date for Genesis is unlikely, since the &ldquo;Table of Nations&rdquo; (Genesis 10) mentions several states and ethnicities that did not exist at that time: Ionian Greece (yavan, v. 2, 4), Media (maday, v. 2), Scythians (ashkenaz, from Assyrian iskuzai, v. 3), and Lydia (lud, v. 22).[4]
Based on these considerations, already in 1862 Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810&ndash;1895), the future president of the Royal Geographical Society, argued that Tell el-Muqayyar was the biblical Ur of the Chaldeans. His hypothesis gradually won acceptance among scholars and then among the broader public. When Wooley undertook his expedition to Tell el-Muqayyar, there was little doubt in his mind that he was excavating the city featured in Genesis (11:26-31; 15:7).[5] And when in 2021 the Holy See announced that on his visit to Iraq Pope Francis would visit Abraham&rsquo;s birthplace, hardly anyone thought that the pontiff would go anywhere but the extreme south of the country.
Why Did Terah Cross the River?
Despite its popularity, the identification of the biblical Ur with that of the cuneiform texts was in fact highly vulnerable because its adherents never bothered to explain why the Hebrew Bible insists so strongly that Israel&rsquo;s ancestors hailed from Upper Mesopotamia. Moreover, the geographical location of Tell el-Muqayyar created two new difficulties.
First, let us cast another look at Terah&rsquo;s move from Ur to Ḥarran:
בראשית יא:לא וַיִּקַּח תֶּרַח אֶת אַבְרָם בְּנוֹ וְאֶת לוֹט בֶּן הָרָן בֶּן בְּנוֹ וְאֵת שָׂרַי כַּלָּתוֹ אֵשֶׁת אַבְרָם בְּנוֹ וַיֵּצְאוּ אִתָּם מֵאוּר כַּשְׂדִּים לָלֶכֶת אַרְצָה כְּנַעַן וַיָּבֹאוּ עַד חָרָן וַיֵּשְׁבוּ שָׁם.
Terakh took his son Abram, and Lot&hellip; and Saray his daughter-in-law, the wife of his son Abram and went with them from Ur of the Chaldeans, heading to the land of Canaan. They came to Ḥarran and settled there.
If the family was traveling from Tell el-Muqayyar, the normal route to Canaan would not bring them to the city of Ḥarran. That would be a major detour, not to mention that it would involve crossing the Euphrates twice: Ḥarran is on the opposite side of the river from both Canaan and the southern Ur.
Second, a historical retrospective in Joshua begins with the book&rsquo;s title character saying:
יהושע כד:ב ...בְּעֵבֶר הַנָּהָר יָשְׁבוּ אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם מֵעוֹלָם תֶּרַח אֲבִי אַבְרָהָם וַאֲבִי נָחוֹר וַיַּעַבְדוּ אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים. כד:ג וָאֶקַּח אֶת אֲבִיכֶם אֶת אַבְרָהָם מֵעֵבֶר הַנָּהָר וָאוֹלֵךְ אוֹתוֹ בְּכָל אֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן...
Josh 24:2 Beyond the river lived your fathers of old, Terah the father of Abraham and the father of Nakhor, and served other deities. 24:3 But I took your father, Abraham, from beyond the river and led him across the entire land of Canaan&hellip;
The &ldquo;river&rdquo; mentioned here is doubtlessly the Euphrates. Looking from Canaan, Tell el-Muqayyar, located on the western (right) bank of the Euphrates was not &ldquo;beyond&rdquo; it.
These difficulties prompted several scholars to look elsewhere for solutions.
The Northern Alternative
The most prominent &ndash; and most outspoken &ndash; among those who tried to reconcile historical data with biblical evidence was the American scholar, Cyrus Gordon (1908&ndash;2001).[6] His arguments were recently laid out by his student (and an eminent scholar in his own right) Gary Rendsburg, in his &ldquo;Ur Kasdim: Where is Abraham&rsquo;s Birthplace?&rdquo; (TheTorah 2019).
Gordon and Rendsburg noted that in the area of Urfa, a Turkish city (official name Sanliurfa) located about 40 km (25 miles) north-north-west of Ḥarran, there was a tradition, shared by Jews, Christians, and Muslims, that it was Abraham&rsquo;s birthplace.[7] To this day, several sites in Urfa, such as a pool in the courtyard of a local mosque, are associated with Abraham; these were, and to some extent still remain, popular with pilgrims. Could this city indeed be the biblical Ur of the Chaldeans?
Unfortunately, this hypothesis runs into even greater difficulties than does the identification of the biblical Ur with Tell el-Muqayyar.
The Ura Phantom
For starters, no archeological traces of Urfa&rsquo;s existence have been uncovered prior to 303 or 302 B.C.E., when the Macedonian king Seleucus I Nicator founded it under the name Edessa.
Gordon and Rendsburg correctly point out that a few written sources from the second millennium B.C.E. do mention a place called Ura somewhere in Upper Mesopotamia or Asia Minor. Gordon was particularly sanguine about a clay tablet from Ugarit in which Ḫattu&scaron;ili III, a Hittite king, lays down regulations for &ldquo;Ura merchants&rdquo; plying their trade in this coastal city.[8] In the article hailing the tablet&rsquo;s publication, Gordon even went so far as to suggest that Abraham was one of these merchants &ndash; despite the fact that the Bible consistently depicts him as a shepherd (e.g., Gen 13:1&shy;&ndash;8; 21:25&ndash;30).[9]
Neither this document nor any other, however, specify the location of Ura.[10] Moreover, a different tablet from the same Ugaritic archive rules out Ura&rsquo;s identification with Urfa. The tablet in question calls Ura expats &ldquo;merchants of my sun&rdquo; &ndash; that is, of Ugarit&rsquo;s suzerain Ḫattu&scaron;ili III.[11] The clear implication is that Ura is a Hittite city. Yet, the area east of the Euphrates, where Urfa is located, was at that time under Assyrian control.[12]
Chaldeans All Around
Another problem with the Urfa theory is that little evidence points to a significant number of Chaldeans remaining in the general vicinity of Urfa after the tenth century B.C.E. The only extra-biblical evidence in support of this claim comes from the Greek author Xenophon who mentions Chaldeans, whom he likely encountered during a 401 B.C.E. military expedition, as &ldquo;a free and brave set of people&hellip; armed with long wicker shields and lances&rdquo; living somewhere in the vicinity of Armenia (which in those times extended far beyond its present-day territory).[13]
Yet Xenophon&rsquo;s Khaldaioi were likely a remnant of the Urartu state, which existed from the mid-ninth to early sixth century B.C.E.; they were so named because worshiped warrior god Khaldu. These indomitable warriors were thus not related to the biblical Chaldeans; the latter were Semitic speakers while the language of Urartu belonged to the Hurro-Urartian linguistic family.[14]
Even if they were Chaldeans, Xenophon (430&ndash;355 B.C.E.) lived more than 500 years after Chaldean tribes migrated to Lower Mesopotamia, so the existence of Chaldeans in his period says little about whether they were there in earlier periods.
But the decisive consideration is as follows. Suppose at the time Genesis was written there were indeed two different Chaldean areas, each with a city named Ur (or something like that) in or near it. Would referring to one of them as &ldquo;Ur of the Chaldeans&rdquo; make any sense? Would it clarify to the readers which of the two cities is meant?
In sum, historical evidence clearly points away from Urfa despite Gordon and Rendsburg&rsquo;s efforts to argue otherwise. At the same time biblical evidence just as clearly points away from Tell el-Muqayyar. Are we at an impasse? Not necessarily.
The Living Tradition
A good place to start in solving the conundrum would be God&rsquo;s famous command to Abraham:
בראשית יב:א וַיֹּאמֶר יְ־הוָה אֶל אַבְרָם לֶךְ לְךָ מֵאַרְצְךָ וּמִמּוֹלַדְתְּךָ וּמִבֵּית אָבִיךָ אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אַרְאֶךָּ.
Gen 12:1 Go forth from your land, and from your kin, and from your father&rsquo;s house to the land that I will show you.
When Abraham hears these words, he is in Ḥarran. It is this city that YHWH calls his homeland.
With Ḥarran as Abraham&rsquo;s birthplace, pieces of the puzzle immediately fall into place. The city is located east of the Euphrates, that is, &ldquo;beyond the river&rdquo; looking from Canaan. It falls squarely within the area that the Bible calls Aram-Naharayim or Paddan-Aram. And there would be no contradiction between the Bible and historical evidence: according to both written sources and archeological data, Ḥarran existed since at least the third millennium B.C.E., well before Abram&rsquo;s time, not to mention that of the biblical authors.
In fact, were it not for just two passages &ndash; Genesis 11:26&ndash;31; 15:7 &ndash; we would never have the slightest clue, biblical or extra-biblical, that Israel&rsquo;s first ancestor might have had anything to do with any other location. This, in turn, allows us a sneak peek into the creative laboratory of the biblical writers.
All Roads Lead to Ḥarran
In all likelihood, according to the tradition of ancient Israel, Abraham hailed from Ḥarran. The author of Genesis respected this tradition, or at the very least could not ignore it because it would have put off prospective readers. At the same time, he tacked on a prequel, according to which before settling in Ḥarran Abraham&rsquo;s family lived in Ur. In fact, even the choice of Ur over other Lower Mesopotamian locations was a subtle nod back at Ḥarran: while geographically far apart, the two cities shared the cult of the moon god Nanna (Sumerian name), a.k.a. Sin (Akkadian name).
One reason why this prequel was considered necessary is strongly hinted at by the qualifier &ldquo;Kasdim&rdquo; that the Bible adds to the city&rsquo;s name. As historical data imply that there was only one Ur, this addition would not seem to make any sense; indeed, no sources outside the Bible mention &ldquo;Ur of the Chaldeans.&rdquo; However, the author of Genesis had special reasons to bring the Chaldeans into the picture.
We Are Fellow Chaldeans
Genesis is not a thing unto itself; rather, it is a part and parcel of a much longer historical account that ends in Kings with Israel sent by Nebuchadnezzar, the Chaldean king of Babylon, into exile in Mesopotamia (2 Kings 25). Since the end of the exile is never mentioned, it stands to reason that at least the final version of the account, and maybe all of it, dates from the time when the people of Israel were at the mercy of Babylon&rsquo;s Chaldean rulers.[15]
Emphasizing that Israel&rsquo;s ancestor was a fellow Chaldean was a good way of ingratiating the exiles with their captors. Such a move would be in line with the overall tendency of Genesis-Kings to avoid rubbing the Babylonian government the wrong way: the arch-villain of the biblical history is Egypt &ndash; Chaldeans&rsquo; nemesis in the struggle for regional domination &ndash; while there is no overt hostility toward Babylon. Even when the Chaldeans attack Judah, it is by God&rsquo;s will.[16]
On a deeper level, the Chaldean prequel makes an important point about divine election and human response to it. When God tells Abraham in Gen 15:7, &ldquo;I am YHWH who led you out from Ur of the Chaldeans,&rdquo; the implication is that Terah&rsquo;s decision to head to Canaan (Gen 11:31) was divinely inspired. However, the detour to Ḥarran reported in Genesis 11:32 suggests that at some point Terah changed his mind. If so, he would have had very good reasons: ancient Ḥarran was a flourishing, vibrant city while Canaan was a severely underdeveloped backwater. However, by abandoning the spiritual quest out of material considerations Terah forfeited the special relationship with God and with it the lofty status of Israel&rsquo;s founding father. The honor went to his son Abraham.
Why Urfa?
With all the above in mind, we can also tentatively determine how the tradition of Urfa as the biblical Ur of the Chaldeans came into being.
Any text is written with the author&rsquo;s contemporaries in mind. The target audience of Genesis knew that Ur was located in Lower Mesopotamia and that it was where the Chaldeans lived. However, already by the turn of the eras the once glorious city had long been abandoned and buried under the sands of quickly desertifying Lower Mesopotamia. Ancient Chaldeans were pretty much forgotten as well: new groups of people that adopted the name had little to nothing to do with them.[17]
The new generations of readers had nothing to go on but the Bible&rsquo;s insistence that Israel&rsquo;s ancestors hailed from Upper Mesopotamia; accordingly, they had no reason to suspect that Ur-Kasdim was located elsewhere. Those who still lived in the area found a suitable candidate with a vaguely similar name: Urfa, a widely known large city and a rich commercial center seen by countless conquerors as a valuable prize. Of course, somebody as important as Abraham had to come from such an important place! Thus, through the vagaries of history, the pre-biblical tradition of Ḥarran as Abraham&rsquo;s birthplace gave birth to the post-biblical tradition of Urfa as such.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure url="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b8fd783bee52c8fb59b1fac/6723b39faa42f935954d1a05_Abraham%25E2%2580%2599s%2520Birthplace%2520Ur-Urfa.jpeg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Hoshana Rabbah: Delivering Judgment and Night of the Dead]]></title>
            <link>https://thetorah.com/article/hoshana-rabbah-delivering-judgment-and-night-of-the-dead</link>
            <guid>https://thetorah.com/article/hoshana-rabbah-delivering-judgment-and-night-of-the-dead</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 23 Oct 2024 12:54:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[On Rosh Hashanah, our judgment is written; on Yom Kippur, it is sealed; and on Hoshana Rabbah, it is sent out to be fulfilled. It is said that on the night of Hoshana Rabbah, those judged to die that year will lose their shadows. Sefer Chasidim relates that, in a final plea for forgiveness, even the spirits of the dead rise from their graves to pray for the living.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[According to the Mishnah, four instances of judgment take place throughout the year: Passover for crops, Shavuot for fruit, Rosh Hashanah for humanity, and Sukkot for the year&rsquo;s rainfall.[1] While not stated in the Torah, already in the Second Temple and rabbinic periods, Hoshana Rabbah, the seventh and final day of Sukkot&mdash;never mentioned in the Bible&mdash;served as the culmination of rainmaking rituals. [2]
The day&rsquo;s most recognizable observances, first described in the Mishnah (Sukkot 4:5),[3] are seven circuits around the Torah carrying a lulav and etrog, the Hoshanot (&ldquo;Save Us&rdquo;) prayers, and the beating of the willows, all in the service of making sure that God is listening and remembers/decides to bring rain.[4] Being judged &ldquo;for water&rdquo; is a life-and-death kind of divine judgment, since rainfall was inextricably tied to adequate food supply.
While the Mishnah has four disconnected judgment days, the Talmud Yerushalmi connects Rosh Hashanah and Hoshana Rabbah as specific days when God is beseeched:
ירושלמי ראש השנה ד:ח אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה: "כְּתִיב 'וְאוֹתִי יוֹם יוֹם יִדְרוֹשׁוּן.' זוֹ תְקִיעָה וַעֲרָבָה."
j. Rosh Hashanah 4:8 Rabbi Jonah said: &ldquo;It is written (Isa 58:2), &lsquo;To be sure, they seek Me daily (lit. day day)&rdquo;&mdash;this refers to [the day of] shofar blasts [Rosh Hashanah] and [the day of] willows [Hoshana Rabbah].&rdquo;
The midrash here interprets the phrase יום יום not as &ldquo;daily&rdquo; but as referring to the two specific days that bookend the season of judgment, beginning on Rosh Hashanah and ending on Hoshana Rabbah.
By the medieval period, Hoshana Rabbah as final day of judgment appears to have been well-known. Thus, the Sefer ha-Manhig, a compendium of liturgical and religious customs compiled around 1205 by R. Abraham of Lunel, states:
ספר המנהיג הלכות סוכה [מוסד הרב קוק] כי בהושענא רבה מקויימת חתימת ג' הספרים הפתוחים לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא ונחתמים ביום הכיפורים, ובהושענא רבה תכלית הכפרה בשכבר התענינו מערב ר[אש] ה[שנה] עד יום הכיפורי[ם] ונמחלו העונות והזדונות והפשעי[ם].
Sefer HaManhig Laws of Sukkah For on Hoshana Rabbah, the sealing of the three open books takes place before the Blessed Holy One.[5] For the sealing takes place on Yom Kippur. But Hoshana Rabbah is the culmination of atonement, in that we have already afflicted ourselves from the evening before Rosh Hashanah until Yom Kippur and our sins, iniquities, and wrongdoings have been forgiven.
To put it in modern terms, names and fates are written on Rosh Hashanah, stamped on Yom Kippur, but neither opened nor mailed until Hoshana Rabbah: that&rsquo;s the interstitial time where the punishments can (maybe) be altered, while they&rsquo;re waiting in a divine USPS box. Once they&rsquo;re stamped, bar-coded, etc, they&rsquo;re out. Taking this further, the Sefer Chasidim (The Book of the Pious)&mdash;a 12th/13th century compendium that was the main product of a pietistic movement in the Rhineland called the Chasidei Ashkenaz [6] &mdash;imagines the sealing taking place not on Yom Kippur but on Hoshana Rabbah:
ספר חסידים [פארמא] &sect;תתתשמד בליל הושענא רבה חותמין, ולכך נקרא (שמות כג:טז) "בצאת השנה".
Sefer Chasidim &sect;1544 On the eve of Hoshana Rabbah, [the books] are sealed. That is why it is called (Exod 23:16) &ldquo;when the year ends.&rdquo;
The Sefer Chasidim further claims that Hoshana Rabbah is the night that the souls of the dead come out to pray on behalf of the living:
ספר חסידים [פארמא] &sect;תתתשמג ...ויש לילה שהנשמות יוצאות מן הקברות כגון בליל הושענא רבה יוצאות כשהלבנה יוצאת יוצאות ומתפללות.
Sefer Chasidim &sect;1543 There is a night when the souls leave their graves, such as the night of Hoshana Rabbah. They exit [their graves] when the moon appears. They go out and pray.[7]
On this one night of the year, the cemetery becomes a synagogue&mdash;inhabited by the spirits of the dead. But doorless and windowless, unbounded by walls, the ghostly synagogue is vulnerable to visitors from the other side of that thin veil separating the living and the dead, as the story that follows reveals.
Sefer Chasidim: The Praying Dead and the Unclad Virgin Ghost
That story begins with two men who hide in the cemetery on purpose to overhear what the dead are saying:
ספר חסידים [פארמא] &sect;תתתשמג וכבר יצאו שנים והחביאו עצמם במקום אחד בבית הקברות ושמעו שאחת אומרת לחבירתה: "נצא ונתפלל יחדיו."
Sefer Chasidim &sect;1543 And two [of the living] went out and hid themselves in one place in the cemetery. And they heard that one [soul] was saying to her companion, &ldquo;Let us go out and pray together.&rdquo;
Apparently, it was well known that the dead come out on Hoshana Rabbah, only no one had yet had the courage or curiosity to investigate the particulars until these two men. It turns out that the prayers of the dead are benevolent, almost magnanimous:
ויצאו כל הנשמות והתפללו ובקשו רחמים שלא יגזור מיתה על החיים גם אותם שימותו שישובו מדרכם הרעה ובחולי קל, ועל כל ענין של חיים ושל מתים, ועל עצמם למהר לסור דין מעליהם ועל אחרים. והגידו לקהלם.
And all the souls went out and prayed and requested mercy that death not be decreed on the living; also that those who are to die should return in repentance from their evil ways, and regarding [punishments consisting of] moderate illnesses, and about every matter relating to the living and the dead, and, regarding themselves, that punishment be removed quickly from upon them and other [dead ones].[8] And they [the two living men] told their community [what they had witnessed].
The next scene takes place the following year on the same date, during which different men, ostensibly hoping to witness the same event, hide in the cemetery, but this time only a naked young maiden appears:
לשנה אחרת בליל הושענא רבה הלכו שנים אחרים ויצאה מן הקברים רק בתולה אחת שמתה קודם שבת. אמרו: "תצאי." אמרה: "איני יכולה מפני כי אבי היה עשיר וירד מנכסיו" וקברה בלא בגד.
The following year, on the night of Hoshana Rabbah, two others [from among the living] went [and slept in the cemetery]. And only one young girl, who had died before the sabbath, emerged from the graves. They [the other dead in the cemetery] said [to her], &lsquo;Go out [and pray].&rsquo; She said, &lsquo;I am not able to, because my father was rich and he lost his wealth&rsquo;, and [so] he had buried her without any clothes.
They also hear that the souls will not come out this year, because they don&rsquo;t like being watched:
ושמעו שמקצת מן הנשמות אמרו "לא ניקבץ יחדיו כי כבר שנים גילו עלינו לרבים, אלא כל אחד ואחד יתפלל בקברו שלא ישמעו החיים."
And they [the two living men] heard that some of the souls said, &lsquo;We will not gather together [for prayer], because two [from among the living] have already revealed [things] about us to the public. Instead, let each one pray separately in his grave, so that the living shall not hear.&rsquo;
The men then inform the community about the plight of the maiden and, though not entirely clear, it seems they exhume her body and rebury her in proper burial garments:
והגידו לעם וכעסו על אב ולקחו בגדים והלבישו לאותה בתולה.
And they [the two living men] told the community. And they [the members of the community] got angry at the father, and they took clothing, and dressed that young girl.[9]
If modern, secular understanding sees the separation between the living and the dead as a brick wall, the Sefer Chasidim sees it as a thin veil: barely there, and imperceptible under the right light. In the world of its tales, the dead feel as the living feel and do as the living do. They appear in contexts ranging from spirits complaining about their next-grave neighbors, to hypothetical situations involving the &ldquo;saving&rdquo; of a corpse from a burning house. While some engage in wreaking vengeance on still-living enemies, the dead occasionally visit the living in dreams: they know things that the living do not and warn of bad things to come. On Hoshana Rabbah, the dead are magnanimous, and, in this story, the living follow suit.
Rosh Hashanah and the Dead: A Talmudic Story
As Susan Weissman, Chair of Judaic Studies and Associate Professor at Lander College for Women, notes, the story of the men witnessing the proceedings of the dead and learning about the plight of a deceased maiden goes back to a story in the Babylonian Talmud.
A man gets into a fight with his wife on the eve of Rosh Hashanah. He decides to sleep in a nearby cemetery, where he overhears two spirits of deceased young women talking:[10]
בבלי ברכות יח: מעשה בחסיד אחד שנתן דינר לעני בערב ר[אש] ה[שנה] בשני בצורת והקניטתו אשתו והלך ולן בבית הקברות ושמע שתי רוחות שמספרות זו לזו.
b. Berakhot 18b It is related that a certain pious man gave a dinar to a poor man on the eve of the New Year in a year of drought, and his wife scolded him, and he went and passed the night in the cemetery, and he heard two spirits conversing with one another.
First the man overhears a discussion of whether they should travel the earth while looking behind the divine curtain to learn what God has planned for the next year:
אמרה חדא לחברתה: "חברתי בואי ונשוט בעולם ונשמע מאחורי הפרגוד מה פורענות בא לעולם." אמרה לה חברתה: "איני יכולה שאני קבורה במחצלת של קנים, אלא לכי את ומה שאת שומעת אמרי לי."
Said one to her companion, &ldquo;My dear, come and let us wander about the world and let us hear from behind the curtain [which shields the Divine Presence] what suffering is coming to the world.&rdquo; And her companion said to her, &ldquo;I am not able to, because I am buried [clothed] in a matting of reeds.[11] But you go, and what you hear, tell me.&rdquo;
The man learns that one of the girls was buried naked in a reed matting, ostensibly to save money on burial shrouds. Unlike the men in the Sefer Chasidim story, the pious man will do nothing to rectify the girl&rsquo;s unfortunate situation. Instead, he will cash in on the information he learns from the travelling spirit later that night, when she returns with a meteorological secret of the upcoming year:
הלכה היא ושטה ובאה ואמרה לה חברתה: "חברתי מה שמעת מאחורי הפרגוד?" אמרה לה: "שמעתי שכל הזורע ברביעה ראשונה ברד מלקה אותו." הלך הוא וזרע ברביעה שניה. של כל העולם כולו לקה, שלו לא לקה.
She went and wandered about and returned. Said her companion to her, &ldquo;My dear, what did you hear from behind the curtain?&rdquo; She replied, &ldquo;I heard that whoever sows seed at the time of the first rainfall will have his crop smitten by hail.&rdquo; So the man went and did not sow until the time of the second rainfall, with the result that everyone else&rsquo;s crop was smitten [by hail] and his was not smitten.
The next year, the man doesn&rsquo;t wait to be kicked out by his wife, but sleeps in the cemetery again, hoping the ghosts will reveal a secret for the coming year, and he is not disappointed:
לשנה האחרת הלך ולן בבית הקברות ושמע אותן שתי רוחות שמספרות זו עם זו.
The next year, he went and slept in the cemetery and heard the same two spirits talking to each other.
אמרה חדא לחברתה: "בואי ונשוט בעולם ונשמע מאחורי הפרגוד מה פורענות בא לעולם." אמרה לה: "חברתי לא כך אמרתי לך איני יכולה שאני קבורה במחצלת של קנים?! אלא לכי את ומה שאת שומעת בואי ואמרי לי."
One said to her friend: &ldquo;Let us wander about the world and hear from behind the curtain [which shields the Divine Presence] what suffering is coming to the world.&rdquo; And her companion said to her, &ldquo;My dear, did I not tell you that I am not able to, because I am buried in a matting of reeds. But you go, and what you hear, tell me.&rdquo;
הלכה ושטה ובאה ואמרה לה חברתה: "חברתי, מה שמעת מאחורי הפרגוד?" אמרה לה: "שמעתי שכל הזורע ברביעה שניה שדפון מלקה אותו." הלך וזרע ברביעה ראשונה; של כל העולם כולו נשדף; ושלו לא נשדף.
She went and wandered about and returned and her companion said to her, &ldquo;My dear, what did you hear from behind the curtain?&rdquo; She replied, &ldquo;I heard that whoever sows during the second rains, blight will smite his crops.&rdquo; He went and sowed during the first rains. All the world&rsquo;s crops were blighted; his was not blighted.
Two lucky breaks in a row and the man&rsquo;s wife gets curious, especially since from the beginning of the story, we can see she was not a big believer in his pecuniary acumen:
אמרה לו אשתו: "מפני מה אשתקד של כל העולם כולו לקה ושלך לא לקה? ועכשיו של כל העולם כולו נשדף ושלך לא נשדף?" סח לה כל הדברים הללו.
His wife said to him: &ldquo;How is it that last year everyone&rsquo;s crops were smitten and yours were not smitten? And now, everyone&rsquo;s crops were blighted and yours were not blighted?&rdquo; He told her the whole story.
Unfortunately for the couple, the wife gives away the secret in the heat of an argument:
אמרו לא היו ימים מועטים עד שנפלה קטטה בין אשתו של אותו חסיד ובין אמה של אותה ריבה. אמרה לה: "לכי ואראך בתך שהיא קבורה במחצלת של קנים!"
It was said that not long after, a fight broke out between the pious man&rsquo;s wife and the mother of the young [dead] girl. [The wife] said to her: &ldquo;Go and I will show you your daughter, who is buried in [nothing but] a matting of reeds!&rdquo;
Somehow, whether because the mother had the girl reburied or because she complained about the insult by the girl&rsquo;s grave, the ghost now knows that she was overheard, and thus in his third attempt, the pious man gains no secret information:
לשנה האחרת הלך ולן בבית הקברות ושמע אותן רוחות שמספרות זו עם זו.
The next year, he went and slept in the cemetery and heard the same two spirits talking to each other.
אמרה לה: "חברתי, בואי ונשוט בעולם ונשמע מאחורי הפרגוד מה פורענות בא לעולם." אמרה לה: "חברתי הניחני, דברים שביני לבינך כבר נשמעו בין החיים."
Said one to her companion, &ldquo;My dear, come and let us wander about the world and let us hear from behind the curtain what suffering is coming to the world.&rdquo; She said to her, &ldquo;My dear, leave me be. Things we were saying amongst ourselves have already been heard among the living.&rdquo;
The ghosts, it seems, want to conduct their business without an audience, especially an audience that might grow by word of mouth.
Comparing the Tales
One of the most salient shifts between the Talmudic versions and Sefer Chasidim concerns what the dead are described as doing. While the ghosts in the Talmud want to wander the world and hear the latest suffering planned for humanity, essentially, they seem more curious than concerned, the ghosts in Sefer Chasidim are interested in praying together in the cemetery for the benefit of humanity.
Both stories have a girl who was dressed inappropriately by a parent at their burial. The Talmud&rsquo;s girl, clothed in the mat of reeds, understandably does not wish to wander around so attired, thus she remains in or near her grave. The story ends with the mother being insulted, but we do not hear anything about the situation being fixed.
The girl in Sefer Chasidim is triply vulnerable: newly dead, a virgin, and buried without shrouds. Because of this, she cannot participate in group prayer. This story ends with the father being pressured by the community to exhume his daughter and rebury her with appropriate burial garments.
The connection between the two elements of the Sefer Chasidim story, the public prayer and the burial of the girl, is unclear. Perhaps the motivation for fetching shrouds was not simply because the girl was attired improperly, but because the prayer of the dead on behalf of the living is aimed at saving the living from harsh, divine judgments. Within this framework, the living help the dead to help the living: prayer and deeds exist as concentric circles, as the deathly congregation grows ever larger.
In addition to these conceptual shifts, it is noteworthy that Sefer Chasidim moves the night of the spirits from Rosh Hashanah to Hoshana Rabbah. Indeed, Hoshana Rabbah is especially significant for humans learning about their judgments, and a final opportunity to fix it.
Checking the Shadows, Losing One&rsquo;s Head
Following the story of the praying dead and the virgin without burial shrouds, Sefer Chasidim turns to a striking mini-anecdote, intended to both emphasize the pedagogical point and provide an image of behavior that is, indeed, exemplary. The premise of the story is that being unable to see one&rsquo;s shadow on Hoshana Rabbah night means that the person will die that year:
ספר חסידים [פארמא] &sect;תתתשמד אחד לא ראה בליל הושענא רבה צל ראשו, והתענה הוא ואוהביו הרבה צומות ונתן צדקה הרבה וחי כמה שנים אחר כך, כדכתיב (משלי יא:ד) "וצדקה תציל ממות."
Sefer Chasidim &sect;1544 A man did not see his head&rsquo;s shadow on the evening of Hoshana Rabbah's night, so he and his loved ones afflicted themselves with many fasts and gave much to charity and lived many years after that, for as it is said (Proverbs 10:2), &ldquo;tzedakah saves from death.&rdquo;
This story is quite different than the previous one. The man never interacts with or even sees the dead; indeed, it is not even clear where the shadow-checking ritual takes place, though the cemetery might have been a logical choice. In seeing himself headless in the light of the half-moon&mdash;the rabbinic Jewish calendar is lunar, so Hoshana Rabbah (21st of Tishrei) is always during a half-moon&mdash;the man interacts with his own impending death.
The Custom of Shadow Checking
The Sefer Chasidim is a relatively early source for the belief that shadow-checking on the night judgment is sealed reveals whether the person has been judged for death. Soon after, it appears as a standard belief among the Sephardic kabbalists. For instance, R. Moses Nachmanides (ca. 1195&ndash;ca. 1270), in his gloss on the Joshua and Caleb&rsquo;s statement that the Israelites can defeat the Canaanites since סָר צִלָּם מֵעֲלֵיהֶם &ldquo;their shadow has already departed from them,&rdquo; writes:
רמב"ן במדבר יד:ט יתכן שירמוז הכתוב למה שנודע כי בליל החותם לא יהיה צל לראש האיש אשר ימות בשנה ההיא לכך יאמר כבר סר צלם מעליהם שנגזר עליהם מיתה.
Nachmanides Num 14:9 It seems likely that the verse is hinting at what is well known that on the night that of the sealing [of our judgments], no shadow will be found over the head of a person who is [destined] to die that year. That is why it says their shadow has already left them, since their deaths have already been decreed.[12]
R. Bachya ben Asher (1255&ndash;1340) paraphrases Nachmanides, connecting his comment to Hoshana Rabbah explicitly:
רבינו בחיי במדבר יד:ט והרמב"ן ז"ל פירש: "סר צלם מעליהם". שהוסר הצל מעל ראשם, ממה שידוע כי בליל החותם הגדול של הושענא רבה, הוא יום כ"ו לבריאת עולם, לא ימצא צל לראש מי שעתיד למות באותה שנה. וזה כאלו אמר: כבר נגזרה עליהם מיתה. זאת כוונתו ואף על פי שאינו לשונו.
R. Bachya Num 14:9 The Ramban z&rdquo;l explained &ldquo;their shadows have already departed from them&rdquo; that the their shadows have left their heads, based on what is know that on the night of the great sealing [of judgments] of Hoshana Rabbah, which is the 26 day from the creation of the world [on Rosh Hashanah], no shadow will be found cast by the heads of a person who is destined to die that year. So it is as if it says &ldquo;their fate to die has already been determined.&rdquo; This is his meaning if not his exact words.
Divining whether someone will die by checking shadows also appears in the Zohar, though here the date is moved to Shemini Atzeret, the night after Hoshana Rabbah:
זוהר ויחי כו כְּדֵין צוּלְמִין אִתְעֲבָרוּ מִנִּיהּ, וְלָא מִשְׁתַּכְּחִין עִמֵּיהּ. כֵּיוָן דְּמִתְעַבְרָן מִנֵּיהּ, הָא וַדַּאי טוּפְסְקָא דְמַלְכָּא יַעֲבֹר עֲלֵיהּ, וְיִטְעוֹם כַּסָּא דְמוֹתָא. וּבְהַהוּא לֵילְיָא דְּחַגָּא בַּתְרָאָה, סַנְטֵירִין זְמִינִין, וּפִתְקִין נָטְלִין, בָּתַר דְּנַטְלֵי לוֹן, צוּלְמִין מִתְעַבְרָן...
Zohar Vayechi 26 Then the shadows are removed from him and no longer found with him. Once they are removed from him, it is certain that the King&rsquo;s punishment will overtake him and he will taste the cup of death. And on this night of the final festival (Shemini Atzert), the punishing angels are available and they take the notes [upon which the punishments are recorded], and after they take them, the shadows are removed....
David Abudarham (14th cent.) also quotes Nachmanides, and tries to explain how it is possible, given that if one tests this, one will always find one has a shadow:
ספר אבודרהם סוכות וזה הצל אינו צל האדם ממש כי העומד אצל הלבנה או אצל האורה אי איפשר שלא יהיה לו צל אלא הוא צל הצל הנקרא בדברי רבותי' (בבלי גיטין סו.) "בבואה דבבואה".
Sefer Abudarham Sukkot This shadow is not the actual shadow of the person, since if one stands under the moon or by its light, it is impossible not to have a shadow. Rather, it is the shadow of the shadow, what the rabbis call (b. Gittin 66a) &ldquo;the shadow&rsquo;s shadow.&rdquo;
Earlier in the same paragraph, Abudarham details a custom of people actually checking their shadows:
ספר אבודרהם סוכות ויש אנשים שנוהגין גם בליל הושענא רבא שכורכין עצמם בסדין ויוצאין למקום שמגיע אור הלבנה ופושטין מעליהם הסדין ונשארים ערומים ופושטין איבריהם ואצבעותיהן.
Sefer Abudarham Sukkot There are those whose practice it is to go outside on the night of Hoshana Rabbah, they wrap themselves in a sheet and go to a place where the light of the moon appears, and they remove the sheet and stand naked, and they stretch their arms and fingers.
אם מצא צלו שלם טוב הוא, ואם יחסר צל ראשו בנפשו הוא. ואם יחסר צל אחד מאצבעות ידיו סימן לאחד מקרוביו. ויד ימין סימן לבניו הזכרים, ויד שמאל סימן לנקבות.
If they find their full shadow, that is good, if they are missing a head, that is a mortal judgment. If they are missing the shadow of one of their fingers, it is a sign about a relative: right hand means his male offspring, left hand means female. [13]
The man in Sefer Chasidim, therefore, is an outlier: he checks his shadow and finds it headless but instead of just accepting this an inevitable the experience inspires action, even as the seal hovers above the book and the time for repentance is rapidly counting down. To save himself, he chooses one of the three main strategies expressed in Jewish liturgy.
Charity Saves from Death
One of the most famous parts of the High Holiday liturgy, dating from centuries before the Sefer Chasidim, is the Unetaneh Tokef, which states:
ותשובה ותפילה וצדקה מעבירין את רוע הגזירה.
Repentance, prayer, and charity mitigate the harsh decree.[14]
In the world of Sefer Chasidim, these techniques for mitigation can and should be put to use even after Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur have passed, and perhaps especially once they have passed, on Hoshana Rabbah night.
In connecting the actions of the already-dead with those of the living who are actively facing death, Sefer Chasidim widens the stage for people who may have not yet completed their teshuva, tefilla, and tzedakah.
In the first section of Sefer Chasidim&rsquo;s account of what takes place Hoshana Rabbah night, we read about the prayers of the dead on behalf of the living. In the second section, we see an act of repentance, as a father is forced to fix his daughter&rsquo;s improper burial. Finally, in the third case, when the man learns he has been judged for death, he saves himself by giving charity. These opportunities have one thing in common: they all take place on the night of Hoshana Rabbah, a porous night when the realms of the dead and living mix, humanity&rsquo;s last chance to avert the decree.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure url="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b8fd783bee52c8fb59b1fac/6718ee74dcf49ca94989427c_Hoshana%2520Rabbah%2520judgment%2520and%2520Night%2520of%2520the%2520Dead.jpeg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Hallel: How Many Psalms?]]></title>
            <link>https://thetorah.com/article/hallel-how-many-psalms</link>
            <guid>https://thetorah.com/article/hallel-how-many-psalms</guid>
            <pubDate>Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:31:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[The answer depends on the manuscript and tradition we read: Psalms are segmented differently from as early as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint and continuing through the medieval Hebrew manuscripts of the Masoretic Text.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[Recitation of the Hallel
The Hallel psalms, numbered 113 to 118, are recited during the holidays of Pesach, Shavuot, Sukkot, Shemini Atzeret, Simchat Torah, and the eight days of Hanukkah. On the third through seventh days of Pesach and on Rosh Hodesh (the new moon), a shortened version known as the &ldquo;Half Hallel&rdquo; is recited.[1]
The Half Hallel, as prescribed by Saadia and Rashi and recited by most Ashkenazic and Sephardic communities, omits the first eleven verses of both Psalms 115 (לֹא לָנוּ) and 116 (אָהַבְתִּי), reducing the number of recited verses from 85 to 63.[2] In his Mishnah Torah, however, Maimonides (1138&ndash;1204) also omits Psalm 117 (הַלְלוּ) and 118:1&ndash;4 (הוֹדוּ), for a Half-Hallel of 57 verses.[3]
Though each individual psalm is generally understood to be a complete and integrated work of poetry, the shortened versions of several psalms in the Half-Hallel assumes that these psalms may be recited incompletely and still convey meaning. The various Half-Hallel traditions may stem from different local customs, but the psalms of the Hallel themselves have also been preserved in different forms in various biblical manuscripts.[4]
Before the development of the printing press, the scribes who hand-copied the Bible developed a variety of practices to ensure the fidelity of each manuscript.[5] Hebrew manuscripts of Psalms (Sefer Tehillim) from the medieval period overwhelmingly contain the same text, from the opening lines of Psalm 1, אַשְׁרֵי הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא הָלַךְ בַּעֲצַת רְשָׁעִים, &ldquo;happy is the man who has not followed the counsel of the wicked,&rdquo; to the final הַלְלוּ יָהּ, &ldquo;Hallelujah&rdquo; (Ps 150:6).
The segmentation of that text, however&mdash;that is, the places at which the complete Psalter or a unit within it is subdivided into individual psalms&mdash;varies with some regularity throughout the Psalter (predictably in sections with fewer psalm superscriptions).[6] These boundaries are often marked only by white space or line breaks, as the psalms were not numbered in the ancient Hebrew scrolls, and the medieval Hebrew codices were numbered only inconsistently throughout their tradition.[7] The Hallel has the highest concentration of segmentation differences. Such variation suffuses the manuscript tradition.
Medieval Masoretic Manuscripts
Few manuscripts of the Bible in Hebrew survive from the 2nd through 9th centuries C.E. From the 10th to the 18th century, however, hundreds of manuscripts from across Europe and the Middle East witness to the biblical text. Unlike the Dead Sea Scrolls, which attest to several variant Hebrew text traditions, medieval Bibles and Psalters in Hebrew all contain the text type known as the Masoretic Text (MT).[8] The Masoretic Text was transmitted with great care, and displays a high level of fidelity in most books.
With this in mind, it is especially striking how much and how often Masoretic codices vary in their segmentation of the Hallel. Across four hundred medieval Hebrew manuscripts, I found no fewer than 59 different ways to divide the text of Psalms 113&ndash;118 into constituent psalms.[9] A few manuscripts divide the Hallel into as few as three psalms:

Psalm 113;
Psalms 114:1&ndash;115:18; and
Psalms 116:1&ndash;118:29.[10]

At the opposite end, some manuscripts have as many as eleven psalms for Hallel.[11]
The most common segmentations contain five and six psalms, respectively. The five-psalm Hallel combines Psalms 114 (בְּצֵאת) and 115 (לֹא לָנוּ) into a single psalm. This segmentation is found in slightly more than a quarter of manuscripts, while the six-psalm Hallel identical to the Hallel in the modern Psalter appears in slightly fewer than a quarter.[12] Thus, these two account for about half of all manuscripts.
The next most common is a seven-psalm segmentation that presents Psalm 118 (הוֹדוּ) as two separate psalms: verses 1&ndash;4 and 5&ndash;29. This segmentation is found in around an eighth of the manuscripts.[13] Several manuscripts also divide Psalm 116 between verses 10 and 11, or between verses 11 and 12. The latter is particularly noteworthy, as it matches the subdivision of the psalm in the Half-Hallel.
Differences in segmentation can be traced back to the Septuagint and earlier.
The Septuagint&rsquo;s Psalter
The Septuagint&rsquo;s (LXX) Greek translation of the Psalms (2nd century B.C.E.)[14] presents Psalms 9 and 10 as a single psalm.[15] Thus, it numbers the psalms that follow one lower than modern Bibles, meaning the first of the six Hallel psalms in the LXX is numbered 112.[16]
The LXX also segments the Hallel psalms differently. It combines Psalms 114 (בְּצֵאת) and 115 (לֹא לָנוּ), and presents Psalm 116 (אָהַבְתִּי) as two psalms: verses 1&ndash;9 and 10&ndash;19.[17] In addition, where the placement of Hallelujah at the beginning and end of psalms in our Psalter is somewhat haphazard (113:1, 9; 115:18; 116:19; 117:2), the LXX consistently places &ldquo;Hallelouia&rdquo; at the beginning of each Hallel psalm (112&ndash;117).
Papyrus Bodmer XXIV (2nd or 3rd c. C.E.), another ancient Greek version, segmented its six-psalm Hallel quite differently, combining the first three verses of Psalm 115 (לֹא לָנוּ) with the previous Psalm 114 (בְּצֵאת), dividing Psalm 116 (אָהַבְתִּי) at verse 9, and presenting Psalms 117 (הַלְלוּ) and 118 (הוֹדוּ) as a single psalm.[18]
The Dead Sea Scrolls
The Hallel and its constituent Psalms are attested only partially among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The most relevant manuscripts in this case both come from Cave 4 near the site of Qumran.[19] 4QPsalmsb (4Q84) preserves text from fifteen psalms, among them Psalms 115, 116, 118, and perhaps one word of 113.[20]
Elsewhere on the scroll, the order of psalms differs dramatically from the modern canonical order, as Psalm 103 is followed directly by Psalm 112. The Hallel may not have appeared in its canonical form, therefore, but a section of it almost certainly did. Psalms 116 (אָהַבְתִּי) and 118 (הוֹדוּ) are preserved on a cluster of overlapping fragments, and Psalm 117 (הַלְלוּ, a short psalm of only two verses) is the likeliest candidate to fill the deteriorated section between them. It is likely, therefore, that at least Psalms 116&ndash;118 appeared together on this scroll in their canonical order.
All of the psalms preserved on this scroll are laid out in a similar manner, with one poetic colon (usually one-half or one-third of a poetic line) on each written line of the manuscript, making for tall, narrow columns.[21] Psalm 118:1&ndash;24, however, is written with one poetic line (two or three cola) per line of writing. These longer lines are not restricted to a single column. They begin in column XXXIV and continue until about three-quarters of the way through column XXXV, where the text reverts to the shorter one-colon lines for the final verses of Psalm 118 (25&ndash;29) across the remainder of column XXXV and column XXXVI.[22]
The significance of differentiating part of Psalm 118 in this way is uncertain. Was it intended to indicate boundaries between discrete psalms? Subdivisions within a single psalm? Or did it mark liturgical transitions? In Ashkenazi synagogues, verses 1&ndash;4 and 25&ndash;26 are recited by the cantor and congregation as a call and response; their distinctive literary form may have been associated with a different mode of recitation in antiquity as well.[23]
4QPsalmso
Two small fragments of 4QPsalmso (4Q96) present firmer evidence of a segmentation that differs from the Hallel in the modern Psalter.[24] The preserved text on line 1 of Fragment 1 is broken, but apparently preserves part of Psalms 114:7 and 115:1. Words in brackets are missing from the fragment, and have been reconstructed for comparison with the MT.[25]
קיד:ז&nbsp;[מלפני]
4Q96, frag. 1, l. 0 Ps 114:7&nbsp;In the presence
[אדון חולי אר]ץ֯[ ]ו֯מלפני אלוה[ ]י֯עק[וב. קיד:ח&nbsp;ההופכי הצור אגם מים חלמיש למעיני]
1 [of the Lord, tremble, O ear]th, at the presence of the God of Jacob. [114:8&nbsp;who turned the rock into a pool of water, the flinty rock into a spring]
[מים. קטו:א&nbsp;לוא] לנו י־הוה ולוא [לנו כיא לשמכה תן כבוד על חסדכה על
2 [of water. 115:1&nbsp;Not] to us, O YHWH, not [to us but to Your name bring glory for the sake of Your love and Your]
[אמתכה....]
3 [faithfulness.]
On line 2, space between the right edge of the manuscript and the words לנו י־הוה ולוא has room for more than just the missing first word of Psalm 115. This suggests that the beginning of the second line may have included the final word of Psalm 114:8, and that the two psalms were presented as one.[26] This segmentation is also consistent with the LXX, suggesting a common tradition of great antiquity.
Why Does Segmentation Matter?
At first, segmentation may seem like a minor kind of variation. On the page, it can look insignificant. As noted earlier, since many Hebrew manuscripts do not include psalm numbers, sometimes no more than a blank space or line break indicates the end of one psalm and the beginning of another.
However, the importance of psalm segmentation relates to the nature of the psalms themselves. In other biblical books, chapter divisions are later impositions on a running text and do not necessarily align with original sense units or discrete pericopes. In the Psalms, chapter divisions demarcate the boundaries of discrete works: the various songs and poems that were combined like beads on a string to create the anthology we know as the Psalter.[27]
Thus, variation in segmentation calls the integrity of individual psalms into question. The meaning of a psalm is a function of the beginning, the end, and all that comes between. When the same text is segmented differently, it combines and separates different stretches of text and creates different units of meaning.
Opening and concluding lines are particularly important in the feel and meaning of a poem, and moving the boundary by one or two lines here creates psalms with similar content but different character. The example of Psalm 116 is instructive. Between the Dead Sea Scrolls, LXX, and Masoretic manuscripts, this psalm can be treated as a whole or divided in two at three different locations. The first eight verses read:
&rlm;תהלים קטז:א אָהַבְתִּי כִּי יִשְׁמַע יְ־הוָה אֶת קוֹלִי תַּחֲנוּנָי. קטז:ב כִּי הִטָּה אָזְנוֹ לִי וּבְיָמַי אֶקְרָא. קטז:ג אֲפָפוּנִי חֶבְלֵי מָוֶת וּמְצָרֵי שְׁאוֹל מְצָאוּנִי צָרָה וְיָגוֹן אֶמְצָא. קטז:ד וּבְשֵׁם יְ־הוָה אֶקְרָא אָנָּה יְ־הוָה מַלְּטָה נַפְשִׁי. קטז:ה חַנּוּן יְ־הוָֹה וְצַדִּיק וֵאלֹהֵינוּ מְרַחֵם. קטז:ו שֹׁמֵר פְּתָאיִם יְ־הוָֹה דַּלּוֹתִי וְלִי יְהוֹשִׁיעַ. קטז:ז שׁוּבִי נַפְשִׁי לִמְנוּחָיְכִי כִּי יְ־הוָה גָּמַל עָלָיְכִי. קטז:ח כִּי חִלַּצְתָּ נַפְשִׁי מִמָּוֶת אֶת עֵינִי מִן דִּמְעָה אֶת רַגְלִי מִדֶּחִי.
Ps 116:1 I love YHWH for He hears my voice, my pleas; 116:2 for He turns His ear to me whenever I call. 116:3 The bonds of death encompassed me; the torments of Sheol overtook me. I came upon trouble and sorrow 116:4 and I invoked the name of YHWH, &ldquo;O YHWH, save my life!&rdquo; 116:5 YHWH is gracious and beneficent; our God is compassionate. 116:6 YHWH protects the simple; I was brought low and He saved me. 116:7 Be at rest, once again, O my soul, for YHWH has been good to you. 116:8 You have delivered me from death, my eyes from tears, my feet from stumbling.
In 4QPsalmso and the LXX, the psalm ends in verse 9,[28] with the psalmist expressing hope for the future.
תהלים קטז:ט אֶתְהַלֵּךְ לִפְנֵי יְ־הוָה בְּאַרְצוֹת הַחַיִּים.
Ps 116:9 I shall walk before YHWH in the lands of the living.
Some medieval manuscripts end the psalm in verse 10, emphasizing both trust in YHWH and the psalmist&rsquo;s dire circumstances:
תהלים קטז:י הֶאֱמַנְתִּי כִּי אֲדַבֵּר אֲנִי עָנִיתִי מְאֹד.
Ps 116:10 I trust [in YHWH]; out of great suffering I spoke.
The Half-Hallel ends at verse 11, which conveys the psalmist&rsquo;s complaint about his peers:
תהלים קטז:יא אֲנִי אָמַרְתִּי בְחָפְזִי כָּל־הָאָדָם כֹּזֵב.
Ps 116:11 And said rashly, &ldquo;All men are false.&rdquo;
Notice how moving the boundary line by even a single verse or two can change the character of the resulting psalm.
Sometimes, seemingly simple questions turn out to touch on more fundamental questions about the nature of the Bible, which exists as both as an abstraction and as a collection of specific texts. In the end, any answer to the question &ldquo;How many psalms are there in the Hallel?&rdquo; will say as much about how the answerer defines a psalm as it does about the texts and manuscripts themselves.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure url="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b8fd783bee52c8fb59b1fac/67152f5f47bacc41940856e0_hallel.jpeg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Etrog, a Royal Assyrian Aromatic Purifier]]></title>
            <link>https://thetorah.com/article/etrog-a-royal-assyrian-aromatic-purifier</link>
            <guid>https://thetorah.com/article/etrog-a-royal-assyrian-aromatic-purifier</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 15 Oct 2024 15:21:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[When ambassadors from Judah went to the Assyrian capital to present their yearly tribute, they encountered large stone reliefs of winged genii holding citrons, a fruit long treasured for its fragrance and medicinal properties.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[The Tappuach: Shady, Fragrant, and Tasty
In the Song of Songs,[1] the woman describes her lover as a tappuach, a tree gives her delightful shade and sweet fruit:
שיר השירים ב:ג כְּתַפּוּחַ בַּעֲצֵי הַיַּעַר כֵּן דּוֹדִי בֵּין הַבָּנִים בְּצִלּוֹ חִמַּדְתִּי וְיָשַׁבְתִּי וּפִרְיוֹ מָתוֹק לְחִכִּי.
Song 2:3 As a tappuach among trees of the forest, so [is] my beloved among the sons, in his shade I delighted, and sat down, and his fruit [is] sweet to my palate.
The noun tappuach derives from the root ת.פ.ח &ldquo;to swell,&rdquo; i.e., a &ldquo;swollen, fat, or round fruit&rdquo; or נ.פ.ח &ldquo;smell&rdquo;, so a &ldquo;scented/fragrant fruit&rdquo; (HALOT, 1773). But what specific fruit does it refer to in the Bible?
The Song suggests that it offers nice shade:
שיר השירים ח:ה ... תַּחַת הַתַּפּוּחַ עוֹרַרְתִּיךָ...
Song 8:5 ...Under the tappuach-tree I have awoken you&hellip;
In addition, we are told that the fruit smells nice:
שיר השירים ז:ט ...וְיִהְיוּ נָא שָׁדַיִךְ כְּאֶשְׁכְּלוֹת הַגֶּפֶן וְרֵיחַ אַפֵּךְ כַּתַּפּוּחִים.
Song 7:9 &hellip;Indeed, let your breasts now be as clusters of the vine, and the fragrance of your face as tappuchim.
Finally, the fruit is refreshing to eat:
שיר השירים ב:ה סַמְּכוּנִי בָּאֲשִׁישׁוֹת רַפְּדוּנִי בַּתַּפּוּחִים...
Song 2:5 Sustain me with grape-cakes, refresh me with tappuchim &hellip;
As Marvin Pope writes in his commentary,
The nature of the tree and the fruit is uncertain and there has been no lack of suggestions...[2]
An Apple?
In modern Hebrew, a tappuach refers to an apple,[3] and this is the most common translation. In his commentary on Song of Songs, Othmar Keel, Professor (Emeritus) supports this translation by noting that &ldquo;an archaeological dig far to the south (at the fortress of Kadesh in the northeastern Sinai) uncovered more than 200 carbonized apples,&rdquo;[4] radiocarbon dated to Iron Age IIA, in the 10th century B.C.E.[5]
But tappuach cannot refer to apples as we know them, since the big juicy apple&mdash;a fruit whose less palatable ancestors evolved first in the Himalayas and then in Kazakhstan&mdash;was unknown prior to the 12the century C.E. [6] These small, bitter apples found in Kadesh-barnea&mdash;Citrullus colocynthis&mdash;were probably used as animal feed and could hardly express a feeling of lusciousness in poetry.[7] Thus, some scholars have turned to other fruits for the biblical tappuach.
Apricots, Quinces, or Citrons?
Ariel and Chana Bloch translate the phrase as &ldquo;a branching apricot tree.&rdquo;[8] Alternatively, Robert Alter suggests &ldquo;quince,&rdquo; and writes in his commentary:
The traditional rendering of &ldquo;apple tree&rdquo; cannot be right because apple trees were not cultivated in the ancient Near East&hellip; The Blochs opt for &ldquo;apricot,&rdquo; which does make sense in regard to its succulence, but it remains conjectural. Quince, a harder fruit, has at least a metrical advantage. Quinces have been used in Greece and perhaps elsewhere in the Mediterranean for many centuries to perfume bedsheets, and that association might be in play in the Song of Songs.[9]
The 2020 Literal Standard Version[10] translates the term here and elsewhere in Song of Songs as &ldquo;citrons,&rdquo; i.e., Citrus medica L., known in rabbinic Hebrew as etrog.[11] The citron is an evergreen tree that ranges in height from 3 to 5 meters, one of the three original citrus fruits&mdash;together with pomelo (Citrus maxima) and mandarin (Citrus reticulata)&mdash;that originated in the foothills of the Indian Himalayas.[12] Other aromatics, such as nard (Song 1:12), to which the Song of Songs refers can all be connected to India in ca. 7th or 6th century B.C.E. as well.[13] Thus citron appears to be the most likely identification.
Tappuach as Etrog in Rabbinic Interpretation
The translation of tappuach as citron is found in the Targum on Song of Songs (5th to 7th cent. C.E.) to this verse:
תרגום שיר השירים ב:ג הֵיכְמָא דְּיָאֵי וּמְשׁוּבַּח אֶתְּרוֹגָא בֵּינֵי אִילַנֵי סְרָק וְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מוֹדְעִין יָתֵיהּ...
Targum Song of Songs 2:3 Just as the citron is lovely and praiseworthy compared to other shade trees, and this is universally acknowledged&hellip;
The anonymous medieval French commentary from the 12th century Tosafists, also understood tappuach to mean citron:
פרוש מחכמי צרפת שיר השירים ב:ג תפוח הוא העץ שהאתרג תלוי בו וגדל, כמו שהוא בין עצי היער שהוא אילן גבוה ומיצל על הארץ ויש לו ריח טוב...
A Commentary from the French Sages Song 2:3 Tappuach is the tree upon which the citron hangs and grows, just as it is among the trees of [Israel&rsquo;s] forests, for it is a large tree, and gives shade to the earth below, and has a nice fragrance&hellip;
The Fruit of the Garden of Eden
In its translation of three of the verses, the Targum of the Song of Songs adds a midrashic element, calling the fruit תַּפּוּחִין דְּגִנְּתָא דְּעֵדֶן, the &ldquo;tappuachs of the Garden of Eden.&rdquo; That is, the etrog was identified as the forbidden fruit,[14] the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge (Gen 2:9, 17).[15] Rabbi Abba of Acco (3rd century C.E.) understands the verse as an etrog:
בראשית רבה טז:ז רבי אבא דעכו אמר: אתרוג היה, ההוא דכתיב (בראשית ג:ו) "ותרא האשה כי טוב העץ למאכל", אמרת, צא וראה איזהו אילן שעצו נאכל כפריו? ואין את מוצא אלא אתרוג.
Gen Rab 16:7 Rabbi Abba of Acco said: &ldquo;It was a citron, this is what scripture means when it writes (Gen 3:6) &lsquo;And the woman saw that the tree was good for eating.&rsquo; Say, go check which tree&rsquo;s wood is eaten like its fruit? You will find only the citron.&rdquo;[16]
Unlike the apple of the biblical period, if Eve had encountered a citron, she indeed would have found it good to eat. Despite its resemblance to the sour lemon, it is good to eat straight from the tree. It has a subtle, sweet, flavor due to it possessing a unique gene, the Noemi gene, which controls the citron&rsquo;s acidity levels.[17] But this is not what makes the citron special&mdash;many fruits taste sweeter. Instead, what made the citron a prized object in the ancient world is its smell and its chemical properties as a purifier (more on this below).
How Did the Etrog Get to Judah?
In his Judean Antiquities,[18] Josephus Flavius (37 C.E. &ndash; ca. 100) writes that the citron/etrog was an established part of the festival of Sukkot, during which the Judeans
Ant. 3:245 [=10:4] [T]hey (=the Judeans) were to offer burnt offerings and sacrifices of thanksgiving to God in those days, bearing in their hands a bouquet composed of myrtle and willow with a branch of palm along with fruit of the persea (=citron).
This reflects an interpretation of the verse about Sukkot in the Torah, with the &ldquo;fruit of the goodly tree&rdquo; as a citron:
ויקרא כג:מ וּלְקַחְתֶּם לָכֶם בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן פְּרִי עֵץ הָדָר כַּפֹּת תְּמָרִים וַעֲנַף עֵץ עָבֹת וְעַרְבֵי נָחַל וּשְׂמַחְתֶּם לִפְנֵי יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם שִׁבְעַת יָמִים.
Lev 23:40 On the first day you shall take the product of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before YHWH your God seven days.
Yet, for it to have become part of the Jerusalem Temple ritual, it must have already been a known and valued fruit in Judah for many decades. The earliest archaeological evidence for citron cultivation in Judah, based on the presence of pollen, dates to the 5th century B.C.E.[19] Nevertheless, some biblical connections between Judean and Assyrian motifs suggest that the citron may have been imported into Judah a few centuries earlier, in the neo-Assyrian period, for use in the Temple and palace.
The Cone-Shaped Object in A&scaron;&scaron;urnaṣirpal II&rsquo;s Palace: A Citron?

Winged genie with eagle face holding a citron in the right hand and a bucket in the left. Room F NW palace in Kalḫu. British Museum.

The earliest known name of the citron is jambila in Sanskrit texts dating to circa 800 B.C.E., as mātuluṅga in Buddhist texts dating to circa 400 B.C.E.[20] and as bijapura in Ayurvedic medicine. Greek and Latin authors were intrigued by the citron, giving it various names based on its supposed origin. Theophrastus called it melea persike, the Persian apple, or melea medike, the Median apple, while Pliny the Elder (24&ndash;79 C.E.) referred to it as malus Assyria, the Assyrian apple.[21] Although not native to this region, there is good reason to connect the entrance of the citron into the ancient Near East with Assyria.
The palace of A&scaron;&scaron;urnaṣirpal II (883&ndash;859 B.C.E.) in Kalḫu[22] was the first Assyrian palace whose rooms were decorated with large stone reliefs. The image most frequently displayed on the reliefs were winged-genii, some 221 of these&mdash;there are more&mdash;are holding a cone-shaped object (a mullilu or purifier) in their right hand, and a bucket in their left hand. The majority of the cone-holding winged-genii were located by doorways with their cones directed towards anyone entering the palace rooms, or the genii were depicted standing behind the king or palace elite with the cones directed at their heads.[23]
In 1882 Fran&ccedil;ois Lenormant first suggested that the object was a fir-cone,[24] but in 1894, Emanuel Bonavia proposed that the cone-shaped object held by the winged-genii was a citron:
There is, I think, evidence enough to show that the Assyrians must have been well acquainted with the citron, and I thought that possibly the figures holding a cone-fruit might be intended to represent some ceremony in which the citron played a part, and from which the Jews derived their citron ceremony.[25]
Though Bonavia himself changed his mind later on, the bucket, ostensibly containing water, better supports his original hypothesis. The extraction of essential oil from the citron requires placing it in water to allow the cells, adjacent to the oil glands, to absorb the water and swell. When the cells have swelled pressure is exerted on the oil glands which will then easily release their oil. The action of the water on the newly released oil also enhances its perfume. Thus, the genii hold the bucket of water to assist in dispersing the citron&rsquo;s purifying oil into the air.
Although the winged-genii with their citron and water bucket are carved in stone their image would have served an apotropaic purpose, protecting the king and his palace.
Purification in the Ancient Near East
Purification rites were a widespread practice in the ancient Near East, and the use of oil to purify was part of a complex ideology since the third millennium B.C.E.[26] Texts from the ancient Assyrian capital, A&scaron;&scaron;ur, describe:
VAT 10165 Preparation of perfumed oils&hellip; for the festival when perfumed oil will be poured on the head of the king according to the instructions of Belat-ekalle, the perfume maker.[27]
Aromatic oils were often part of royal tribute and are frequently mentioned in the annals. For example, Tiglath-Pileser III records that the people of Saba (Sheba in Arabia) brought &ldquo;all types of aromatics&rdquo; as tribute to Kalḫu.[28]
Olive oil was often the preferred purifier; however, plain oils such as bean, sesame, horseradish, and almond were also used in Mesopotamia and Egypt. These oils are not naturally sweet smelling, however, and thus, they needed to be perfumed. To achieve this, the oil had to be rendered astringent by heating and then combined with aromatic essences extracted from fragrant plants; after blending, the mixture was boiled. Finally, a fixative such as resin had to be added to the resultant aromatic oil, rendering it less volatile.
The highly aromatic essential oil contained in the citron&rsquo;s rind, however, required neither lengthy manufacturing process nor skilled perfumers, and could be used immediately. It would be the perfect ingredient for purification rituals. Thus, its appearance in the ancient Near East must have been revolutionary.
The Purification Properties of the Citron
The citron is unique among the citrus family, as it is dry, having no juice vesicles, and its interior is white and spongy in texture. The peel has a warty surface due to the presence of glands containing essential oil that releases the fragrance. However, it is not just the pleasant perfume that makes the citron special&mdash;it is the amazing therapeutic qualities of its aromatic oil.





Etrog cells emerge after being soaked in water




Etrog has no juice sacks, only flesh and seeds





The oil is a natural purifier: It can destroy many airborne bacterial and fungal diseases, as well as scenting the air. The medical properties of the citron&rsquo;s essential oil have been used for centuries in Ayurvedic medicine, and recent pharmacological studies have authenticated its value as a multipurpose medicinal agent with the potential to prevent or even reverse certain diseases.[29]
The knowledge that the citron could protect against epidemics and plagues was never completely lost; it was acknowledged in pharmacopoeias dating from the fifth century B.C.E. to the sixteenth century C.E.,[30] while even in the nineteenth century C.E. the smell of the citron was considered a prophylactic with such amazing health-giving properties that it could purportedly even restore an invalid to life!
Overlapping Artistic Motifs in the Bible and Assyria
In Isaiah&rsquo;s vision of YHWH&rsquo;s giant form in the Temple, he sees YHWH accompanied by seraphim, a type of angelic being:
ישעיה ו:ב שְׂרָפִים עֹמְדִים מִמַּעַל לוֹ שֵׁשׁ כְּנָפַיִם שֵׁשׁ כְּנָפַיִם לְאֶחָד בִּשְׁתַּיִם יְכַסֶּה פָנָיו וּבִשְׁתַּיִם יְכַסֶּה רַגְלָיו וּבִשְׁתַּיִם יְעוֹפֵף.
Isa 6:2 Seraphs were in attendance above him; each had six wings: with two they covered their faces, and with two they covered their feet, and with two they flew.[31]
These beings resemble the winged genii of the palace in Kalḫu. In fact, the seraphim here perform a role similar to that of these cone-holding winged-genii: they purify.
ישעיה ו:ה וָאֹמַר אוֹי לִי כִי נִדְמֵיתִי כִּי אִישׁ טְמֵא שְׂפָתַיִם אָנֹכִי וּבְתוֹךְ עַם טְמֵא שְׂפָתַיִם אָנֹכִי יוֹשֵׁב כִּי אֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ יְ־הוָה צְבָאוֹת רָאוּ עֵינָי. ה:ו וַיָּעָף אֵלַי אֶחָד מִן הַשְּׂרָפִים וּבְיָדוֹ רִצְפָּה בְּמֶלְקַחַיִם לָקַח מֵעַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. ה:ז וַיַּגַּע עַל פִּי וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּה נָגַע זֶה עַל שְׂפָתֶיךָ וְסָר עֲו&zwj;ֹנֶךָ וְחַטָּאתְךָ תְּכֻפָּר.
Isa 6:5 And I said, &ldquo;Woe is me! I am lost, for I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, yet my eyes have seen the King, YHWH of hosts!&rdquo; 6:6 Then one of the seraphs flew to me, holding a live coal that had been taken from the altar with a pair of tongs. 6:7 The seraph touched my mouth with it and said, &ldquo;Now that this has touched your lips, your guilt has departed and your sin is blotted out.&rdquo;
Similarly, the book of Kings (ca. 7th/6th cent. B.C.E.) describes the First Temple as being decorated on the walls of the inner and outer sanctuaries, and on the doors, winged cherubim were interspersed between date palms:
מלכים א ו:כט וְאֵת כָּל קִירוֹת הַבַּיִת מֵסַב קָלַע פִּתּוּחֵי מִקְלְעוֹת כְּרוּבִים וְתִמֹרֹת וּפְטוּרֵי צִצִּים מִלִּפְנִים וְלַחִיצוֹן.... ו:לב וּשְׁתֵּי דַּלְתוֹת עֲצֵי שֶׁמֶן וְקָלַע עֲלֵיהֶם מִקְלְעוֹת כְּרוּבִים וְתִמֹרוֹת וּפְטוּרֵי צִצִּים וְצִפָּה זָהָב וַיָּרֶד עַל הַכְּרוּבִים וְעַל הַתִּמֹרוֹת אֶת הַזָּהָב.
1 Kgs 6:29 He carved the walls of the house all around about with carved engravings of cherubim, date-palms, and open flowers, in the inner and outer rooms&hellip; 6:32 He covered the two doors of olivewood with carvings of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers; he overlaid them with gold and spread gold on the cherubim and on the date-palms.
The book of Ezekiel offers the same description:
יחזקאל מא:יח וְעָשׂוּי כְּרוּבִים וְתִמֹרִים וְתִמֹרָה בֵּין כְּרוּב לִכְרוּב...
Ezek 41:18 It was formed of cherubim and palm trees, a palm tree between cherub and cherub&hellip;
This description echoes the decoration of the palace in Kalḫu, in which the second most popular image depicted&mdash;after the winged genii&mdash;were some 100 stylized trees, each tree representing a date-palm plantation.[32] It was this palace that emissaries sent from Judah to Assyria would have been received by the Assyrian King. As Shawn Zelig Aster of Bar Ilan University writes:
Possibly as early as 743 B.C.E. and certainly by 738 B.C.E., ambassadors from the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, like those from other kingdoms who submitted to the resurgent Assyrian Empire headed by Tiglath Pileser III, were received in this throne room. They were received as part of an annual ceremony of tribute remission, attended by high-ranking ambassadors from many submissive kingdoms, who were gathered together in the palace in use by the reigning Assyrian king.[33]
The throne room, and in particular the adjacent reception rooms, were decorated with most of the over two hundred winged-genii holding citrons plus diffusers, and the approximately one hundred stylized date-palms.[34] On their return to Jerusalem, the emissaries must have reported on the wonders they had seen in the Assyrian palace, and this may have influenced the Temple&rsquo;s decorations.
In addition, the Assyrians would have presented gifts to the Judean emissaries to take back to Jerusalem.[35] It is quite feasible that a citron, with its purifying properties would have been one of these gifts. The citron is easily transportable, and its thick oil-rich skin would have kept it fresh and sweet smelling. It is a very valuable gift, for just one citron can provide several seeds that can be germinated to produce a new citron tree that will produce its own citrons within 3 or 4 years, quickly giving rise to a whole orchard of trees for use.[36] Indeed, the introduction of the citron as a purifying agent would have made it worthy of cultivation in the Temple precincts.
When this fruit became part of the Sukkot celebration is unknown, though its connection to the palm fronds in Leviticus and the appearance of both citrons and date-palms in the Assyrian palace is striking. Whatever one makes of this, the citron&rsquo;s life in Judah seems to have begun as an elite item, used by priests and/or royalty in purification, both ritual and concrete.
By the time the Song of Songs was written, the citron had become better known, though still exotic, so that the author can imagine describing a woman meeting her lover under the shade of this luxurious tree, enjoying its fragrance and refreshing herself with its exotic fruit.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure url="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b8fd783bee52c8fb59b1fac/670e879244ed837ac443d8ff_etrog%2520citron%2520assyrian%2520a%2520romatic%2520purifier%2520sukkot.jpeg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[The Book of Jonah: God and Humanity Don’t Understand Each Other]]></title>
            <link>https://thetorah.com/article/the-book-of-jonah-god-and-humanity-dont-understand-each-other</link>
            <guid>https://thetorah.com/article/the-book-of-jonah-god-and-humanity-dont-understand-each-other</guid>
            <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2024 20:56:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[Jonah is an idiosyncratic prophet who disobeys, doesn&rsquo;t really repent, and even gets angry with YHWH. While later interpretations seek to explain Jonah&rsquo;s problematic behavior, in the book, it is Jonah who is confounded by YHWH&rsquo;s actions.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[Upon receiving his commission to prophesy the coming destruction of Nineveh, instead of traveling toward the city, Jonah takes a ship heading in the opposite direction, toward Tarshish.[1]
יונה א:ג וַיָּקָם יוֹנָה לִבְרֹחַ תַּרְשִׁישָׁה מִלִּפְנֵי יְ־הוָה וַיֵּרֶד יָפוֹ וַיִּמְצָא אָנִיָּה בָּאָה תַרְשִׁישׁ וַיִּתֵּן שְׂכָרָהּ וַיֵּרֶד בָּהּ לָבוֹא עִמָּהֶם תַּרְשִׁישָׁה מִלִּפְנֵי יְ־הוָה.
Jonah 1:3 But Jonah rose up to flee to Tarshish from before YHWH and he went down to Joppa and he found a ship bound for Tarshish. And he paid its fare, and he went down into it to go with them to Tarshish from before YHWH.
After YHWH has Jonah swallowed by a big fish, Jonah reluctantly agrees to complete his mission. When YHWH decides to spare Nineveh, however, Jonah becomes angry (4:1), and it is then that we learn the reason for his earlier reluctance:
&rlm;יונה ד:ב וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל אֶל יְ־הוָה וַיֹּאמַר אָנָּה יְ־הוָה הֲלוֹא זֶה דְבָרִי עַד הֱיוֹתִי עַל אַדְמָתִי עַל כֵּן קִדַּמְתִּי לִבְרֹחַ תַּרְשִׁישָׁה כִּי יָדַעְתִּי כִּי אַתָּה אֵל חַנּוּן וְרַחוּם אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב חֶסֶד וְנִחָם עַל הָרָעָה.
Jonah 4:2 And he prayed to YHWH and he said, &ldquo;I beseech you, YHWH, is this not what I said when I was still on my land? For this reason I rushed ahead to flee to Tarshish, because I know that you are a gracious God and compassionate, slow to anger, and full of loving-kindness, and regretful about sending evil.
Jonah is a rather unusual prophet: Not only does he run away from YHWH, but he does so because he apparently does not want YHWH to have mercy. Moreover, he argues with YHWH. While in this respect, he is similar to Job, Jonah&rsquo;s issues are not about his own unjust and undeserved suffering; yet he still wishes for death:
&rlm;יונה ד:ג וְעַתָּה יְ־הוָה קַח נָא אֶת נַפְשִׁי מִמֶּנִּי כִּי טוֹב מוֹתִי מֵחַיָּי.
Jonah 4:3 So now, Yahweh, take please my life from me, because better is my death than my life.&rdquo;
To be sure, other prophets, such as Moses, Jeremiah, and Elijah, have doubts about their divinely assigned missions and express these thoughts to YHWH. Elijah even seeks to die (1 Kgs 19:4), and Jeremiah&rsquo;s laments reveal a deeply depressed divine emissary.[2] None of these prophets, however, are as petulant as Jonah.
Jonah Disobeys YHWH for Israel&rsquo;s Sake
The Tannaitic midrash Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael explains that Jonah&rsquo;s attempt to avoid warning Nineveh was for Israel&rsquo;s sake:[3]
מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל שמות יב:א כָּךְ אָמַר יוֹנָה: אֵלֵךְ לִי חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין שְׁכִינָה נִגְלֵית, שֶׁהַגּוֹיִם קְרוֹבֵי תְּשׁוּבָה הֵן, שֶׁלֹּא לְחַיֵּב אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל.
Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael Exod 12:1 Thus, Jonah said: &ldquo;I will take myself outside the land [of Israel], a place where the divine presence is not revealed.&rdquo; For the gentiles are close to repentance (this, so as not to render Israel liable by invidious contrast.)[4]
In the view of the writer, Jonah reasons that if foreigners are inclined to repent, Israel will appear even more guilty of sin and unrepentant by comparison. Thus, Jonah is not a petulant anti-hero but a champion and protector of his people, who does not want them to be morally outdone up by foreigners, disreputable Assyrians at that!
The book of Jonah is concerned with God&rsquo;s creation broadly defined and his and our obligations to all humans, prodding its audience to contemplate fundamental issues concerning &ldquo;us versus them.&rdquo; As a late biblical composition,[5] this would surely have been an important theme to an audience living under the colonialist rule many, or increasingly most, of whom live outside the land of Israel.
For the Mekhilta, however, gentiles really are the &ldquo;Other,&rdquo; whose repentance puts enormous pressure on Israel. Thus, the rabbis are sympathetic to what they portray as Jonah&rsquo;s good intentions.
Implicit in this interpretation may be a suggestion that the deity is not fully upholding his end of the eternal promise to Israel, for he takes care to warn and rehabilitate Ninevites, but what about the salvation of his people now living under Rome or Persia, members of a diaspora even within their own land?[6]
Jonah Tells His Shipmates to Throw Him Overboard
Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael further sees Jonah as a martyr who is ready to die rather than complete his mission:
מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל שמות יב:א רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: לֹא הָלַךְ יוֹנָה אֶלָּא לְאַבֵּד אֶת עַצְמוֹ בַיָּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (יונה א,יב) "וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם: שָׂאוּנִי וַהֲטִילֻנִי אֶל הַיָּם, וְיִשְׁתֹּק הַיָּם מֵעֲלֵיכֶם, כִּי יוֹדֵעַ אָנִי כִּי בְשֶׁלִּי הַסַּעַר הַגָּדוֹל הַזֶּה עֲלֵיכֶם." אַתְּ מוֹצֵא, שֶׁהֲרֵי הָאָבוֹת וְהַנְּבִיאִים נָתְנוּ נַפְשָׁם עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל.
Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael Exod 12:1 R. Natan said: Jonah went (on that voyage) only to cast himself into the sea, as it is written (Jonah 1:12) &ldquo;And he said to them: Lift me up and cast me into the sea and the sea will calm down for you; for I know that this terrible storm came upon you on my account.&rdquo; All this do you find with the ancestors and the prophets, that they gave their lives for Israel.
Jonah is thus like other great leaders&mdash;prophets, kings, and patriarchs&mdash;who come to be regarded as martyrs in the rabbinic tradition, willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of Israel.[7]
Jonah Agrees to Obey, but Does Not Repent
The Rabbis were not the first to try to rehabilitate Jonah. Pseudo-Philo (2nd&ndash;4th centuries C.E.) reimagines him as a sinner who supplicates God for forgiveness. Having been tossed into the sea, YHWH sends a fish to swallow Jonah, at which point Jonah finally prays to YHWH:
יונה ב:ג וַיֹּאמֶר קָרָאתִי מִצָּרָה לִי אֶל יְ־הוָה וַיַּעֲנֵנִי מִבֶּטֶן שְׁאוֹל שִׁוַּעְתִּי שָׁמַעְתָּ קוֹלִי.
Jonah 2:3 And he said, &ldquo;I call out from my distress to YHWH, and he answers me. From the belly of Sheol I cry out for help, and you hear my voice.&rdquo;
He continues with a description of his trials and a prayerful request for release. Jonah makes no explicit mention of sin or repentance, but in Pseudo-Philo&rsquo;s version of the account, he acknowledges the extent of his sins, using the mouth of the fish to convey his words:[8]
Pseudo-Philo, De Jonah, 18 It opened its mouth in order to allow the prayer to ascend, allowing its tongue to be used to articulate words. The prophet operated it [i.e. the tongue] just as a musician plucks an instrument with his finger.19 His invocation was as follows: &ldquo;If it was your intention to have me suffer comprehensive retribution, then I (clearly) see that the extent of my sins would have deserved an even graver castigation.
Yet because you wanted to repay the sins only so far as I learned from you the impulse for human kindness&mdash;for I was not supposed to disappear entirely from view, rejected and far from your eyes, nor was my mouth supposed to be sealed toward you or toward others&mdash;I now look toward you with the eyes of my heart and activate my tongue, over which you have granted me freedom to pray for myself. Thus do you answer the prayers of sinners!&rdquo;
Jonah Is Angry that YHWH Spares the Ninevites
Another problematic reaction from Jonah occurs when YHWH decides to spare Nineveh:
יונה ג:י וַיַּרְא הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם כִּי שָׁבוּ מִדַּרְכָּם הָרָעָה וַיִּנָּחֶם הָאֱלֹהִים עַל הָרָעָה אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לַעֲשׂוֹת לָהֶם וְלֹא עָשָׂה.
Jonah 3:10 And see did God their actions, that they turned back from their evil way, and God was regretful about the evil that he had declared to do to them, and he did not do it.
Jonah is angry:
יונה ד:א וַיֵּרַע אֶל יוֹנָה רָעָה גְדוֹלָה וַיִּחַר לוֹ.
Jonah 4:1 And it seemed evil to Jonah, a great evil and he was burning angry.
After expressing his frustration to YHWH&mdash;הֲלוֹא זֶה דְבָרִי עַד הֱיוֹתִי עַל אַדְמָתִי, &ldquo;Is this not what I said (would happen) when I was still on my land?&rdquo;&mdash;Jonah leaves the city:
יונה ד:ה וַיֵּצֵא יוֹנָה מִן הָעִיר וַיֵּשֶׁב מִקֶּדֶם לָעִיר וַיַּעַשׂ לוֹ שָׁם סֻכָּה וַיֵּשֶׁב תַּחְתֶּיהָ בַּצֵּל עַד אֲשֶׁר יִרְאֶה מַה יִּהְיֶה בָּעִיר.
Jonah 4:5 And go forth did Jonah from the city, and he sat down east of the city, and he made for himself there a hut, and he sat under it in the shade, until he might see what would become of the city.
Reading the verb וַיֵּצֵא as a pluperfect, &ldquo;he had gone,&rdquo; Rabbi Eliezer of Beaugency, a 12th century French exegete, interprets Jonah&rsquo;s departure as occurring before the Ninevites repented. He thus suggests that Jonah did not in fact know that the Ninevites had repented:
רבי אליעזר מבלגנצי יונה ד:א ויחר לו &ndash; כי לא ידע תשובתם כי יצא לו מן העיר כמו שאמר למטה (יונה ד:ה).
Rabbi Eliezer of Beaugency Jonah 4:1 And he was troubled: (This was so) because Jonah had not known about their repentance, for he had gone out of the city, as it is said below (in 4:5).[9]
This lack of knowledge helps to explain Jonah&rsquo;s negative response to God&rsquo;s not destroying them.[10] For Rabbi Eliezer, YHWH only later reveals to Jonah that the Ninevites had repented when he explains to Jonah why he spared the city:
רבי אליעזר מבלגנצי יונה ד:יא אשר לא ידע {בין ימינו לשמאלו} &ndash; בין טוב לרע ולא להכעיס ולא להזיד הם חוטאים ושאינן חוטאים כלום, כגון תנוקות ובהמה רבה. ובשבילם אשא לכל המקום אף אם לא עשו תשובה כדבריך. אבל על ידי תשובה חסתי עליהם. וכאן הגיד לו תשובתם.
Rabbi Eliezer of Beaugency Jonah 4:11 Who do not know (to distinguish between right and left): i.e., between good and evil. And they do not sin out of spite or willfully; in any event, they only sin like babies and much cattle. And on their behalf, I would have pardoned the entire place, even if they hadn&rsquo;t repented, according to your (i.e., Jonah&rsquo;s) words. However, on account of (their) repentance, I had compassion on them. And here, (God) told him of their repentance.[11]
Jonah Is Also Angry That YHWH Did Not Spare the Qiqayon Plant
Jonah&rsquo;s final angry outburst is the most puzzling. After delivering his message, Jonah sets up a hut to the east of Nineveh, from which he can observe what will happen next. As he is sitting there, YHWH causes a קִיקָיוֹן [qiqayon] plant to grow in Jonah&rsquo;s location, delighting him with its cooling shade. The next day, however, YHWH sets a worm to attack the plant, causing it to dry up, so that Jonah is no longer protected by it:
יונה ד:ח וַיְהִי כִּזְרֹחַ הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וַיְמַן אֱלֹהִים רוּחַ קָדִים חֲרִישִׁית וַתַּךְ הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ עַל רֹאשׁ יוֹנָה וַיִּתְעַלָּף וַיִּשְׁאַל אֶת נַפְשׁוֹ לָמוּת וַיֹּאמֶר טוֹב מוֹתִי מֵחַיָּי.
Jonah 4:8 And it was at the rising of the sun, and God assigned a cutting east wind, and the sun struck down on the head of Jonah, and he grew faint and asked that his life-force just die. And he said &ldquo;better is my death than my life.&rdquo;
YHWH responds by asking about Jonah&rsquo;s concern for the plant:
יונה ד:ט וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל יוֹנָה הַהֵיטֵב חָרָה לְךָ עַל הַקִּיקָיוֹן וַיֹּאמֶר הֵיטֵב חָרָה לִי עַד מָוֶת.
Jonah 4:9 And said God to Jonah, &ldquo;Is it good for you to be angry about the qiqayon?&rdquo; And he said, &ldquo;It is good for me to be angry unto death.&rdquo;
The medieval Midrash Jonah has Jonah learn from the life and death of the qiqayon. The narrative ends with Jonah no longer angry about YHWH&rsquo;s sparing of the Ninevites, but rather asking YHWH to continue to act with compassion in his dealings with the world:
מדרש יונה ,נוסחסא א באותה שעה נפל על פניו ואמר הנהג עולמך במדת רחמים דכתיב לה׳ אלקינו הרחמים והסליחות (דניאל ט:ט).
Midrash Jonah, version 1 At that time, he fell on his face and said, &ldquo;May you conduct your world with a measure of compassion,&rdquo; as it is written &ldquo;To the Lord, our God, belong mercy and compassion&rdquo; (Dan 9:9).[12]
YHWH, God of All
Yet in the biblical narrative, Jonah does not get the last word. The story ends with YHWH accusing Jonah of caring more for qiqayon than for either humans or animals:
&rlm;יונה ד:י וַיֹּאמֶר יְ־הוָה אַתָּה חַסְתָּ עַל הַקִּיקָיוֹן אֲשֶׁר לֹא עָמַלְתָּ בּוֹ וְלֹא גִדַּלְתּוֹ שֶׁבִּן לַיְלָה הָיָה וּבִן לַיְלָה אָבָד. ד:יא וַאֲנִי לֹא אָחוּס עַל נִינְוֵה הָעִיר הַגְּדוֹלָה אֲשֶׁר יֶשׁ בָּהּ הַרְבֵּה מִשְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה רִבּוֹ אָדָם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדַע בֵּין יְמִינוֹ לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ וּבְהֵמָה רַבָּה.
Jonah 4:10 And said YHWH, &ldquo;You, you take pity on the planting, for which you did not labor and which you did not grow, that over one night came to be and over the next night was lost. 4:11 But I, should I not take pity on Nineveh the great city that has within it more than twelve myriad human beings who cannot distinguish between their right and their left, and many animals?[13]
The message of YHWH&rsquo;s parable is a benevolent one, namely that all living things matter, are valuable, and this ecological care includes plants, animals, and human beings, whether or not they are under the canopy of the covenant. The parable has universalistic implications, and care for all life, including even plants, is at the center of YHWH&rsquo;s orientation as ruler of the universe.
An Unpredictable and Unknowable God
Yet the book contains a deeper message: Jonah as human and YHWH as deity are on completely different planes. Jonah does not understand YHWH and YHWH does not understand him.[14] From YHWH&rsquo;s perspective, Jonah avoided the divine charge to prophesy to Nineveh and is angered by YHWH&rsquo;s forgiveness of the Ninevites because Jonah lacks empathy. The real reason, however, is that Jonah cannot deal with YHWH&rsquo;s capacity to change his mind.[15]
As prophet, Jonah feels that he has been made to play the fool, and that his mission has been a waste of time as he had initially feared. From his human perspective, Jonah wants clear boundaries, definite consequences.[16] Thus, YHWH&rsquo;s utter autonomy and explosive unpredictability make the deity impossible to work for, frustrating to death.
In this respect, the book of Jonah takes its place among the complex reflections of late biblical writers upon matters of life and death, good and evil, human and divine. Jonah&rsquo;s lack of response to YHWH&rsquo;s final speech sends a message akin to the final words of Job after YHWH calls him to account for questioning divine justice: [17]
איוב מב:ו עַל כֵּן אֶמְאַס וְנִחַמְתִּי עַל עָפָר וָאֵפֶר.
Job 42:6 &ldquo;For this reason I am in a state of rejection, and I am consoling myself on dust and ashes.&rdquo;
Job is cowed, for he has experienced YHWH with his own eyes. He accepts that YHWH is god and he is a mere human, but he is not comforted. The abyss between mortal and immortal only seems the wider by the end of the book.[18] Qohelet shares this sad acknowledgment, for all the conventional rules are mere &ldquo;vanity&rdquo; or &ldquo;absurdity,&rdquo; or &ldquo;vapor.&rdquo;[19] YHWH controls what happens and his choices are not fully comprehensible.[20]
Jonah&rsquo;s folk motifs&mdash;the emphasis on journeys; confrontation with a life-threatening situation or character; rescue by a helper who is also an antagonist&mdash;and folkloristic elements&mdash;the gigantic fish who swallows Jonah, the magical plant that suddenly sprouts to provide shade, the attribution of human characteristics to animals&mdash;reads as lighter in tone than Job and Qohelet. Like these works, however, it deals with issues of personal identity and the individual&rsquo;s relationship to a demanding and inscrutable deity.
Postscript
Reading Jonah on Yom Kippur
The efficacy of repentance and God&rsquo;s capacious capacity to grant forgiveness in the book of Jonah informed its reception and interpretation and help explain the book&rsquo;s place at Yom Kippur, a communal setting that marks the process of atonement.[21] As suggested by Robert C. Gregg:
Perhaps many early hearers of Jonah on Yom Kippur so registered its force as scripture telling of a pardoning God that they did not suffer undue cognitive dissonance about Jonah&rsquo;s characterization in the text; they may have found his aggravated behavior overshadowed by the interaction between God and Nineveh&mdash;penitence rewarded by forgiveness.[22]
Gregg points to an excerpt from Pseudo-Philo, preserved only in an Armenian translation, that places special emphasis on the genuineness of the Ninevites&rsquo; repentance, having them model &ldquo;what devout atonement and the celebration of the forgiveness of sins is like.&rdquo;[23]
The transformation of Jonah&rsquo;s worldview in post-biblical interpretations, so that both the story and the character of the prophet comport with the themes of repentance and forgiveness, further connect it to the holy day&rsquo;s central themes. They present Jonah also as asking God for forgiveness, emphasizing God&rsquo;s capacity to forgive compassionately, and allowing Jonah to become a positive exemplar on the Day of Atonement.
In this way, both the Ninevites and Jonah himself become models of and models for the behavior of Jews, who can petition a compassionate God in hopes of forgiveness if they genuinely repent of the evil they have done. This message not only informs the liturgy of Yom Kippur itself but has traditionally reflected and shaped the worldview of Jews throughout the year.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure url="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b8fd783bee52c8fb59b1fac/670823e70dd68b42f52fe5f5_Jonah%2520and%2520God.jpeg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Jonah Leaves Us with Questions, So on Yom Kippur We End with Micah]]></title>
            <link>https://thetorah.com/article/jonah-leaves-us-with-questions-so-on-yom-kippur-we-end-with-micah</link>
            <guid>https://thetorah.com/article/jonah-leaves-us-with-questions-so-on-yom-kippur-we-end-with-micah</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 08 Oct 2024 12:58:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[Does God always accept repentance? Is God&rsquo;s mercy a good quality? Does God really forgive Nineveh? By appending Micah 7:18&ndash;20 to the end of Jonah, it is as if Jonah is finally accepting the goodness of God&rsquo;s mercy.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[The book of Jonah is a remarkable four-scene[1] story that is both absurd and sublime.[2] The tradition of reading Jonah during the afternoon service, for many the centerpiece of the day, goes back, at least, to the Babylonian Talmud:
בבלי מגילה לא. בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים קוֹרִין ״אַחֲרֵי מוֹת״, וּמַפְטִירִין ״כִּי כֹה אָמַר רָם וְנִשָּׂא״. וּבַמִּנְחָה קוֹרִין בָּעֲרָיוֹת וּמַפְטִירִין בְּיוֹנָה.
b. Megillah 31a On Yom Kippur, we read [from the Torah] &ldquo;after the death&rdquo; [Lev 16],[3] and read the prophetic unit, &ldquo;For thus said He who is high aloft&rdquo; [Isa 57:15]. And during the afternoon service we read about forbidden sexual relationships [Lev 18], and read as the prophetic unit [the book of] Jonah.&rdquo;[4]
This custom likely originated in Babylonia, although it was adopted in the Land of Israel by the seventh century.[5]
The Supplementation of Jonah with Micah
Haftara readings are typically a set of consecutive verses from a single book, yet in most synagogues, the reading from Jonah is supplemented by the last three verses of the prophet Micah, the book that immediately follows Jonah in תרי עשׂר, the Book of the Twelve (Minor Prophets):
מיכה ז:יח מִי אֵל כָּמוֹךָ נֹשֵׂא עָו&zwj;ֹן וְעֹבֵר עַל פֶּשַׁע לִשְׁאֵרִית נַחֲלָתוֹ לֹא הֶחֱזִיק לָעַד אַפּוֹ כִּי חָפֵץ חֶסֶד הוּא. ז:יט יָשׁוּב יְרַחֲמֵנוּ יִכְבֹּשׁ עֲו&zwj;ֹנֹתֵינוּ וְתַשְׁלִיךְ בִּמְצֻלוֹת יָם כָּל חַטֹּאותָם. ז:כ תִּתֵּן אֱמֶת לְיַעֲקֹב חֶסֶד לְאַבְרָהָם אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתָּ לַאֲבֹתֵינוּ מִימֵי קֶדֶם.
Mic 7:18 Who is a God like You, forgiving iniquity and remitting transgression; who has not maintained His wrath forever against the remnant of His own people, because He loves graciousness! 7:19 He will take us back in love; He will cover up our iniquities, You will hurl all our sins into the depths of the sea. 7:20 You will keep faith with Jacob, loyalty to Abraham, as You promised on oath to our fathers in days gone by.
This kind of addition is unusual. Indeed, according to an early rabbinic source, only in the Book of the Twelve is it permitted to skip from one book to another in a haftara:
תוספתא מגילה (ליברמן) ג:יט מדלגין בנביא ואין מדלגין בתורה ואין מדלגין מנביא לנביא ובנביא של שנים עשר מדלגין ובלבד שלא ידליג מסוף הספר לראשו.
t. Megillah 3:19 One can skip [verses] when reading from the prophets, but one cannot skip verses when reading from the Torah. But one may not skip from one book of the prophets to another book of the prophets. However, inside the book of the twelve prophets, one may skip [from one book to another] as long as one does not skip from the end to the beginning.[6]
We know that this custom of adding these Micah verses to Jonah developed in the Geonic period; it moved from Babylonia into Italy, Provence, and Spain, and only entered Ashkenazi tradition after the 17th century (see appendix by Zev Farber).[7] But why were these verses added?
Abravanel: Temporary Reprieve for Nineveh versus Full Reprieve for Israel
The earliest explanation I found is in the final paragraph of Don Isaac Abravanel&rsquo;s (1437&ndash;1508) commentary to Jonah:
אברבנאל יונה ד והנה מתקני ההפטרות סמכו לנבואה הזאת שלשה פסוקים אחרים שהם מנבואת מיכה והם מי אל כמוך וגומר, וענינם שהקדוש ברוך הוא לנינוה לא היה עובר על פשע מוחל וסולח בהחלט אבל האריך להם אפו עד שנחרבו אחר כך ע"י נבוכדנצר.
Abravanel Jonah 4 Those who established the prophetic readings[8] put three verses from the prophet Micah adjacent to this prophecy [of Jonah]: &ldquo;Who is a God like you&hellip;.&rdquo; The juxtaposition suggests that God did not absolve Nineveh absolutely but gave them a reprieve until they were destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar.
אבל לישראל בשובם אליו אינו כן כי הוא נושא עון ועובר על פשע לחלוטין והוא אומרו מי אל כמוך נושא עון ועובר על פשע לשארית נחלתו כי בעבור היותם נחלתו ועמו לא החזיק לעד אפו כי חפץ חסד הוא לעשות עמהם
But when Israel returns to him, it is not the case [that the reprieve is temporary], but he forgives absolutely. This is what [Micah means when he says]: &ldquo;Who is a God like You, forgiving iniquity and remitting transgression for the remnant of His own inheritance&rdquo; [Micah 7:18]. Because they are His inheritance and His people, &ldquo;He has not maintained His wrath forever because He loves graciousness&rdquo; [Micah 7:18] to do this for them.
ולא יעשה כן לשאר הגוים החטאים בנפשותם, ולכן נקוה לו שישוב ירחמנו יכבוש עונותינו והוא לזמן הגאולה העתידה שאז תתן אמת ליעקב חסד לאברהם
But He will not do for other nations who are fundamentally sinners. That is why we hope that &ldquo;He will take us back in love; he will cover up our iniquities&rdquo; [Micah 7:19]&mdash;this refers to the time of the future redemption, when &ldquo;You will keep faith with Jacob, loyalty to Abraham&rdquo; [Micah 7:20].
In other words, Abravanel suggests, Micah highlights the exceptionalism of Israel, which has a special relationship with YHWH that is not shared by other nations.[9]
Micah as Commenting On, Reframing, or Amplifying Jonah
The opening words of the addition, מִי אֵל כָּמוֹךָ, &ldquo;Who is a God like you?&rdquo; which speaks directly to YHWH,[10] are likely meant to be put in Jonah&rsquo;s mouth. This offers Jonah an opportunity to react to and even accept YHWH&rsquo;s message at the end of the book (4:10&ndash;11), and presents a more satisfying conclusion to the book than the words וּבְהֵמָה רַבָּה, &ldquo;and many animals.&rdquo;[11] Beyond this, several other literary and linguistic connections, and theological revisions could have led to the custom of adding these verses; perhaps several of these functioned in tandem.
a. The Depths of the Sea
The verses from Micah connect to Jonah based on their literary resonance. Jonah speaks of being cast into the depths of the sea:
יונה ב:ד וַתַּשְׁלִיכֵנִי מְצוּלָה בִּלְבַב יַמִּים וְנָהָר יְסֹבְבֵנִי כָּל מִשְׁבָּרֶיךָ וְגַלֶּיךָ עָלַי עָבָרוּ.
Jonah 2:4 You cast me into the depths, into the heart of the sea, the floods engulfed me; all Your breakers and billows swept over me.
The words מצולה, &ldquo;depths&rdquo; and ים, &ldquo;sea&rdquo; are also used together in Micah:
מיכה ז:יט יָשׁוּב יְרַחֲמֵנוּ יִכְבֹּשׁ עֲו&zwj;ֹנֹתֵינוּ וְתַשְׁלִיךְ בִּמְצֻלוֹת יָם כָּל חַטֹּאותָם.
Mic 7:19 He will take us back in love; He will cover up our iniquities, You will hurl all our sins into the depths of the sea.
This phrase appears only in these two verses and in one very obscure psalm (68:23).[12] The juxtaposition of this rare phrase makes it look like Micah, which in the Hebrew canon immediately follows Jonah, is commenting on Jonah, and thus makes the verses that include this phrase a fitting coda to the book. Jonah&rsquo;s complaint that he has been thrown into the sea is replaced by the image of our sins being thrown into the sea.[13]
The opening part of the verse is itself remarkable. According to Micah, it is YHWH, not Israel, who returns&mdash;יָשׁוּב from the root שׁוב, the word that expresses repentance in rabbinic texts, especially in its noun form, teshuvah.[14]
The image of YHWH conquering sin &ndash; this is the proper translation of יִכְבֹּשׁ עֲוֹֽנֹתֵינוּ &ndash; is unique and equally remarkable&mdash;so remarkable that many scholars emend כבשׁ, &ldquo;to conquer,&rdquo; to כבס, &ldquo;to wash sins away.&rdquo;[15] But need this vivid image be emended away? And the end of the verse, where the sins do not merely disappear, but are hurled into the depths of sea, is most comforting, for what is hurled there will surely and totally disappear.
b. If Nineveh A Fortiori Israel
The book of Jonah is unusual in having its Israelite protagonist prophesy only to the people of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria.[16] Other prophetic books contain oracles against the nations, but these are typically a small part of a larger prophetic book,[17] and no other prophet beyond Jonah is asked to travel to the foreign city to deliver the prophecies there.[18]
The reading of Jonah on Yom Kippur is thus an odd selection for that day, since it highlights the effective repentance of a nation other than Israel. Readers might adduce from Jonah a type of קל וחומר&mdash;an a fortiori argument: If YHWH forgives repentant Ninevites, YHWH will certainly forgive us if we repent with equal sincerity. But this is not explicit in Jonah&mdash;and the passage in Micah, which explicitly focuses on Israel, may have been added to the haftara to make this explicit.
c. Does God Always Accept Repentance?
When the king of Nineveh hears Jonah&rsquo;s warning, he tells his people to repent:
יונה ג:ט מִי יוֹדֵעַ יָשׁוּב וְנִחַם הָאֱלֹהִים וְשָׁב מֵחֲרוֹן אַפּוֹ וְלֹא נֹאבֵד.
Jon 3:9 Who knows but that God may turn and relent? He may turn back from His wrath, so that we do not perish.
The phrasing &ldquo;who knows?&rdquo;[19] suggests that repentance does not automatically bring about divine forgiveness. This idea contradicts many passages in the Bible, that either through sacrifices or through mending one&rsquo;s ways and returning to YHWH, an individual&rsquo;s or the community&rsquo;s sins may be remitted.[20] For example, Deuteronomy 30:1&ndash;10, through its use in seven clauses of the root shuv, &ldquo;to return,&rdquo; is structured to state emphatically that if Israel returns to YHWH, YHWH will restore Israel&rsquo;s fortunes.[21] Ezekiel is equally emphatic about the efficacy of repentance to avert death at YHWH&rsquo;s hands:
יחזקאל יח:כז וּבְשׁוּב רָשָׁע מֵרִשְׁעָתוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה וַיַּעַשׂ מִשְׁפָּט וּצְדָקָה הוּא אֶת נַפְשׁוֹ יְחַיֶּה. יח:כח וַיִּרְאֶה (וישוב) [וַיָּשָׁב] מִכָּל פְּשָׁעָיו אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה חָיוֹ יִחְיֶה לֹא יָמוּת.
Ezek 18:27 And if a wicked person turns back from the wickedness that he practiced and does what is just and right, such a person shall save his life. 28 Because he took heed and turned back from all the transgressions that he committed, he shall live; he shall not die.
In contrast to these two representative texts, the quote from the king of Nineveh suggests that returning to YHWH does not automatically assure that YHWH will return to the sinner. What does that mean for Israel or for Jews praying on Yom Kippur? Such a perspective is not terribly reassuring.
MT Cantillation Marks Repunctuate the Quote
Indeed, through interpretation later Jewish tradition has corrected it in various ways: The cantillation marks, which also serve as punctuation marks,[22] suggest that it should be read:
יונה ג:ט מִֽי־יוֹדֵ֣עַ יָשׁ֔וּב
Jon 3:9 [He] who knows will return,
וְנִחַ֖ם הָאֱלֹהִ֑ים וְשָׁ֛ב מֵחֲר֥וֹן אַפּ֖וֹ וְלֹ֥א נֹאבֵֽד:
and God will relent. He will turn back from His wrath, so that we do not perish.
This is not a likely reading in terms of Hebrew syntax, but it solves the theological problem by suggesting that the &ldquo;who knows&rdquo; refers not to YHWH&rsquo;s reaction to the repentance, but to a person who knows they have sinned&mdash;they must repent.[23] This counter-syntactical reading is also reflected in the slightly expansive Aramaic Targum Jonathan to this verse:
תרגום יונתן יונה ג:ט מַן יְדַע דְאִית בִידֵיה חוֹבִין יְתוּב מִנְהוֹן וְיִתרַחַם עֲלַנָא מִן קֳדָם יוי וִיתוּב מִתְקוֹף רוּגזֵיה וְלָא נֵיבַד׃
Targum Jonathan, Jonah 3:9 Let whoever knows that there are sins on his hands repent from them that there might be shown mercy upon us from before the Lord and that he might turn from his fierce anger that we should not perish.[24]
Rashi also interprets this way, glossing the phrase with: מי יודע &ndash; עבירו[ת] שבידו ישוב, &ldquo;who knows the sins that he has committed shall repent.&rdquo; Radak, in contrast (in his first interpretation), ignores the punctuation that the cantillation marks imply and glosses אולי ישוב ונחם האלהים בשובינו ממעשינו הרעים, &ldquo;perhaps God will turn and relent when we turn away from our evil deeds&rdquo;&mdash;making the point that human repentance does not automatically assure divine forgiveness.
Ending the reading of Jonah with Micah&rsquo;s statement that YHWH is merciful and takes us back in love accomplishes something similar by establishing that YHWH unquestionably forgives sinners&mdash;no ifs or buts about it.
d. Is God&rsquo;s Mercy a Good Thing?
Jonah complains about YHWH&rsquo;s mercy for the people of Nineveh:
יונה ד:ב ... כִּי יָדַעְתִּי כִּי אַתָּה אֵל חַנּוּן וְרַחוּם אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב חֶסֶד וְנִחָם עַל הָרָעָה.
Jonah 4:2 &hellip; For I know that You are a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in kindness, renouncing punishment.&rdquo;[25]
The first of the three Micah verses can easily read as a commentary on this complaint, reframing it as praise, given the overlapping vocabulary:
מיכה ז:יח מִי אֵל כָּמוֹךָ נֹשֵׂא עָו&zwj;ֹן וְעֹבֵר עַל פֶּשַׁע לִשְׁאֵרִית נַחֲלָתוֹ לֹא הֶחֱזִיק לָעַד אַפּוֹ כִּי חָפֵץ חֶסֶד הוּא.
Mic 7:18 Who is a God like You, forgiving iniquity and remitting transgression; who has not maintained His wrath forever against the remnant of His own people, because He loves graciousness!
This verse is longer and more powerful than that of Jonah.[26] The phrase עֹבֵר עַל פֶּשַׁע, also used in Proverbs 19:11, is best rendered &ldquo;overlooking offence[s]&rdquo;[27]&mdash;according to Micah, sins or offenses disappear from the divine gaze. The phrase חפץ חסד is especially remarkable&mdash;it is better translated as &ldquo;delights in steadfast love.&rdquo;[28] These two words are used closely together only here and in Hosea:
הושע ו:ו כִּי חֶסֶד חָפַצְתִּי וְלֹא זָבַח ...
Hos 6:6 For I desire ḥesed, not sacrifice&hellip;.
In Hosea, it is the people who must do ḥesed, while here it is YHWH who does ḥesed. And the strong verb חפץ used with ḥesed is best translated as &ldquo;to delight, to take pleasure in.&rdquo; This is an amazing and appropriate depiction of God on Yom Kippur, as delighting in divine ḥesed, and thus forgiving Israel. This is a stronger image than Jonah&rsquo;s רַב חֶסֶד, &ldquo;abounding in ḥesed.&rdquo;
Adding this to the end of the haftara gives the impression that Jonah is not only accepting that the way he previously described God is actually positive, but it even has him amplifying the message, waxing poetic about God&rsquo;s great mercy and kindness.
A midrash sees Jonah quoting Micah (7:18) in response to God&rsquo;s rebuke, accepting that God deals in mercy and not just justice:
מדרש יונה באותה שעה נפל יונה על פניו לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא ואמר לפניו: רבש"ע כלום היא לפניך מדת הדין? במדת רחמים תנהיג את עולמך ונאה לך תהלה, שכן כתיב (דניאל ט:ט): "לה' אלהינו הרחמים והסליחות." שנאמר (דברים ד:לא): "כי אל רחום ה' אלהיך." וכתיב (מיכה ז:יח): "מי אל כמוך נושא עון," וכתיב (תהלים לג:ה): "חסד ה' מלאה הארץ."[29]
Midrash Jonah At that time, Jonah fell on his face before the Blessed Holy One and said before him: &ldquo;Master of the universe, do you not have before you the trait of justice? But you run your world with the trait of mercy, and you are worthy of praise. For it is written (Dan 9:9): &ldquo;To the Lord our God belong mercy and forgiveness,&rdquo; for it says (4:31): &ldquo;For the LORD your God is a compassionate God.&rdquo; And it is written (Mic 7:18): &ldquo;Who is a God like you forgiving iniquity?&rdquo; And it is written (Ps 33:5): &ldquo;the earth is full of the LORD&rsquo;S faithful care.&rdquo;
The midrash here envisions Jonah himself making use of the verse from Micah to declare that he learned his lesson and now sees God&rsquo;s mercy upon all people as a positive trait.
e. Micah Disambiguates the Conclusion of Jonah
The final verse of Jonah, which ends God&rsquo;s response to Jonah&rsquo;s complaint about the shriveling of the kikayon (castor oil?) plant, is generally understood to be a rhetorical question:
יונה ד:י וַיֹּאמֶר יְ־הוָה אַתָּה חַסְתָּ עַל הַקִּיקָיוֹן אֲשֶׁר לֹא עָמַלְתָּ בּוֹ וְלֹא גִדַּלְתּוֹ שֶׁבִּן לַיְלָה הָיָה וּבִן לַיְלָה אָבָד. ד:יא וַאֲנִי לֹא אָחוּס עַל נִינְוֵה הָעִיר הַגְּדוֹלָה אֲשֶׁר יֶשׁ בָּהּ הַרְבֵּה מִשְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה רִבּוֹ אָדָם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדַע בֵּין יְמִינוֹ לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ וּבְהֵמָה רַבָּה.
Jon 4:10 Then YHWH said: &ldquo;You cared about the plant, which you did not work for and which you did not grow, which appeared overnight and perished overnight.4:11 And should not I care about Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who do not yet know their right hand from their left, and many beasts as well!&rdquo;[30]
In context, this is the natural understanding of the sentence. Yet, nothing formally and unequivocally marks this verse as a question.[31] From a purely grammatical perspective, it could be rendered as a declarative statement: &ldquo;Yet I will not care about Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who do not yet know their right hand from their left, and many beasts as well,&rdquo; contrasting Jonah&rsquo;s knee-jerk, selfish reaction to the destruction of the kikayon plant[32] to the mysterious and even capricious justice of YHWH.
Indeed, Alan Cooper of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, prefers this understanding,[33] arguing that reading the last two verses as an a fortiori (qal vaḥomer) is problematic.[34] For Cooper, the actions of God &ldquo;are uncanny and inexplicable.&rdquo;[35] Is this the message we really want to hear on Yom Kippur, as the day begins to dim?
The addition of the Micah verses to the haftara has the effect of pushing back against such a view of divine justice, as Cooper himself notes: &ldquo;And that is the point of Mic. 7.18&ndash;20, which provides the real resolution of the Book of Jonah.&rdquo;[36] When read in synagogue on Yom Kippur, these verses in Micah certainly do correct this possible understanding of Jonah, noting that YHWH will forgive Israel unconditionally&mdash;even if it is uncertain whether the Ninevites have been forgiven.
Ending with YHWH&rsquo;s Covenant with Israel
Jonah ends with YHWH&rsquo;s mercy towards Nineveh. Yom Kippur, however, is about Israel&rsquo;s repentance and YHWH&rsquo;s covenant with the people. The final verse of Micah brings us back to this theme:
מיכה ז:כ תִּתֵּן אֱמֶת לְיַעֲקֹב חֶסֶד לְאַבְרָהָם אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתָּ לַאֲבֹתֵינוּ מִימֵי קֶדֶם.
Mic 7:20 You will keep faith with Jacob, loyalty to Abraham, as You promised on oath to our fathers in days gone by.
The words ʾemet &ldquo;faith&rdquo; and ḥesed &ldquo;loyalty/steadfastness&rdquo; are often used together[37] and reflect the contents of the covenant YHWH made with Israel and its ancestors.[38] In the context of Yom Kippur this recalls a major theme of the High Holydays&mdash;zekhut ʾavot&mdash;the merits of the ancestors (literally: fathers). This is a rabbinic conception, that Israel, even generations and centuries later, benefits from the merit-worthy deeds performed by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.[39]
That rabbinic conception finds its precursor in the Bible,[40] where YHWH, even generations later, remembers the covenant that He made with the ancestors&mdash;a covenant that cannot be revoked, and assures Israel&rsquo;s perpetual continuation. For example, after noting all the terrible calamities that will befall Israel, the תוכחה, the great rebuke of Leviticus notes:
ויקרא כו:מב וְזָכַרְתִּי אֶת בְּרִיתִי יַעֲקוֹב וְאַף אֶת בְּרִיתִי יִצְחָק וְאַף אֶת בְּרִיתִי אַבְרָהָם אֶזְכֹּר וְהָאָרֶץ אֶזְכֹּר.
Lev 26:42 Then will I remember My covenant with Jacob; I will remember also My covenant with Isaac, and also My covenant with Abraham, namely, I will remember the land [promised to them by that covenant].&rdquo;[41]
Israel&rsquo;s positive future is secured&mdash;indeed, the last words imply in Leviticus as they do here that YHWH will not merely remember that oath, but will &ldquo;take an action on what is recalled.&rdquo;[42] As Yom Kippur moves toward its conclusion, this is a most comforting thought.
Addendum
Adding Obadiah and Micah: The Original Geonic Custom
Dr. Rabbi Zev Farber
The custom of adding Micah verses at the end of the reading of Jonah on mincha (the afternoon service) of Yom Kippur goes back to Geonic times. Originally, it also included the final verse in Obadiah, to be read before the reading of Jonah commences:
עובדיה א:כא וְעָלוּ מוֹשִׁעִים בְּהַר צִיּוֹן לִשְׁפֹּט אֶת הַר עֵשָׂו וְהָיְתָה לַי־הוָה הַמְּלוּכָה.
Obad 1:21 For liberators shall march up on Mount Zion to wreak judgment on Mount Esau; and dominion shall be YHWH&rsquo;s.
This tradition&mdash;largely lost[43]&mdash;has Jonah framed by the end of the previous book, Obadiah, and the end of the following book, Micah. This can hardly be coincidental; this reading is likely meant to encapsulate the three consecutive books of Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah, but the reason for this is unclear.
The earliest explicit reference to the custom is from Hilkhot Pesukot, the earliest halakhah book ever written, and believed to be authored by R. Yehudai Gaon, who led the Babylonian academy at Surah from 757 to 761:
הלכות פסוקות במינחתא קרן מן וידבר דכמעשה ארץ מצרים עד סוף עינינא כוליה עד קדשים, ומפטר בנביא בתרי עשרא ועלו מושיעים ונבואתה דיונה כולה ומי אל כמוך נושא עון ודבתריה ודבתריה.[44]
Hilkhot Pesukot During mincha, they read from the &ldquo;And [God] spoke&rdquo; of &ldquo;like the ways of Egypt&rdquo; (Lev 18) until the end of the subject entirely, until &ldquo;[be] holy&rdquo; (Lev 19). And the haftara is from the book of the twelve, &ldquo;and liberators march up&rdquo; (Obad 1:21), and the prophecy of Jonah in its entirety, and &ldquo;who is a God like you?&rdquo; (Mic 7:18), and the first (verse) afterwards, and the one after that.
The same description appears in the Seder Rav Amram Gaon, who led the academy in Sura from 857 until his death in 875.[45] Not all Geonim had this custom; Sa&rsquo;adia Gaon (882&ndash;942), for instance, who came from Egypt but moved to Baghdad when appointed head of the Sura, notes only the reading of Jonah in his siddur.[46] Nevertheless, the custom spread into the Sephardic lands of Europe.
Practice Everywhere but Ashkenaz
For instance, in 11th century Spain, R. Isaac ben Judah ibn Ghiyyat (ca. 1030&ndash;1089), in his Shaʿarei Simchah &ldquo;Gates of Joy,&rdquo; a halakhic compendium on the festivals, records this same practice:
רי"ץ גיאת יום הכפורים עמוד פז ובמנחה מוציאין ספר תורה וקורין ג' בעריות שמא יש אחד שנכשל בע[בי]רה דערוה ושכח וכששומע נזכר וחוזר ומתודה עליה. והשלישי הוא מפטיר ביונה ומתחיל (עובדיה א') ועלו מושיעים ונבואה דיונה כולה ומסיים (מיכה ז') מי אל כמוך נושא עון.
Ibn Ghiyyat Yom Kippur During Mincha, they take out the Torah scroll and three people read from the laws against sexual sins, because perhaps someone succumbed to the sin of sexual impropriety and forgot, and when he hears then he remembers and confesses about it. And the third person also reads from haftara of Jonah, and he begins with &ldquo;and liberators march up&rdquo; (Obad 1:21) and then the entire prophecy of Jonah, and he ends with &ldquo;who is a God like you&rdquo; (Mic 7:18).
In Italy, we find this same law in the Shibolei HaLeket, by the 13th century R. Zedekiah ben Abraham Anav:
שבלי הלקט סדר יום הכיפורים שכ ומפטירין בנבואת יונה בתרי עשר ומתחילין ועלו מושיעים בסוף נבואת עובדיה ומסיים מי אל כמוך בסוף נבואת מיכה דקיימא לן בנביא של שנים עשר מדלגין מנביא לנביא....
Shibbolei HaLeket Yom Kippur &sect;320 And the haftara comes from the prophecy of Jonah in the book of the twelve. They begin with &ldquo;and liberators march up&rdquo; (Obad 1:21) at the end of the prophecy of Obadiah, and it ends with &ldquo;who is a God like you?&rdquo; at the end of Micah, for we have established that in the prophecies of the twelve, it is permissible to skip from one prophet[ic book] to another&hellip;[47]
The practice also appears in Provence. The Sefer HaEshkol, written by R. Abraham ben Isaac of Narbonne (ca. 1080&ndash;1158), notes:
ספר האשכול (אלבק) הלכות קריאת התורה סו. במנחה קרו מן כמעשה ארץ מצרים עד קדושים תהיו, ושלישי מפטיר ועלו מושיעים בהר ציון, ונבואת יונה כלה, ומי אל כמוך.
Sefer HaEshkol (Albeck) Torah Reading p. 66a During mincha they read from &ldquo;Like the ways of Egypt&rdquo; (Lev 18) until &ldquo;Be holy&rdquo; (Lev 19). And the third reader also reads the haftara &ldquo;and liberators march up on Mount Zion&rdquo; (Obad 1:21), and the entire prophecy of Jonah, and &ldquo;who is a God like you?&rdquo; (Mic 7:18).[48]
While this Geonic custom appears to have been standard in these countries, we do not find it in the classically Ashkenazi lands of northern France and Germany. It is not mentioned in the Machzor Vitri, Siddur Rashi, Minhagei Marseille (12th cent.), Raʾaviah, Rokeach, Or Zarua, or Mordechai all of repeat the Talmudic ruling of מפטירין ביונה &ldquo;the haftara is from Jonah&rdquo; like the Talmud.[49]
Unsurprisingly, the first Ashkenazi source we found who refers to the custom is the Tur, R. Jacob bar Asher (ca. 1270&ndash;ca.1340), who lived in Spain:
טור אורח חיים יום הכיפורים תרכב והשלישי הוא מפטיר ביונה ומסיים מי אל כמוך.
Tur OḤ Yom Kippur &sect;622 The third [Torah reader] recites the haftara from Jonah and ends with &ldquo;who is a God like you?&rdquo; (Mic 7:18).
Notably, the Tur is the first source to describe the custom the way it is practiced today, with the Micah verses but without mentioning the verse from Obadiah. It appears this way as well in the influential book on prayer by the Tur&rsquo;s student, R. David Abudarham (14th cent.):
ספר אבודרהם יום הכפורים ומפטיר ביונה עד סופו בתרי עשר ומסיים מי אל כמוך כמו שהוא בסוף ספר מיכה.
Sefer Abudarham Yom Kippur One recites the haftara from Jonah until the end, which is in the book of the twelve, and he ends with &ldquo;who is a God like you&rdquo; which is the end of the book of Micah.
A third Spanish scholar from this period, R. Chiya ibn Chaviv of Barcelona (14th cent.), also records the truncated version of the practice in his Sefer HaShulchan:
ספר השולחן הלכות תפילה שער ו ומפטיר בתרי עשר ויהי דבר י"י אל יונה בן אמתי עד ובהמה רבה. ומדלג לספר אחר ואומר מי אל כמוך, ישוב ירחמנו וגו' תתן אמת ליעקב וגו'.
Sefer HaShulchan Prayer Gate 6 One recites the haftara from the Book of the Twelve, &ldquo;And the word of the LORD came to Jonah some of Amitai&rdquo; (Jon 1:1) until &ldquo;and a great many beasts&rdquo; (Jon 4:11) and then skip to a different book, and recite &ldquo;who is a God like you,&rdquo; (Mic 7:18) &ldquo;He will take us back in love,&rdquo; (Mic 7:19) &ldquo;You will keep faith with Jacob, etc.&rdquo; (Mic 7:20).
These authorities do not note the shift in custom, and we do not know why the reading of Obadiah 1:21 fell off, while Micah continued. R. Joseph Karo describes the practice in the same way, without Obadiah, in the Shulchan Arukh (OḤ 626):
טור אורח חיים יום הכיפורים תרכב וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי מַפְטִיר בְּיוֹנָה וּמְסַיֵּם: מִי אֵל כָּמוֹךָ.
Tur OḤ Yom Kippur &sect;622 The third [Torah reader] recites the haftara from Jonah and ends with &ldquo;who is a God like you?&rdquo; (Mic 7:18).
Adopted by Ashkenazim Only in the 17th Century
Even after the inclusion of the final Micah verse by the Ashkenazi R. Jacob ben Asher in the Tur, the custom remains absent from Ashkenazi sources, as is clear from a survey of the 15th century minhag works from the German sages.[50] Indeed, the Ashkenazi contemporary of Karo, R. Mordechai Jaffe (1530&ndash;1612), who wrote a Shulchan Arukh-like work also following the Tur&rsquo;s structure, still doesn&rsquo;t mention the custom:
לבוש אורח חיים יום הכיפורים תרכב:ב ומפטיר ביונה לפי שיש בו גודל כח התשובה ומסיים ובהמה רבה...
Levush OḤ &sect;622:2 And he recites the haftara from Jonah because it speaks of the great power of repentance. And he finishes at &ldquo;and a great many beasts&rdquo; (Jonah 4:11).
In 16th century Greece, we hear of an unusual version of this custom. R. Elijah Capsali (1483&ndash;1555) of Crete wrote a letter to his colleague, the Maharam, R. Meir Katzenellenbogen (1482&ndash;1565), who was born in Germany but served as rabbi of Padua in Italy, asking to cancel a local custom. We do not have the letter, but we learn of it from Maharam Padua&rsquo;s response:
שו"ת מהר"ם פדואה עח ראיתי אשר חבר מעלתך לבטל מנהג קדמון בעירך אשר נהגו לקרות ביו"כ בהפטרת יונה ג' פסוקים הראשונים לבד בלשון הקודש ולתרגם אחר כך כל הנביא מראש ועד סוף בלע"ז יונית ולדלג אחר כך לקרא במיכה ג' פסוקים ולתרגם אותם.
Responsa Maharam Padua &sect;78 I see that his honor wrote [that you wish] to cancel an ancient custom in your city that their practice is to read on Yom Kippur the haftara of Jonah only the first three verses in Hebrew, and to translate afterwards the entire prophetic book from beginning to end in Greek, and then to skip afterwards to the three verses of Micah, and [then] to translate them.[51]
Although he too finds it strange, Maharam Padua defends the custom, and it is this responsum that appears in the commentary of the Ashkenazi sage, R. Abraham Gombiner (1635&ndash;1682), in his glosses on the Shulchan Arukh:
מגן אברהם סימן רפד הקדמה ובקצת מקומות שקורין במנח' י"כ רק ג"פ בהפטר' יונה והשאר אומרים בלע"ז ואחר כך אומרים מי אל כמוך.
Magen Avraham OḤ 284 And in some places they read on mincha of Yom Kippur just three verses from the haftara of Jonah [in Hebrew], and the rest the read in a foreign language, and afterwards they say &ldquo;who is God like you?&rdquo;
This is one of the first mentions of reading these verses in an Ashkenazi source, but Gombiner is referring to it as a strange foreign (=Greek) custom.[52] Though I do not know when exactly it entered Ashkenazi tradition, it appears in the Shulchan Arukh of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi (1745&ndash;1812), the founder of Chabad (Lubavitch):
שלחן ערוך הרב אורח חיים תרכב:ד והשלישי מפטיר ביונה לפי שיש בו כח התשובה ושאין יכולין לברוח מאת פני הקדוש ברוך הוא ונוהגים לסיים ההפטרה במיכה מי אל כמוך כו'.
Shulchan Arukh HaRav OḤ 622:4 And the third [person called to the Torah] reads the haftara from Jonah, because it contains [the lessons of] the power of repentance, and that one cannot escape from the blessed Holy One. And the custom is to end the haftara with Micah, &ldquo;who is a God like you?&rdquo;
It also appears in the siddur of R. Chanokh Zundel son of Joseph (d. 1867):
סידור ראשי בשמים והשלישי מפטיר ביונה... ומסיים ההפטרה בפסוקי מיכה "מי אל כמוך."[53]
Siddur Roshei Besamim And the third [person called to the Torah] reads the haftara from Jonah&hellip; And he ends the haftara with verses from Micah, &ldquo;who is a God like you?&rdquo;
The addition of these verses appears nowadays in all the standard machzorim (festival prayer books).]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure url="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b8fd783bee52c8fb59b1fac/670411286d6013de8e4a1649_Jonah%2520Yom%2520Kippur.jpeg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[ובכן תן פחדך: Universalism Vs. Particularism in Contemporary Machzorim]]></title>
            <link>https://thetorah.com/article/uvechen-ten-pachdecha-universalism-versus-particularism-in-contemporary-machzorim</link>
            <guid>https://thetorah.com/article/uvechen-ten-pachdecha-universalism-versus-particularism-in-contemporary-machzorim</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2024 14:24:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[What is the ideal relationship between Jews and the rest of humanity? A study of Ultra-Orthodox, Modern Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform High Holiday prayer books shows how each read the three uvechen &ldquo;and so&rdquo; additions to the amidah depending on their ideological worldviews. Perhaps there is wisdom in the prayer&rsquo;s ambiguity.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[During the ten days of awe, from Rosh Hashanah through Yom Kippur, the third blessing of the amidah,[1] which deals with God&rsquo;s holiness, concludes by praising God not with the usual הָאֵל הַקָּדוֹשׁ &ldquo;the holy God&rdquo; but with הַמֶּֽלֶךְ הַקָּדוֹשׁ &ldquo;the holy Sovereign,&rdquo; introducing the themes of divine majesty and power.[2] On the holidays themselves, we also add a series of three paragraphs beginning וּבְכֵן (uvechen) &ldquo;and so&rdquo;[3] to this blessing.
1. Universalist
The first paragraph is unabashedly universalist, asking that God create the conditions that will encourage all creation to come into relationship with the Divine. The the word כָּל &ldquo;all&rdquo; echoes here six times:
וּבְכֵן
And So
תֵּן פַּחְדְּךָ יְ־הֹוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ עַל כָּל מַעֲשֶׂיךָ,וְאֵימָתְךָ עַל כָּל מַה שֶּׁבָּרָאתָ.
1.1 Place fear of You, Eternal our God, on all Your doings, And terror of You on all that You have created,
וְיִירָאוּךָ כָּל הַמַּעֲשִׂים, וְיִשְׁתַּחֲווּ לְפָנֶיךָ כָּל הַבְּרוּאִים.
1.2 And all the things You have done shall be in awe of You And all that You have created shall prostrate before You;
וְיֵעָשׂוּ כֻלָּם אֲגֻדָּה אֶחָת לַעֲשׂוֹת רְצוֹנְךָ בְּלֵבָב שָׁלֵם.
1.3 And all of them shall be bound together to perform Your will wholeheartedly.
כְּמוֹ שֶׁיָּדַעְנוּ יְ־הֹוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ שֶׁהַשִּׁלְטוֹן לְפָנֶיךָ
1.4 As we have known, Eternal our God, that dominion lies before You,
עֹז בְּיָדְךָ וּגְבוּרָה בִּימִינֶךָ
1.5 Strength in Your hand, power in Your right arm,
וְשִׁמְךָ נוֹרָא עַל כָּל מַה שֶּׁבָּרָאתָ:
1.6 And Your name is revered by all that You created.[4]
Whether this is a pluralist vision that accepts that other peoples will worship God in their own ways or an inclusivist vision that expects all to become Jews is not explicit. Either way, non-Jews, as part of all creation, will participate in this eschatological scenario.
2. Particularist
The second paragraph&rsquo;s focus is particularist, asking that God restore the people Israel:
וּבְכֵן
And So
תֵּן כָּבוֹד יְ־הֹוָה לְעַמֶּךָ, תְּהִלָּה לִירֵאֶיךָ
2.1 Place glory, Eternal One, on Your people; praise on those who revere You,
וְתִקְוָה טוֹבָה לְדוֹרְשֶׁיךָ, וּפִתְחוֹן פֶּה לַמְיַחֲלִים לָךְ.
2.2 and good hope to those who seek You; and the ability to speak out to those who hope for You;
It then turns to the land of Israel, asking God to gladden the land by bringing its people back and inaugurating the messianic age:
שִׂמְחָה לְאַרְצֶךָ, וְשָׂשׂוֹן לְעִירֶךָ
2.3 [give] rejoicing to Your land and gladness to Your city;
וּצְמִיחַת קֶרֶן לְדָוִד עַבְדֶּךָ, וַעֲרִיכַת נֵר לְבֶן־יִשַׁי מְשִׁיחֶךָ בִּמְהֵרָה בְיָמֵינוּ:
2.4 and the sprouting of the ray[5] of David Your servant and the arrangement of the lamp of the Son of Jesse Your Messiah, speedily in our day.[6]
The focus of this paragraph is Israel&rsquo;s eschatological future; it makes no mention of non-Jews.
3. Particularist and Polemical
The third elaborates on the vision of the second, describing how in response to the advent of the eschaton, the righteous will rejoice, but the unjust, the evil ones and insolent governments&mdash;a not so hidden reference to the Gentile persecuters of Jews&mdash;will disappear:
וּבְכֵן
And So
צַדִּיקִים יִרְאוּ וְיִשְׂמָחוּ, וִישָׁרִים יַעֲלֹזוּ, וַחֲסִידִים בְּרִנָּה יָגִילוּ
3.1 The righteous will see and rejoice; and the upright will be jubilant; and the pious will celebrate with joyful song.
וְעוֹלָתָה תִּקְפָּץ פִּיהָ. וְכָל הָרִשְׁעָה כֻּלָּהּ כְּעָשָׁן תִּכְלֶה
3.2 And injustice will clamp shut its mouth, and absolutely all evil will disappear like smoke,
כִּי תַעֲבִיר מֶמְשֶׁלֶת זָדוֹן מִן הָאָרֶץ:
3.3 For You will remove the reign of insolence from the earth.
The disappearance of insolent governments, the paragraph concludes, enables God&rsquo;s eternal reign over the world from Zion:
וְתִמְלוֹךְ אַתָּה יְ־הֹוָה לְבַדֶּךָ עַל כָּל מַעֲשֶׂיךָ בְּהַר צִיּוֹן מִשְׁכַּן כְּבוֹדֶךָ וּבִירוּשָׁלַיִם עִיר קָדְשֶׁךָ.
3.4 Then You alone, O Eternal, will reign over all that You have done, on Mount Zion, the dwelling place of Your Glory, and in Jerusalem, Your holy city.
כַּכָּתוּב בְּדִבְרֵי קָדְשֶׁךָ יִמְלֹךְ יְ־הֹוָה לְעוֹלָם אֱלֹהַיִךְ צִיּוֹן לְדֹר וָדֹר הַלְלוּיָהּ:
3.5 As it is written in Your holy Writings (Ps 146:10), &ldquo;The Eternal will reign forever, your God, oh Zion, from generation to generation, hallelujah.&rdquo;
The contrast between the three-fold iteration of rejoicing righteous, presumably but not explicitly Jews, and the threefold silencing and removal of the wicked, referred to in language that alludes to gentiles,[7] reinforces the movement of this prayer to particularism.
Are the Three Paragraphs a Unit?
The first paragraph expresses universalistic hopes about humanity, and the latter two particularist hopes about Israel, including the desire for the insolent or evil rulers&mdash;as noted, this is code for Gentiles&mdash;to be removed from the earth. Though in some tension with each other, both of these sentiments, universalism and particularism, exist in ancient Jewish texts, though the latter was the more dominant trope for most of Jewish history.[8]
As Hayyim (Herman) Kieval (1920&ndash;1991) argued in his commentary on the maḥzor, the origin of these paragraphs is obscure.[9] We do not know whether they derive from multiple authors or one author, when they were written, or even when they became part of the liturgy.
Most commentaries suggest that these paragraphs are from the second or third century C.E., i.e., the end of the Tannaitic / beginning of Amoraic period. However, there is no evidence for this. They may have been known by the Geonic period, i.e., the last centuries of the first millennium C.E., but even this is uncertain.[10] The paragraphs do appear in the Cairo Geniza, but apparently only in Babylonian-rite texts,[11] even though the prayer&rsquo;s poetic elements fit patterns characteristic of Hebrew poetry in the early Byzantine period.[12]
The text itself varies little from one regional rite to another. Contemporary commentaries on the maḥzor read the three paragraphs as a unit, but are split on which perspective to emphasize.
Ultra-Orthodox: The Artscroll Maḥzor
The very traditional ArtScroll Maḥzor (1985) reads the three sections as a single composition.[13] It cites the eighteenth-century Italian rabbi, Moses Chaim Luzzato (the Ramchal), as teaching that:
God&rsquo;s glory on earth is revealed through the agency of Israel, because it is the nation that received His Torah and proclaims His Unity. When Israel is exiled and degraded, it is less able to be the &lsquo;chariot&rsquo; of His holiness. As a result, not only Israel, but the entire world suffers. Thus we pray that God returns the glory of Israel, of the righteous, of Jerusalem&hellip;When that happens, all nations will be inspired to unite under the leadership of Israel in the service of God. [emphasis mine][14]
The universalism expressed here is at best inclusivist, expecting gentiles to accept a relationship with the God of Israel. This depends not on Jewish proselytism, but on the nations being attracted to Israel&rsquo;s message, something that cannot happen fully until Israel is no longer degraded in exile. Then, in messianic times, the nations will want to serve God and to accept Israel&rsquo;s direction.
ArtScroll&rsquo;s reading, then, functionally reverses the flow of the prayer&rsquo;s paragraphs, making the first paragraph&rsquo;s (perhaps) universal vision dependent on the realization of the subsequent particularist paragraphs, including the other nations&rsquo; subservience to Israel. Indeed, its reading of the first paragraph significantly undermines its apparent universalism. ArtScroll first distinguishes between the parallel terms for God&rsquo;s &ldquo;doings&rdquo; (ma&rsquo;asim; translated here as &ldquo;works&rdquo;) and &ldquo;creations.&rdquo;
The first are &ldquo;high-caliber people who have perfected themselves to the point that they deserve to be called God&rsquo;s handiwork&hellip; [and] are close to God, and therefore have a more intense, personal feeling of His Awe;&rdquo; the second, creations, are &ldquo;of lesser stature&hellip;[with] many shortcomings&hellip;[who] who may be able to feel a dread of God from an intellectual point of view, but they recognize Him only from afar...&rdquo;[15] These groups will ultimately be bound together to create a complete society, embracing &ldquo;all.&rdquo; However, not all humans will count equally. This society will &ldquo;[follow] the lead of Israel&rsquo;s finest products.&rdquo;[16] This reinterpretation of &ldquo;all&rdquo; as uniquely special groups is consistent with standard rabbinic usage, where the Talmud refers over seven hundred times to &ldquo;all the world&rdquo; (kulei &lsquo;alma&rsquo;), usually meaning just the rabbinic elite.
While the commentary on the second paragraph refers back to this as &ldquo;universal recognition of [God&rsquo;s] greatness,&rdquo; the commentary on the first paragraph makes it clear that, at best, select non-Jews will be joining Jews; non-Jews are not envisioned as having an independent relationship with God.
Modern Orthodox: Koren Maḥzor
The Orthodox Koren Maḥzor (2011) includes the commentary of the late Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks (1948&ndash;2020), who served as the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom and whose other publications frequently probed the relationship of Judaism to the greater world.[17] In contrast to ArtScroll, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks does not close off the universal horizon but points to the universal nature of Rosh Hashanah&rsquo;s themes.
Sacks notes how the first of the three paragraphs uses the phrase כָּל מַעֲשֶׂיךָ &ldquo;all that You have made,&rdquo; referring not just to Jews but to all humanity. Rosh Hashanah, he notes, is the anniversary of creation, and God is the creator of all humans. Thus, he says, &ldquo;The God of Israel is the God of all,&rdquo; and God judges all humans on this day.[18]
Sacks interprets all three passages as a unit, drawing attention to their movement &ldquo;from the universal to the particular,&rdquo; and comments:
This direction, beginning with the universal and progressively narrowing the focus to the particular, is characteristic of Jewish thought... This is the opposite of the Greek way of thinking, that of Plato especially, which moves from the particular to the universal. In Judaism, what is precious to God is our particularity, our uniqueness.[19]
In this way, Sacks preserves the tension while attempting to understand the three prayers as a consistent presentation. Although the themes of the day are universal, Judaism naturally and justifiably tends to the particular.
Conservative: Maḥzor Lev Shalem
The Conservative Movement&rsquo;s Maḥzor Lev Shalem (2010) offers two distinct commentaries.[20] Its right-hand margin, dedicated to historical and philological comments, points here to the sequence of ideas between the three passages from universal to particular and the prayer&rsquo;s purportedly early origins. Its left-hand margin, which seeks to inspire, offers several different readings over the various services. Appearing just once is a citation of Micah 4:1&ndash;5&rsquo;s messianic vision of the nations streaming to worship God in Jerusalem, where war disappears.[21]
Most frequently, the Maḥzor includes a quote adapted from Martin Buber, titled &ldquo;May All be Bound Together,&rdquo; which emphasizes human unity for the sake of building a just and peaceful society:
The purpose of creation is not division, nor separation. The purpose of the human race is not a struggle to the death between classes, between nations. Humanity is meant to become a single body... Our purpose is the great upbuilding of unity and peace. And when all nations are bound together in one association living in justice and righteousness, they atone for each other.[22]
The focus on &ldquo;humanity&rdquo; suggests a universal horizon, without any explicit mention of non-Jews, and thus submerges entirely the prayer&rsquo;s particularist voices.
In contrast to Buber&rsquo;s view of unity and the trajectory of the prayer itself, the commentary on the repetition of this prayer in the morning on Rosh Hashanah offers an inspirational text from Heschel that is neither particularist nor universalist but rather pluralist:
&hellip; Is religious uniformity desirable or even possible?... Does not the task of preparing the Kingdom of God require a diversity of talents, a variety of rituals, soul-searching as well as opposition? Perhaps it is the will of God that in this eon there should be diversity in our forms of devotion and commitment to God.[23]
Heschel&rsquo;s quotation challenges any vision that, in the eschaton, all humanity should become Jews or under Jewish leadership. At the same time, the Maḥzor also offers &ldquo;An Alternate Rendering&rdquo; for the entire silent recitation of the amidah of musaf both days and ne&rsquo;ilah which is almost entirely if somewhat ambiguously universal in vision.[24]
The aggregate of Maḥzor Lev Shalem&rsquo;s commentaries suggest a discomfort with Jewish particularism, but an unwillingness to abandon it entirely.
Reform: Mishkan HaNefesh
The Reform Movement&rsquo;s Mishkan HaNefesh (2015) preserves the traditional Hebrew text of our prayer, but between interpretative &ldquo;translations&rdquo; of this text, alternative readings and study texts, marginal commentary, and introductory essays, it significantly transforms its meaning. These include not only minimizing its particularist elements, but also making its message much more human-centered.[25]
As Lawrence Hoffman notes in an introductory essay, many of this Maḥzor&rsquo;s innovations deliberately emphasize universalism, continuing a trend characteristic of American Reform liturgies. Our prayer, he says, &ldquo;anticipates a world where &lsquo;good people everywhere will celebrate&rsquo; a time when &lsquo;evil has no voice, and the rule of malevolence fades like wisps of smoke.&rsquo;&rdquo;[26]
Hoffman thus interprets the ambiguous language of the prayer&rsquo;s third paragraph as expressing a universal eschatological vision. He here ignores the particularism of the second paragraph entirely and concludes, citing Edmund Fleg: &ldquo;The promise of Judaism is a universal promise.&rdquo;[27]
This is reinforced by a full-page study text printed before the prayer in several services, titled &ldquo;קדושת השם/K&rsquo;dushat HaShem/God&rsquo;s Holiness: Awe, Honor, and Righteousness&rdquo; that introduces the themes of these paragraphs. Humans bring God&rsquo;s holiness into the world in these three ways, it says, enabling
God&rsquo;s presence [to be] felt and experienced everywhere. We sanctify God, therefore, &hellip; by realizing that vision through our actions: showing reverence for all creation, giving kavod [honor] to all people&mdash;especially those who are vulnerable and needy&mdash;and embodying righteousness in all that we do.[28]
Mishkan HaNefesh heads each paragraph of the prayer itself with the question, &ldquo;How Do We Sense God&rsquo;s Holiness?&rdquo; The first header continues, &ldquo;Through Awe;&rdquo; the second and third name &ldquo;Honor&rdquo; and &ldquo;Righteousness&rdquo; respectively. The resulting prayer expresses a significantly transformed theology, including in its dance with universalism and particularism.
The interpretative translations accompanying the traditional Hebrew texts embed these transformations. The English of the first paragraph no longer asks that all of creation come to fear God. Instead, it reads:
And so, in Your holiness, give all creation the gift of awe. Turn our fear to reverence; let us be witnesses of wonder &mdash; perceiving all nature as a prayer come alive.[29]
Humans are to be in awe of creation, to wonder at it, and it in turn points to God.
The second paragraph still moves to the particular. It translates the Hebrew kavod as &ldquo;honor,&rdquo; addressing, according to the commentaries, Israel&rsquo;s need to receive &ldquo;Honor and respect,&rdquo; precisely because of her historical reality as a &ldquo;vulnerable and often despised&rdquo; people.[30] This honor no longer comes from God, but instead from other humans. Thus, this paragraph becomes one about Israel&rsquo;s place among universal humanity.
The third paragraph now responds to the transformed theme of the second, addressing abstract moral values, as &ldquo;evil has been vanquished by Righteousness.&rdquo;[31] Israel&rsquo;s past suffering, then, does not generate a particularistic prayer but instead becomes a motivation for a universally oriented ethic.
Mishkan HaNefesh argues in multiple contexts for its universalist readings of this third paragraph, though. In the full-page study text preceding the prayer, it it asserts that these passages collectively &ldquo;describe a world suffused with the holiness of God.&rdquo;[32] Its marginal comment to the prayer is more ambiguous, stating that this tripartite prayer &ldquo;now culminates by envisioning a future in which good people will see the reward of having held fast to their ideals: a world in which righteousness prevails.&rdquo;[33]
Erasing the Messiah, then Reinstating Him
The editors of this volume still struggle with other non-universal elements of the second and third paragraphs. Its predecessor, the 1978 Gates of Repentance, attempted to balance the paragraph&rsquo;s allusions to Israel and Jerusalem by concluding &ldquo;and cause the light of redemption to dawn for all who dwell on earth&rdquo; [emphasis mine].[34] Mishkan HaNefesh restores the original Hebrew messianic conclusion,[35] but still does not translate the last two phrases literally, writing instead, &ldquo;May the sparks of David, Your servant, soon grow bright enough for us to see a beam of light in the darkness, a promise of perfection.&rdquo;[36]
Its comment apologetically explains the reintroduced reference to the Davidic messiah, admitting that it contradicts the conventional Reform Jewish &ldquo;vision of a messianic age, created by human acts of tikkun olam (repairing the world)&rdquo; &ndash; rather than one initiated supernaturally by a human Messiah. David thus appears here &ldquo;not as the literal progenitor of the Messiah, but as an emblematic figure who shines through Jewish history as a symbol of messianic hope.&rdquo;[37]
Non-Violent End of Days Vision
This translation of the third paragraph refers explicitly to &ldquo;good people everywhere&rdquo; and reorganizes the prayer&rsquo;s phrases, thus removing the good versus evil, particularist dichotomy. The commentaries emphasize that Judaism embeds within it an eschatological optimism about the possibilities of a transformed society in which conflict can be resolved without violence, achieving the prophetic vision of &ldquo;a messianic age in which Jerusalem becomes a spiritual center with a kind of World Court for the peaceful adjudication of disputes.&rdquo;[38]
Communal Norms and the Limits of Interpretation
Since their emancipation and entry into society in the wake of the French Revolution, western Jews have lived in a tension between their heritage of particularism and a desire to adopt a more universal horizon of concern. Reformers like Abraham Geiger called for Jews to abandon national ways of thinking and instead to focus on revealing Judaism&rsquo;s universal truths.[39]
In contemporary times, with the exception of the Orthodox ArtScroll commentary, all the maḥzorim surveyed value universalism, but their community&rsquo;s theological strategies and liturgical options shape their possibilities for addressing the particularistic voices in this prayer.
Orthodox Jews do not alter the Hebrew text. New ideas thus find expression through commentaries, but even then, received interpretations carry weight. The new Conservative liturgy maintains traditional texts, especially for this season, but also turns in the margins to leading twentieth-century thinkers to trigger challenges to some traditional meanings.
Reform Jews can and do change texts, although, in recent decades, they have also retrieved traditions earlier abandoned. Due to intermarriage, their communities also embrace the largest number of non-Jews. Today, they embed theological struggles into their liturgical volumes themselves, inviting congregants to engage them.[40]
Postscript
Universalism or Particularism in the Wake of October 7th?
Premodern prayer texts, including that discussed here, embed the prophetic-messianic belief that Jews&rsquo; persecutors would come to accept a Jewish understanding of God or themselves be vanquished. Many modern Jews have balked at the appropriateness of this particularistic triumphalistic stance, attempting to de-emphasize this message in favor of the more acceptable universalist themes of the opening uvekhen. And yet, in the wake of the evils of October 7 and its aftermath, and our new reality of surging antisemitism, are such interpretations adequate?]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure url="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b8fd783bee52c8fb59b1fac/66fc0605bf74a2de9a9092ee_Universalism%2520Vs.%2520Particularism%2520in%2520Contemporary%2520Machzorim.jpeg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Rosh Hashanah & American Democracy: How Do We Celebrate God as King?]]></title>
            <link>https://thetorah.com/article/rosh-hashanah-and-american-democracy-how-do-we-celebrate-god-as-king</link>
            <guid>https://thetorah.com/article/rosh-hashanah-and-american-democracy-how-do-we-celebrate-god-as-king</guid>
            <pubDate>Mon, 30 Sep 2024 16:35:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine equate kingship with tyranny and corruption. How can we who embrace modern democracy relate to Rosh Hashanah&rsquo;s focus on God&rsquo;s enthronement as King?]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[How is an American, an Israeli, or anyone living in a modern democracy to relate to the Rosh Hashanah liturgy&rsquo;s focus on God&rsquo;s enthronement as King?
For most of recorded human history, the king embodied the most concentrated absolute power imaginable on earth. That made monarchy a useful metaphor to impress congregants with fear, trembling, and awe in the face of the King of Kings. Even modern Brits who tuned in eagerly to their king&rsquo;s coronation can relate well to the high holiday prayers. But what are the rest of us to do?
We who study American history associate monarchy with tyranny, greed, incompetence, dehumanization and mass servitude. We roll our eyes even at the benign form of modern British royal formalities. We the People, for whom antipathy to kingship forms the backbone of our republic! Thomas Jefferson couldn&rsquo;t be more blunt:
I was much an enemy to monarchies before I came to Europe. I am ten thousand times more so, since I have seen what they are. There is scarcely an evil known in these countries, which may not be traced to their king as its source, nor a good, which is not derived from the small fibres of republicanism existing among them.[1]
He and the founding fathers all read Thomas Paine&rsquo;s best-selling Common Sense, which itself cites Samuel&rsquo;s negative reaction when the people ask him to appoint a king, and he tells them how this king will enslave their children and confiscate their belongings to pay for his luxuries.[2] Paine concurs with Samuel&rsquo;s depiction of kings, and offers this conclusion:
In short, monarchy and succession have laid (not this or that kingdom only) but the world in blood and ashes. 'Tis a form of government which the word of God bears testimony against, and blood will attend it.
Paine, in turn, found his inspiration in the masterful pen of the great seventeenth century poet John Milton who utterly shambled the built-in narcissism of kings and compared their worship to idolatry:
A king must be ador&rsquo;d like a Demigod, with a dissolute and haughtie court about him, of vast expence and luxurie, masks and revels, to the debaushing of our prime gentry both male and female; nor at his own cost, but on publick revenue; and all this to do nothing but... pageant himself up and down in progress among the perpetual bowings and cringings of an abject people, on either side deifying and adoring him.[3]
Eric Nelson, professor of Government at Harvard University, in his study of how rabbinic literature influenced European Christian thinkers in this period, connects Milton&rsquo;s analysis to a passage in the 9th century midrash collection, Deuteronomy Rabbah:[4]
דברים רבה (וילנא) פרשה ה:ח רבנין אמרי: כיון שעמדו מלכים על ישראל והתחילו משעבדין בהן אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא "לא אתם עזבתם אותי ובקשתם לכם מלכים?!" הוי אשימה עלי מלך (דברים יז:יד). זש"ה אל תבטחו בנדיבים וגו (תהלים קמו:ג)...
Deut Rab (Vilna) 5:8 The Rabbis say: When kings arose over Israel and began to enslave them, God exclaimed: &ldquo;Did you not forsake me and seek kings for yourselves?&rdquo; Hence the force of, I will set a king over me (Deuteronomy 17:14). This is what it means, Put not your trust in princes (Psalms 146:3).&hellip;[5]
אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא ויודעין שאין ב"ו כלום ומניחין כבודי ואומרין שימה לנו מלך מה אתם מבקשין מלך חייכם שסופכם להרגיש מה עתיד להגיע לכם מתחת מלככם מנין שנאמר (הושע ז) כל מלכיהם נפלו אין קורא בהם אלי.
God said: &ldquo;Although they know that man is nought, yet they forsake my Glory and say: &lsquo;Set a king over us.&rsquo; Why do they ask for a king? By your life, in the end you will learn to your cost what you will have to suffer from your king.&rdquo; Whence this? As it is written, All their kings are fallen, there is none among them that calls unto Me (Hosea 7:7).
Thus, American suspicion of kings was an outgrowth of European Enlightenment, which was itself influenced by the rabbis&rsquo; wariness about human kingship, as Nelson shows. At the same time, the rabbis made use of the biblical imagery extolling God as king to compose the malkhiyot, &ldquo;Kingship&rdquo; prayer on Rosh Hashanah.[6] How do we make sense of this tension?
1. Only God Is King
Perhaps the most obvious response hearkens back to the statement in Judges of Gideon, when, having defeated the Midianites, he was offered the crown:
שופטים ח:כג וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם גִּדְעוֹן לֹא אֶמְשֹׁל אֲנִי בָּכֶם וְלֹא יִמְשֹׁל בְּנִי בָּכֶם יְ־הוָה יִמְשֹׁל בָּכֶם.
Judg 8:23 But Gideon replied, &ldquo;I will not rule over you myself, nor shall my son rule over you; YHWH alone shall rule over you.&rdquo;
In the book of Samuel, God makes this very distinction between human rule and divine rule, when expressing anger over Israel&rsquo;s desire for a king to rule over them:
שמואל א ח:ז ...לֹא אֹתְךָ מָאָסוּ כִּי אֹתִי מָאֲסוּ מִמְּלֹךְ עֲלֵיהֶם.
1 Sam 8:7 &hellip;It is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected Me as their king.
Since God and only God is King, no other being can be a king. Or, in Moshe Halbertal&rsquo;s terminology, God is King; therefore, the king is not God.[7] The acknowledgement of God&rsquo;s kingship does not connote a desire for monarchy, rather it is a repudiation of any human claiming that right. In fact, Milton and Paine idealize the Kingdom of God as strongly as they repudiate any kingdom of man.[8]
2. God Was Elected
Out of possible discomfort with kingship, even for God, the Tannaitic midrash, Mekhilta d&rsquo;Rabbi Yishmael, imagines that God reigns only with national consent granted at Sinai. The midrash asks why does the Torah open with stories and not the Decalogue:
מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל בחדש ה "אָנֹכִי י"י אֱלֹהֶיךָ" &ndash; מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא נֶאֶמְרוּ עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדִּבְּרוֹת בִּתְחִלַּת הַתּוֹרָה?
Mekhilta d&rsquo;Rabbi Yishmael, bahodesh, 5 &ldquo;I am the Lord thy God&rdquo;: Why were the Ten Commandments not said at the beginning of the Torah?
מָשְׁלוּ מָשָׁל, לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה? לְאֶחָד שֶׁנִּכְנַס בַּמְּדִינָה. אָמַר לָהֶם: "אֶמְלֹךְ עֲלֵיכֶם!" אָמְרוּ לוֹ: "כְּלוּם עָשִׂיתָ לָנוּ טוֹבָה, שֶׁתִּמְלֹךְ עָלֵינוּ?" מָה עָשָׂה? בָּנָה לָהֶם אֶת הַחוֹמָה, הִכְנִיס לָהֶם אֶת הַמַּיִם, עָשָׂה לָהֶם מִלְחָמוֹת, אָמַר לָהֶם: "אֶמְלֹךְ עֲלֵיכֶם!" אָמְרוּ לוֹ: "הֵן וְהֵן!"
They give a parable. To what may this be compared? To a human king who entered a province and said to the people: &ldquo;May I be your king?&rdquo; But the people said to him: &ldquo;Have you done anything good for us that you should rule over us?&rdquo; What did he do then? He built the city wall for them, he brought in the water supply for them, and he fought their battles. Then when he said to them: &ldquo;May I be your king?&rdquo; They said to him: &ldquo;Yes, yes.&rdquo;
כָּךְ הַמָּקוֹם: הוֹצִיא אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמִּצְרַיִם, קָרַע לָהֶם אֶת הַיָּם, הוֹרִיד לָהֶם אֶת הַמָּן, הֶעֱלָה לָהֶם אֶת הַבְּאֵר, הֵגִיז לָהֶם אֶת הַשְּׂלָו,⁠ עָשָׂה לָהֶם מִלְחֶמֶת עֲמָלֵק, אָמַר לָהֶם: "אֶמְלֹךְ עֲלֵיכֶם!" אָמְרוּ לוֹ: "הֵן וְהֵן!"
Likewise, God brought the Israelites out of Egypt, divided the sea for them, sent down the manna for them, brought up the well for them, brought the quails for them, and fought for them the battle with Amalek. Then He said to them: &ldquo;May I be your king?&rdquo; They said to Him: &ldquo;Yes, yes.&rdquo;
A similar theme is found in the midrash (Sifre Deut. &sect;343) that God offered the Torah to all the nations of the world, but only Israel was willing to accept it. Without Israel&rsquo;s acceptance of a covenant, God would not force his sovereignty.[9]
3. God Is a Benevolent Monarch
At least in theory, kingship and monarchy need not always be dirty words. Aristotle saw monarchy as the benevolent opposite of tyranny. If only, he writes, a society could find that rare individual of outstanding excellence to be their king, then monarchy would be the best form of government.
But since no human can guarantee perfect virtue for himself and his descendants, the Rabbis would counter that this leaves God as the only viable candidate. God rules not as a tyrannical despotic king, but as a benevolent redeemer and caretaker.[10] Indeed, the Babylonian Talmud depicts God as on one hand powerful and on the other, humble:
בבלי מגילה לא. אמר רבי יוחנן: "כל מקום שאתה מוצא גבורתו של הקדוש ברוך הוא אתה מוצא ענוותנותו."
b. Megillah 31a Rabbi Yohanan said: Wherever you find mentioned in the Scriptures the power of the Holy One, blessed be He, you also find his humility mentioned.
Moreover, kingship is just one metaphor found in the Bible to describe God in somewhat relatable terms. Other comparisons include God as mother, father, eagle, eyelid, cloud, fire, and water.[11] Rabbinic prayers tend to mix these metaphors, such as in אבינו מלכינו &ldquo;our father our king,&rdquo; which softens the harshness of the king imagery helps one focus on a positive image of a Champion who is both All-powerful and also All-caring.
4. Partnership with God and a Reflection of Who We Are
There is no king without subjects and no one can be a father or mother without children. God depends on us for His title as much as we depend on Him for our existence. A daring midrash, based on a word play between אני (&ldquo;I am&rdquo;) and איני &ldquo;I am not,&rdquo; states:
ספרי דברים שמו "ואתם עדי נאם ה' ואני אל" (ישעיה מג:יב)&mdash;כשאתם עדיי אני אל וכשאין אתם עדיי כביכול איני אל.
Sifre Deuteronomy &sect;346 &ldquo;You are My witnesses, says the Lord, and I am (ani) God&rdquo; (Isa 43:12)&mdash;When you are My witnesses, I am God; but if you are not My witnesses, as it were, I am not (eini) God.
A similar theme is found in Song of Songs Zuta (a 10th century midrash):
שיר השירים זוטא א:א מלך מלכי המלכים אם אין לו כבוד בארץ אין שמו בארץ ואין שמו במרום, אם אין עמו ממליכין אותו בארץ כביכול אין לו מלכות בשמי המרום.
Song of Songs Zuta 1:1 If the King, King of king, is not glorified on earth, then His name is neither on earth nor in heaven. If His people do not enthrone Him on earth, then, as it were, He has no kingdom even in the heights of heaven.
A monarch&rsquo;s status depends on recognition by his subjects. Without subjects, a king is not a king. Hence, Israel is, in a sense, God&rsquo;s partner. Coronating God as King, then, means that each person is endowed with the ability and responsibility to take on a role in God&rsquo;s governance as ministers to the needy, champions of the mistreated, and ambassadors for peace and justice. Moreover, Rosh Hashanah liturgy, quoting the Bible, expresses the belief that someday all humanity will share this same belief in God:
זכריה יד:ט וְהָיָה יְ־הוָה לְמֶלֶךְ עַל כָּל הָאָרֶץ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא יִהְיֶה יְ־הוָה אֶחָד וּשְׁמוֹ אֶחָד.
Zech 14:9 And YHWH shall be king over all the earth; in that day YHWH shall be one and his name one.
When that time comes, the whole of humanity will be God&rsquo;s partners in creation seeking to make the world a better place for all.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure url="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b8fd783bee52c8fb59b1fac/66fad3049b157ee3a4a820ff_american-rosh-hashanah.jpeg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Forty: A Biblical Symbol of Completeness]]></title>
            <link>https://thetorah.com/article/forty-a-biblical-symbol-for-completeness</link>
            <guid>https://thetorah.com/article/forty-a-biblical-symbol-for-completeness</guid>
            <pubDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2024 20:22:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[In biblical texts, the span of forty days or forty years is rarely a measure of precise time. Instead, it holds symbolic significance, shaping narratives in ways that transcend a literal interpretation.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[The elemental purpose of a chronicler is to record events in a trustworthy and linear manner: to mark the length of wars, famines, or a sovereign&rsquo;s reign by referral to dates and durations. Accuracy is broadly a paramount value. But if the narrative before us is not a chronicle, and more closely resembles literature than history, then recollection of the past serves different purposes.
Adjustments are made to emphasize certain lessons, words are selected and patterned in keeping with artistic modes. Consider the gist of Pharaoh&rsquo;s dreams: &lsquo;that seven years of feast shall be followed by seven years of famine.&rsquo; (Gen. 41) When is history ever so neat?[1]
Forty Days
The most important and best-known symbolic number in the Bible is seven,[2] but a close second is forty.[3] Again and again, the Bible uses &ldquo;forty days&rdquo; to express a complete unit of time, such as a maximal amount of time for enduring something or a minimal amount of time to complete something, depending on the context.
The Flood: A Complete Destruction&mdash;YHWH tells Noah that in another seven days, it will rain for forty days:
בראשית ז:ד כִּי לְיָמִים עוֹד שִׁבְעָה אָנֹכִי מַמְטִיר עַל הָאָרֶץ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וְאַרְבָּעִים לָיְלָה וּמָחִיתִי אֶת כָּל הַיְקוּם אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה.
Gen 7:4 For in seven days&rsquo; time I will make it rain upon the earth, forty days and forty nights, and I will blot out from the earth all existence that I created.
Seven and forty are both numbers that communicate something symbolically. The former is a short period of waiting&mdash;a week&mdash;while the latter expresses a long stretch of time, sufficient to completely flood the earth.[4]
A Full Wait&mdash;Noah then waits forty days before opening an exterior window and sending forth the birds:
בראשית ח:ו וַיְהִי מִקֵּץ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וַיִּפְתַּח נֹחַ אֶת חַלּוֹן הַתֵּבָה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה.
Gen 8:6 At the end of forty days, Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made.
When the bird does not find dry land, Noah waits seven days, and then another seven days (Gen 8:10, 12), reversing the order of numbers from the beginning of the story.
Revelation and the Divine Presence&mdash;When Moses goes up Mount Sinai, he remains on the mountain for 40 days, the full measure of time necessary to receive God&rsquo;s instruction:[5]
שמות כד:יח וַיָּבֹא מֹשֶׁה בְּתוֹךְ הֶעָנָן וַיַּעַל אֶל הָהָר וַיְהִי מֹשֶׁה בָּהָר אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וְאַרְבָּעִים לָיְלָה.
Exod 24:18 Moses went inside the cloud and ascended the mountain; and Moses remained on the mountain forty days and forty nights.[6]
דברים ט:יא וַיְהִי מִקֵּץ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וְאַרְבָּעִים לָיְלָה נָתַן יְ־הוָה אֵלַי אֶת שְׁנֵי לֻחֹת הָאֲבָנִים לֻחוֹת הַבְּרִית.
Deut 9:11 At the end of those forty days and forty nights, YHWH gave me the two tablets of stone, the Tablets of the Covenant.
Fasting&mdash;Before receiving the tablets for the second time, Moses goes up the mountain for forty days, during which he lives without food:
שמות לד:כח וַיְהִי שָׁם עִם יְ־הוָה אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וְאַרְבָּעִים לַיְלָה לֶחֶם לֹא אָכַל וּמַיִם לֹא שָׁתָה וַיִּכְתֹּב עַל הַלֻּחֹת אֵת דִּבְרֵי הַבְּרִית עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים.
Exod 34:28 And he was there with YHWH forty days and forty nights; he ate no bread and drank no water; and he wrote down on the tablets the terms of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.
In Deuteronomy, Moses describes fasting for forty days during the first revelation as well:
דברים ט:ט ...וָאֵשֵׁב בָּהָר אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וְאַרְבָּעִים לַיְלָה לֶחֶם לֹא אָכַלְתִּי וּמַיִם לֹא שָׁתִיתִי. ט:י וַיִּתֵּן יְ־הוָה אֵלַי אֶת שְׁנֵי לוּחֹת הָאֲבָנִים כְּתֻבִים בְּאֶצְבַּע אֱלֹהִים...
Deut 9:9 &hellip; and I stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights, eating no bread and drinking no water. 9:10 And YHWH gave me the two tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God&hellip;
The theme of a forty-day fast appears again when Elijah journeys to Mt. Horeb:
מלכים א יט:ח וַיָּקָם וַיֹּאכַל וַיִּשְׁתֶּה וַיֵּלֶךְ בְּכֹחַ הָאֲכִילָה הַהִיא אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וְאַרְבָּעִים לַיְלָה עַד הַר הָאֱלֹהִים חֹרֵב.
1 Kings 19:8 He arose and ate and drank; and with the strength from that meal he walked forty days and forty nights as far as the mountain of God at Horeb.
The New Testament uses forty this way as well. The Gospel of Mark (1:12&ndash;13) tells how Jesus spends 40 days in the wilderness with the wild beasts, being tested by Satan, and the Gospel of Matthew (4:1&ndash;4) has him fasting throughout this period.[7]
Prayer&mdash;40 days is the measure of days necessary for Moses&rsquo; prayer to gain God&rsquo;s forgiveness for the people&rsquo;s worship of the Golden Calf.
דברים ט:כה וָאֶתְנַפַּל לִפְנֵי יְ־הוָה אֵת אַרְבָּעִים הַיּוֹם וְאֶת אַרְבָּעִים הַלַּיְלָה אֲשֶׁר הִתְנַפָּלְתִּי כִּי אָמַר יְ־הוָה לְהַשְׁמִיד אֶתְכֶם.
Deut 9:25 And I lay prostrate before YHWH those forty days and forty nights, because YHWH was determined to destroy you.[8]
Purifying&mdash;When a woman gives birth to a boy, she is impure for seven days, and then goes through purification&mdash;likely connected with postpartum bleeding&mdash;for another thirty-three days, for a total of forty days, after which she can offer the sin offering (Lev 12:2&ndash;4).
If she gives birth to a girl, she is impure for fourteen days, and goes through purification for sixty-six days, for a total of eighty days, i.e., 40x2. These blocks of time express a complete process of purification before allowing her to be reintegrated into Temple life.[9]
According to the Mishnah, during the first forty days of pregnancy, the fetus is not yet considered sufficiently alive (m. Niddah 3:7), and the Talmud declares a fetus at this early stage מיא בעלמא &ldquo;just water&rdquo; (b. Yebamot 69b).[10]
Humiliation&mdash;Goliath&rsquo;s taunting of Israel lasts until it becomes intolerable,
שמואל א יז:טז וַיִּגַּשׁ הַפְּלִשְׁתִּי הַשְׁכֵּם וְהַעֲרֵב וַיִּתְיַצֵּב אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם.
1 Sam 17:16 The Philistine stepped forward morning and evening and took his stand for forty days.
At this point in the story, David is introduced, as he will be the one to solve the problem by killing the huge Philistine warrior.
Tolerance&mdash;Jonah informs the Ninevites that they have 40 days to repent, or else their city will be destroyed.
יונה ג:ד וַיָּחֶל יוֹנָה לָבוֹא בָעִיר מַהֲלַךְ יוֹם אֶחָד וַיִּקְרָא וַיֹּאמַר עוֹד אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וְנִינְוֵה נֶהְפָּכֶת.
Jonah 3:4 Jonah started out and made his way into the city the distance of one day&rsquo;s walk, and proclaimed: &ldquo;Forty days more, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!&rdquo;
This expresses the outer limit of YHWH&rsquo;s patience, once the people understand their sinfulness.
Forty Years: Fullness of Punishment or Time
When applied to years, the number forty still represents a full measure, sometimes of suffering or punishment, and other times of life.
Wilderness Wandering&mdash;A common trope found throughout the Bible is that of Israel spending forty years in the wilderness. Sometimes, this is associated with God&rsquo;s care of Israel for this full period. For example, this is the length of time the manna falls:
שמות טז:לה וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אָכְלוּ אֶת הַמָּן אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה עַד בֹּאָם אֶל אֶרֶץ נוֹשָׁבֶת אֶת הַמָּן אָכְלוּ עַד בֹּאָם אֶל קְצֵה אֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן.
Exod 16:35 And the Israelites ate manna forty years until they came to a settled land; they ate the manna until they came to the border of the land of Canaan.
In Deuteronomy, the theme is especially dominant:
דברים ב:ז כִּי יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בֵּרַכְךָ בְּכֹל מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶךָ יָדַע לֶכְתְּךָ אֶת הַמִּדְבָּר הַגָּדֹל הַזֶּה זֶה אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ עִמָּךְ לֹא חָסַרְתָּ דָּבָר.
Deut 2:7 Indeed, YHWH your God has blessed you in all your undertakings. He has watched over your wanderings through this great wilderness; YHWH your God has been with you these past forty years: you have lacked nothing.
דברים כט:ד וָאוֹלֵךְ אֶתְכֶם אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה בַּמִּדְבָּר לֹא בָלוּ שַׂלְמֹתֵיכֶם מֵעֲלֵיכֶם וְנַעַלְךָ לֹא בָלְתָה מֵעַל רַגְלֶךָ. כט:ה לֶחֶם לֹא אֲכַלְתֶּם וְיַיִן וְשֵׁכָר לֹא שְׁתִיתֶם לְמַעַן תֵּדְעוּ כִּי אֲנִי יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם.
Deut 29:4 I led you through the wilderness forty years; the clothes on your back did not wear out, nor did the sandals on your feet;[11] 29:5 you had no bread to eat and no wine or other intoxicant to drink&mdash;that you might know that I YHWH am your God.
At the same time, Deuteronomy also presents this period as a time in which the Israelites undergo a full measure of testing:
דברים ח:ב וְזָכַרְתָּ אֶת כָּל הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר הֹלִיכֲךָ יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ זֶה אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה בַּמִּדְבָּר לְמַעַן עַנֹּתְךָ לְנַסֹּתְךָ לָדַעַת אֶת אֲשֶׁר בִּלְבָבְךָ הֲתִשְׁמֹר (מצותו) [מִצְו&zwj;ֹתָיו] אִם לֹא. ח:ג וַיְעַנְּךָ וַיַּרְעִבֶךָ וַיַּאֲכִלְךָ אֶת הַמָּן אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדַעְתָּ וְלֹא יָדְעוּן אֲבֹתֶיךָ לְמַעַן הוֹדִעֲךָ כִּי לֹא עַל הַלֶּחֶם לְבַדּוֹ יִחְיֶה הָאָדָם כִּי עַל כָּל מוֹצָא פִי יְ־הוָה יִחְיֶה הָאָדָם.
Deut 8:2 Remember the long way that YHWH your God has made you travel in the wilderness these past forty years, that He might test you by hardships to learn what was in your hearts: whether you would keep His commandments or not. 8:3 He subjected you to the hardship of hunger and then gave you manna to eat, which neither you nor your fathers had ever known,[12] in order to teach you that man does not live on bread alone, but that man may live on anything that YHWH decrees.[13]
Thus, the Israelites proved themselves to YHWH and also learned that YHWH can take care of them even in a barren wasteland.[14]
Elsewhere, sometimes the wilderness years are envisioned as a punishment:
תהלים צה:י אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה אָקוּט בְּדוֹר וָאֹמַר עַם תֹּעֵי לֵבָב הֵם וְהֵם לֹא יָדְעוּ דְרָכָי. צה:יא אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי בְאַפִּי אִם יְבֹאוּן אֶל מְנוּחָתִי.
Ps 95:10 Forty years I was provoked by that generation; I thought, &ldquo;They are a senseless people; they would not know My ways.&rdquo; 95:11 Concerning them I swore in anger, &ldquo;They shall never come to My resting-place!&rdquo;[15]
In Numbers, the number of years is explained by the sin of the scouts, who took forty days to travel all through Canaan up to Lebo-Hamath in Lebanon to see the land:
במדבר יג:כה וַיָּשֻׁבוּ מִתּוּר הָאָרֶץ מִקֵּץ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם.
Num 13:25 At the end of forty days they returned from scouting the land.[16]
That entire generation of adults will die in the wilderness, and their children will wander outside the land for forty years:
במדבר יד:לג וּבְנֵיכֶם יִהְיוּ רֹעִים בַּמִּדְבָּר אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה וְנָשְׂאוּ אֶת זְנוּתֵיכֶם עַד תֹּם פִּגְרֵיכֶם בַּמִּדְבָּר. יד:לד בְּמִסְפַּר הַיָּמִים אֲשֶׁר תַּרְתֶּם אֶת הָאָרֶץ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם יוֹם לַשָּׁנָה יוֹם לַשָּׁנָה תִּשְׂאוּ אֶת עֲו&zwj;ֹנֹתֵיכֶם אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה וִידַעְתֶּם אֶת תְּנוּאָתִי.
Num 14:33 While your children roam the wilderness for forty years, suffering for your faithlessness, until the last of your carcasses is down in the wilderness. 14:34 You shall bear your punishment for forty years, corresponding to the number of days&mdash;forty days&mdash;that you scouted the land: a year for each day. Thus you shall know what it means to thwart Me.[17]
National Peace&mdash;In the book of Judges, forty years represents a break between periods of war. For example, after Othniel defeats the Arameans, we are told:
שופטים ג:יא וַתִּשְׁקֹט הָאָרֶץ אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה וַיָּמָת עָתְנִיאֵל בֶּן קְנַז.
Judg 3:11 And the land had peace for forty years. And Othniel the Kenizzite died.
Forty here could represent a full generation, like in the story of the scouts, or just a complete period of time. The same is true after Deborah and Barak defeat Sisera and his king, Jabin of Hazor:
שופטים ד:כד וַתֵּלֶךְ יַד בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הָלוֹךְ וְקָשָׁה עַל יָבִין מֶלֶךְ כְּנָעַן עַד אֲשֶׁר הִכְרִיתוּ אֵת יָבִין מֶלֶךְ כְּנָעַן. // ה:לא ...וַתִּשְׁקֹט הָאָרֶץ אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה.
Judg 4:24 The hand of the Israelites bore harder and harder on King Jabin of Canaan, until they destroyed King Jabin of Canaan. //[18] 5:31 &hellip;And the land had peace for forty years.
The third judge who brings about this full forty years of peace is Gideon:
שופטים ח:כח וַיִּכָּנַע מִדְיָן לִפְנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא יָסְפוּ לָשֵׂאת רֹאשָׁם וַתִּשְׁקֹט הָאָרֶץ אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה בִּימֵי גִדְעוֹן.
Judg 8:28 Thus Midian submitted to the Israelites and did not raise its head again; and the land was tranquil for forty years in Gideon&rsquo;s time.
For Ehud, a multiple of forty is used&mdash;twice forty or two generations&mdash;likely communicating that he had been uniquely successful:
שופטים ג:ל וַתִּכָּנַע מוֹאָב בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא תַּחַת יַד יִשְׂרָאֵל וַתִּשְׁקֹט הָאָרֶץ שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה.
Judges 3:30 On that day, Moab submitted to Israel; and the land was tranquil for eighty years.
A Full Reign&mdash;Several rulers are said to have ruled for forty years. After Eli the High Priest falls back from his seat in shock and breaks his neck, we are told:
שמואל א ד:יח ...וְהוּא שָׁפַט אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה.
1 Sam 4:18 &hellip;He had been a chieftain (or &ldquo;judge&rdquo;) of Israel for forty years.
Similarly, David and Solomon each rule Israel for forty years:[19]
שמואל ב ה:ד בֶּן שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה דָּוִד בְּמָלְכוֹ אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה מָלָךְ.
2 Sam 5:4 David was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned forty years.[20]
מלכים א יא:מב וְהַיָּמִים אֲשֶׁר מָלַךְ שְׁלֹמֹה בִירוּשָׁלַ͏ִם עַל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה.
1 Kgs 11:42 The length of Solomon&rsquo;s reign in Jerusalem, over all Israel, was forty years.[21]
Conversely, Samson&rsquo;s tenure is only twenty years, half a generation, implying a criticism of this leader who is only half successful:
שופטים טו:כ וַיִּשְׁפֹּט אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּימֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה.
Judg 15:20 He led Israel in the days of the Philistines for twenty years.
Oppression&mdash;Sometimes, the oppression or punishment of a people lasts for forty years. Before the Samson story, we are told that the Philistines oppress the Israelites for forty years:
שופטים יג:א וַיֹּסִפוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לַעֲשׂוֹת הָרַע בְּעֵינֵי יְ־הוָה וַיִּתְּנֵם יְ־הוָה בְּיַד פְּלִשְׁתִּים אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה.
Judg 13:1 The Israelites again did what was offensive to YHWH, and YHWH delivered them into the hands of the Philistines for forty years.
Ezekiel prophesies forty years of desolation for Egypt:
יחזקאל כט:יא לֹא תַעֲבָר בָּהּ רֶגֶל אָדָם וְרֶגֶל בְּהֵמָה לֹא תַעֲבָר בָּהּ וְלֹא תֵשֵׁב אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה. כט:יב וְנָתַתִּי אֶת אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם שְׁמָמָה בְּתוֹךְ אֲרָצוֹת נְשַׁמּוֹת וְעָרֶיהָ בְּתוֹךְ עָרִים מָחֳרָבוֹת תִּהְיֶיןָ שְׁמָמָה אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה וַהֲפִצֹתִי אֶת מִצְרַיִם בַּגּוֹיִם וְזֵרִיתִים בָּאֲרָצוֹת.
Ezek 29:11 No foot of man shall traverse it, and no foot of beast shall traverse it; and it shall remain uninhabited for forty years. 29:12 For forty years I will make the land of Egypt the most desolate of desolate lands, and its cities shall be the most desolate of ruined cities. And I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations and disperse them throughout the countries.
Only after forty years, will YHWH allow Egypt to recover:
יחזקאל כט:יג כִּי כֹּה אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יְ־הוִה מִקֵּץ אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה אֲקַבֵּץ אֶת מִצְרַיִם מִן הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר נָפֹצוּ שָׁמָּה.
Ezek 29:13 Further, thus said the Lord YHWH: After a period of forty years, I will gather the Egyptians from the peoples among whom they were dispersed.
Ezekiel also receives a prophecy, in language similar to the story of the scouts, that he should lie down for forty days, one for each year of Israel&rsquo;s punishment at the hands of the Babylonians:
יחזקאל ד:ו...וְשָׁכַבְתָּ עַל צִדְּךָ (הימוני) [הַיְמָנִי] שֵׁנִית וְנָשָׂאתָ אֶת עֲו&zwj;ֹן בֵּית יְהוּדָה אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם יוֹם לַשָּׁנָה יוֹם לַשָּׁנָה נְתַתִּיו לָךְ.
Ezek 4:6 &hellip;you shall lie another forty days on your right side and bear the punishment of the House of Judah. I impose on you one day for each year, one day for each year.[22]
YHWH tells Abraham that his descendants will be slaves for four hundred years, 40x10, a full measure servitude, or perhaps ten generations of slaves:
בראשית טו:יג וַיֹּאמֶר לְאַבְרָם יָדֹעַ תֵּדַע כִּי גֵר יִהְיֶה זַרְעֲךָ בְּאֶרֶץ לֹא לָהֶם וַעֲבָדוּם וְעִנּוּ אֹתָם אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה.
Gen 15:13 And He said to Abram, &ldquo;Know well that your offspring shall be strangers in a land not theirs, and they shall be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years&hellip;.&rdquo;
Alternatively, in view of Isaac having been born when Abraham is 100 years old, this number might represent a &ldquo;generation,&rdquo; and thus we have 100x4. This harmonizes with God&rsquo;s telling Abraham that his descendants would be rescued in the fourth dor, generation (15:16).[23]
The story of Solomon dedicating the Temple tells that 480 years elapsed between the exodus from Egypt and the construction of Temple.[24]
מלכים א ו:א וַיְהִי בִשְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה לְצֵאת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בַּשָּׁנָה הָרְבִיעִית בְּחֹדֶשׁ זִו הוּא הַחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי לִמְלֹךְ שְׁלֹמֹה עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּבֶן הַבַּיִת לַי־הוָה.
1 Kgs 6:1 In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites left the land of Egypt, in the month of Ziv&mdash;that is, the second month&mdash;in the fourth year of his reign over Israel, Solomon began to build the House of YHWH.
As 40 years represents a full generation, 480 signifies the passage of 12 generations, perhaps an allusion to the twelve tribes of Israel united under King Solomon.
Maturity&mdash;Forty-years-old seems to convey a full age of maturity.[25] Isaac and his son Esau are both 40 when they get married:
בראשית כה:כ וַיְהִי יִצְחָק בֶּן אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה בְּקַחְתּוֹ אֶת רִבְקָה בַּת בְּתוּאֵל הָאֲרַמִּי מִפַּדַּן אֲרָם אֲחוֹת לָבָן הָאֲרַמִּי לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה.
Gen 25:20 Isaac was forty years old when he took to wife Rebecca, daughter of Bethuel the Aramean of Paddan-aram, sister of Laban the Aramean.
בראשית כו:לד וַיְהִי עֵשָׂו בֶּן אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה וַיִּקַּח אִשָּׁה אֶת יְהוּדִית בַּת בְּאֵרִי הַחִתִּי וְאֶת בָּשְׂמַת בַּת אֵילֹן הַחִתִּי.
Gen 26:34 When Esau was forty years old, he took to wife Judith daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath daughter of Elon the Hittite.
Caleb is forty years old when he was sent to scout the land, as he reminds Joshua when he asks for his inheritance to include Hebron:
 יהושע יד:ז בֶּן אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה אָנֹכִי בִּשְׁלֹחַ מֹשֶׁה עֶבֶד יְ־הוָה אֹתִי מִקָּדֵשׁ בַּרְנֵעַ לְרַגֵּל אֶת הָאָרֶץ וָאָשֵׁב אֹתוֹ דָּבָר כַּאֲשֶׁר עִם לְבָבִי.
Josh 14:7 I was forty years old when Moses the servant of YHWH sent me from Kadesh-barnea to scout out the land, and I gave him a forthright report.[26]
Moses stewardship of Israel begins when he is 80 years old (Exod 7:7), a double amount of full maturity, and he leads Israel for another forty years&mdash;a full generation&mdash;dying at 120 (Deut 31:2, 34:7).
Figurative Use of Numbers
In chronicle writing, such as the Babylonian Chronicle, years and dates are meant to be accurate and reliable. This is likely the intent in some chronicle-like biblical texts, such as the regnal years in the book of Kings (after Solomon).[27] Nevertheless, literary use of numbers is as common in biblical narratives as assonance, alliteration, exaggeration, etc.
Biblical texts abound with artful speech, poetic justice, symbolism, subtext, and an assortment of stylistic devices, all aimed at enhancing the experience of hearing or reading about Israel&rsquo;s ancestral tradition. The depiction of time itself is a part of this style, and should be seen as rhetorical artistry, not as historical record.
Addendum
Forty and Its Multiples for Gifts, and Measurements
While forty is most commonly used to mark time, it or a multiple of forty is used to mark objects or actions as well:
Silver&mdash;Abraham expresses his willingness to pay Ephron בְּכֶסֶף מָלֵא &ldquo;with full silver-price&rdquo; to acquire the cave of Machpelah (Gen 23:9). Ephron then mentions 400 shekels of silver, and Abraham pays it:
בראשית כג:טז ...וַיִּשְׁקֹל אַבְרָהָם לְעֶפְרֹן אֶת הַכֶּסֶף אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר בְּאָזְנֵי בְנֵי חֵת אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף עֹבֵר לַסֹּחֵר.
Gen 23:16 &hellip; Abraham paid out to Ephron the money that he had named in the hearing of the Hittites&mdash;four hundred shekels of silver at the going merchants&rsquo; rate.
Gifts&mdash;Jacob gifts Esau an assortment of female sheep and goats (400), and male sheep and goats (40):
בראשית לב:טו עִזִּים מָאתַיִם וּתְיָשִׁים עֶשְׂרִים רְחֵלִים מָאתַיִם וְאֵילִים עֶשְׂרִים.
Gen 32:15 200 nanny-goats and 20 billy-goats; 200 ewes and 20 rams.[28]
Similarly, Hazael brings the prophet Elisha 40 camels burdened with gifts:
מלכים ב ח:ט וַיֵּלֶךְ חֲזָאֵל לִקְרָאתוֹ וַיִּקַּח מִנְחָה בְיָדוֹ וְכָל טוּב דַּמֶּשֶׂק מַשָּׂא אַרְבָּעִים גָּמָל...
2 Kgs 8:9 Hazael went to meet him, taking with him as a gift forty camel-loads of all the bounty of Damascus&hellip;
Lashes&mdash;As a punishment for certain offenses, Israelites are to be struck with forty lashes:
דברים כה:ב וְהָיָה אִם בִּן הַכּוֹת הָרָשָׁע וְהִפִּילוֹ הַשֹּׁפֵט וְהִכָּהוּ לְפָנָיו כְּדֵי רִשְׁעָתוֹ בְּמִסְפָּר. כה:ג אַרְבָּעִים יַכֶּנּוּ לֹא יֹסִיף פֶּן יֹסִיף לְהַכֹּתוֹ עַל אֵלֶּה מַכָּה רַבָּה וְנִקְלָה אָחִיךָ לְעֵינֶיךָ.
Deut 25:2 If the guilty one is to be flogged, the magistrate shall have him lie down and be given lashes in his presence, by count, as his guilt warrants. 25:3 He may be given up to forty lashes, but not more, lest being flogged further, to excess, your brother be degraded before your eyes.
Forty here represents a maximum tolerable punishment.[29] In rabbinic literature, forty is also the amount of seʾot of pure water needed to fill a mikvah so that people can purify themselves in it (m. Mikvaot 1:7).[30]
Troops&mdash;Israel fields 40,000 troops, indicating a full national army or a full tribal army.
יהושע ד:יג כְּאַרְבָּעִים אֶלֶף חֲלוּצֵי הַצָּבָא עָבְרוּ לִפְנֵי יְ־הוָה לַמִּלְחָמָה אֶל עַרְבוֹת יְרִיחוֹ.
Josh 4:13 About forty thousand shock troops went across, at the instance of YHWH, to the steppes of Jericho for battle.
שופטים ה:ח יִבְחַר אֱלֹהִים חֲדָשִׁים אָז לָחֶם שְׁעָרִים מָגֵן אִם יֵרָאֶה וָרֹמַח בְּאַרְבָּעִים אֶלֶף בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.
Judg 5:8 When they chose new gods, was there a fighter then in the gates? No shield or spear was seen among forty thousand in Israel!
Horse stalls&mdash;Solomon had 40,000 stalls for his horses:
מלכים א ה:ו וַיְהִי לִשְׁלֹמֹה אַרְבָּעִים אֶלֶף אֻרְו&zwj;ֹת סוּסִים לְמֶרְכָּבוֹ וּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר אֶלֶף פָּרָשִׁים.
1 Kgs 5:6 Solomon had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariotry and 12,000 horsemen.
This may express that Solomon had the means to provide a mount to every soldier in his military.
Temple&mdash;The length of the Temple Solomon builds in Jerusalem is 40 cubits:
מלכים א ו:יז וְאַרְבָּעִים בָּאַמָּה הָיָה הַבָּיִת הוּא הַהֵיכָל לִפְנָי.
1 Kgs 6:17 The front part of the House, that is, the Great Hall, measured 40 cubits.
Perhaps this represents the fullest measure of dedication to God or the fullest measure of beauty.[31]]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure url="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b8fd783bee52c8fb59b1fac/66f44fe448a00f12c4978a81_Forty%252040%2520number%2520in%2520the%2520bible.jpeg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[God’s Absence]]></title>
            <link>https://thetorah.com/article/gods-absence</link>
            <guid>https://thetorah.com/article/gods-absence</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2024 20:02:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[In the Bible, God&rsquo;s appearance is a blessing, while God&rsquo;s hidden face is a punishment. But does that mean we've been punished for millennia? Chasidic masters offer a profound reinterpretation: God&rsquo;s absence is a divine invitation&mdash;calling those who are willing to seek God out, to forge a deeper connection.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[A rabbi once came upon a child who was crying. He asked the child what was wrong, and the child answered: &ldquo;I was hiding, and no one came to look for me.&rdquo; The Rabbi ruefully responded, &ldquo;God makes the same complaint.&rdquo; &mdash; A Chasidic parable[1]
In Deuteronomy, YHWH warns the Israelites that while they experienced constant divine manifestation in the wilderness, with pillars of fire and cloud and manna from heaven, it will not always be this way. In the future, they will sin, and then they will find that YHWH&rsquo;s face will be hidden:
דברים לא:יז וְחָרָה אַפִּי בוֹ בַיּוֹם הַהוּא וַעֲזַבְתִּים וְהִסְתַּרְתִּי פָנַי מֵהֶם וְהָיָה לֶאֱכֹל וּמְצָאֻהוּ רָעוֹת רַבּוֹת וְצָרוֹת וְאָמַר בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא הֲלֹא עַל כִּי אֵין אֱלֹהַי בְּקִרְבִּי מְצָאוּנִי הָרָעוֹת הָאֵלֶּה. לא:יח וְאָנֹכִי הַסְתֵּר אַסְתִּיר פָּנַי בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא עַל כָּל הָרָעָה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה כִּי פָנָה אֶל אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים.
Deut 31:17 Then My anger will flare up against them, and I will abandon them and hide My face from them. They shall be ready prey; and many evils and troubles shall befall them. And they shall say on that day, &ldquo;Surely it is because our God is not in our midst that these evils have befallen us.&rdquo; 31:18 Yet I will surely hide My face on that day, because of all the evil they have done in turning to other gods.[2]
Rav Nachman of Breslov/Bratslav (1772&ndash;1810), founder of the Breslov Chasidic sect, interprets the phrase הַסְתֵּר אַסְתִּיר &ldquo;I will surely hide,&rdquo; which uses the same root for the verb twice (an infinitive absolute followed by an imperfect) as a reference to two levels of divine concealment,[3] one that the person knows about and one of which the person is unaware:
ליקוטי מוהר"ן נו:ג כִּי יֵשׁ שְׁנֵי הַסְתָּרוֹת, וּכְשֶׁהַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַךְ נִסְתָּר בְּהַסְתָּרָה אַחַת, גַּם כֵּן קָשֶׁה מְאֹד לְמָצְאוֹ, אַךְ אַף־עַל־פִּי־כֵן, כְּשֶׁהוּא נִסְתָּר בְּהַסְתָּרָה אַחַת, אֶפְשָׁר לִיגַע וְלַחֲתֹר עַד שֶׁיִּמְצָא אוֹתוֹ יִתְבָּרַךְ, מֵאַחַר שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַךְ נִסְתָּר מִמֶּנּוּ.
Likutei Moharan 56:3 For there are two levels of hiddenness. When the blessed God is hidden in one level of hiddenness, it is also hard to find Him. Even so, when He is hidden in one level of hiddenness, it is possible to work hard and dig until one finds Him, since the person knows that the blessed God is hidden from him.
אֲבָל כְּשֶׁהַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַךְ נִסְתָּר בְּהַסְתָּרָה תּוֹךְ הַסְתָּרָה, דְּהַיְנוּ שֶׁהַהַסְתָּרָה בְּעַצְמָהּ נִסְתֶּרֶת מִמֶּנּוּ, דְּהַיְנוּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ כְּלָל שֶׁהַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַךְ נִסְתָּר מִמֶּנּוּ &ndash; אֲזַי אִי אֶפְשָׁר כְּלָל לִמְצֹא אוֹתוֹ, מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ כְּלָל מֵהַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַךְ....
But when the blessed God is hidden in a concealment inside a concealment, meaning, that the concealment itself is hidden from the person, i.e., that he doesn&rsquo;t even know that the blessed God is hidden from him, then it is impossible to find God at all, since the person doesn&rsquo;t even know a thing about the blessed God&hellip;
Even so, Rav Nachman argues that it is still just concealment. God, of course, is always actually present:
אֲבָל בֶּאֱמֶת אֲפִלּוּ בְּכָל הַהַסְתָּרוֹת, וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּהַהַסְתָּרָה שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַסְתָּרָה, בְּוַדַּאי גַּם שָׁם מְלֻבָּשׁ הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַךְ, כִּי בְּוַדַּאי אֵין שׁוּם דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה בּוֹ חִיּוּת הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַךְ, כִּי בִּלְעֲדֵי חִיּוּתוֹ לֹא הָיָה לוֹ קִיּוּם כְּלָל.
In reality, however, even in all these layers of concealment, and even in the concealment which is inside concealment, it is certain that the blessed God is enclothed. For certainly there is nothing that does not have the life of the blessed God inside it, for without God&rsquo;s lifeforce, there would be no existence at all.







To translate this message into more modern terms: For the non-believer, saying that God is hiding or withdrawn is just a way of masking the hard-to-face possibility that God does not exist. Such a person is certainly not searching for God. For believers, however, the imagery of God&rsquo;s face as hidden implies that a divine face is somewhere to be experienced if we can pierce the veil of hiddenness.
God&rsquo;s Hidden Face in the Bible: A Punishment
In the Bible, seeing God&rsquo;s face is an expression of support or endorsement. Thus, the Priestly blessing promises that God will turn God&rsquo;s face to the Israelites, and they will prosper:
במדבר ו:כד יְבָרֶכְךָ יְ־הוָה וְיִשְׁמְרֶךָ. ו:כה יָאֵר יְ־הוָה פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ וִיחֻנֶּךָּ. ו:כו יִשָּׂא יְ־הוָה פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ וְיָשֵׂם לְךָ שָׁלוֹם.
Num 6:24 YHWH bless you and protect you! 6:25 YHWH deal kindly and graciously with you! 6:26 YHWH bestow His favor upon you and grant you peace!
Moreover, revelation itself is a way of God showing his chosen ones the divine face. Indeed, God is always in a sense hidden in the lives of those who have yet to discover God&rsquo;s presence, whether Jacob in a dream (Gen 28:10&ndash;22), Moses at the burning bush (Exod 3:1&ndash;4:17), or all of Israel at Mount Sinai (Exod 19:16&ndash;20:17).
In contrast, the book of Psalms places the phrase in the mouths of speakers complaining about their suffering.[4] For example:
תהלים יג:ב עַד אָנָה יְ־הוָה תִּשְׁכָּחֵנִי נֶצַח עַד אָנָה תַּסְתִּיר אֶת פָּנֶיךָ מִמֶּנִּי.
Ps 13:2 How long, O YHWH; will You ignore me forever? How long will You hide Your face from me?
תהלים כז:ט אַל תַּסְתֵּר פָּנֶיךָ מִמֶּנִּי אַל תַּט בְּאַף עַבְדֶּךָ עֶזְרָתִי הָיִיתָ אַל תִּטְּשֵׁנִי וְאַל תַּעַזְבֵנִי אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׁעִי.
Ps 27:9 Do not hide Your face from me; do not thrust aside Your servant in anger; You have ever been my help. Do not forsake me, do not abandon me, O God, my deliverer.[5]
Job also lodges this complaint against God on account of his suffering:
איוב יג:כד לָמָּה פָנֶיךָ תַסְתִּיר וְתַחְשְׁבֵנִי לְאוֹיֵב לָךְ.
Job 13:24 Why do You hide Your face, and treat me like an enemy?[6]
If taken as a simple metaphor for disfavor, God&rsquo;s hidden face is a phrase capturing the feelings of the downtrodden, that God has abandoned them to their unfortunate fate. Deuteronomy takes this further, presenting God&rsquo;s hidden face as a punishment.[7] This is how it is presented in the Prophets as well. For example,
יחזקאל לט:כג וְיָדְעוּ הַגּוֹיִם כִּי בַעֲו&zwj;ֹנָם גָּלוּ בֵית יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל אֲשֶׁר מָעֲלוּ בִי וָאַסְתִּר פָּנַי מֵהֶם וָאֶתְּנֵם בְּיַד צָרֵיהֶם וַיִּפְּלוּ בַחֶרֶב כֻּלָּם. לט:כד כְּטֻמְאָתָם וּכְפִשְׁעֵיהֶם עָשִׂיתִי אֹתָם וָאַסְתִּר פָּנַי מֵהֶם.
Ezek 39:23 And the nations shall know that the House of Israel were exiled only for their iniquity, because they trespassed against Me, so that I hid My face from them and delivered them into the hands of their adversaries, and they all fell by the sword. 39:24 When I hid My face from them, I dealt with them according to their uncleanness and their transgressions.[8]
The hidden face of God as punishment plays a role in Christian theology, using the Latin term deus absconditus (&ldquo;Hidden God&rdquo;), and among Jews in discussion about God&rsquo;s place in persecution, most recently the shoah (Holocaust).[9] And yet, a major difficulty with this usage is that, in our world, God&rsquo;s face is always hidden. Indeed, already in the Bible, God&rsquo;s presence seemingly ebbs from the earliest stories to the latest.[10]
When people suffer, our first impulse is often to ask, &ldquo;where is God?&rdquo; To answer this question by positing that the absence of God is a punishment is essentially to state that God has been and will always be angry with us. It is a reading without hope of salvation or divine connection. Naturally, we seek a phenomenological explanation of God&rsquo;s absence, i.e., a rendering that captures our experience and allows us room for hope and divine connection.
Absence as a Bid for Closeness
In a remarkable emotional inversion, the Talmud records that the first-generation Amora Rav (3rd cent. C.E.) saw God&rsquo;s hiddenness as a sign of divine favor:
בבלי חגיגה ה. אמר רב ברדלא בר טביומי אמר רב: "כל שאינו בהסתר פנים אינו מהם..."
b. Chagiga 5a Rav Bardela son of Tavyumi said in the name of Rav: &ldquo;All who are not the object of &lsquo;hidden of face&rsquo; are not of them (i.e. Israel)&hellip;&rdquo;[11]
What might be thought of as a purely negative action, God&rsquo;s turning away, becomes instead an affirmation of relationship: If God does not trouble to ignore you, you are not close to God.[12] This is a theological launch of a thousand ships. According to Rav, there is a systolic and diastolic movement to God&rsquo;s relationship with Israel. Sometimes it is motivated by the dynamic of punishment, but not always. In Chasidic thought, this idea was taken further, with God&rsquo;s absence reinterpreted as a divine bid for closeness.
Feeling God&rsquo;s Distance: A Psychological Mechanism
R. Moshe Chaim Ephraim of Sudilkov (1748&ndash;1800), in his posthumously published glosses on the Torah, Degel Machaneh Ephraim, expresses astonishment at the idea of God being hidden from Israel:
דגל מחנה אפרים, וילך והוא לכאורה תמוה גדולה: איך אפשר שהקב"ה יסתיר פניו מישראל, חלילה?! ואיך יהיה להם חיות ותקומה כי זה כל חיותם של ישראל עם קרובו שנקראו בנים למקום?!
Degel Machaneh Ephraim, Vayellech This is at first a great wonder: How is it possible that the blessed Holy One would hide his face from Israel, God forbid?! And how could they survive and rebuild themselves, since the very lives of the Jewish people is to be the nation to which God is close, for they are called God&rsquo;s children![13]
To answer this question, R. Ephraim, the grandson of R. Israel Baʿal Shem Tov, uses a parable in the style of his grandfather to paint a picture of what God intends when hiding from Israel:
דגל מחנה אפרים, וילך אך דהנה המשל הוא למלך שעשה כמה מחיצות באחיזת עינים לפני היכלו שלא יוכלו ליכנס אליו ונסתתר שם ועשה חומות ואש ונהרות באחיזת עינים הכל לפני בניו
Degel Machaneh Ephraim, Vayellech But here is a parable to a king that made many illusory barriers before his palace, to make it impossible to approach him, and he hid there. He made illusory barriers of fire and water, placing them all in his sons&rsquo; way.
והנה מי שהיה חכם נתן לב לדבר א[י]ך אפשר שאביו הרחמן לא יתרצה להראות פניו לבניו ידידיו אין זה כי אם אחיזת עינים והאב רוצה לנסות אם ישתדל הבן לבוא אליו ובאמת אין שום הסתרה והנה מיד כשמסר לנפשו לילך בנהר נסתר אחיזת עינים ועבר בו וכן בכל המחיצות עד שבא להיכל המלך.
And now, there was a smart son who thought about it, how is it possible that his kind father would not want to show himself to his beloved children. This must be illusory, and that their father merely wants to test whether his son will put in the effort to get to him. But really, there isn&rsquo;t any hiding. So immediately, when the son decided to take the risk and approach, the illusory river disappeared and he passed through, and the same with all the other barriers, until he arrived at where the king was.
ויש טפש שירא להתחיל לעבור המחיצות ויש שעובר המים וחוזר מפני החומות ומפני האש והנמשל ידוע.
And there was a foolish son who was afraid to start crossing the barriers. And there was one who passed through the water, but returned because of other barriers, like that of the fire. And the meaning of this parable is clear.
והנה מי שמוסר נפשו ועובר בכל המחיצות ודוחק עצמו עד שבא אל המלך אז יבוא למעלה יותר גדול מקודם וזהו (בראשית מו:ד) אָנֹכִי אֵרֵד עִמְּךָ, היינו כשתתן לב ותבין שאפילו בירידה יש גם כן אנכי היינו ההסתרה שנסתתר עצמי ממך היא גם כן לטובתך אז (שם) וְאָנֹכִי אַעַלְךָ גַם עָלֹה היינו שתזכה למעלה יתירה וזהו גם עלה והבן.
Whoever puts in the effort and passes through the barriers, and pushes himself until he gets to the king, that person will reach a higher level than before. This is what God meant [when God said to Jacob] &ldquo;I will go down with you [to Egypt].&rdquo; Meaning, when you take note and realized that even when going down, I am still there, i.e., when I hide myself from you, it is also for your benefit, then (ibid.) &ldquo;and I will also go up even up with you,&rdquo; meaning, that you will merit to reach a higher level, and this is the meaning of &ldquo;even up.&rdquo;[14]
According to R. Ephraim, the descent into hiddenness results in a greater ascent into closeness. God&rsquo;s distance is not real, but human insight or faith is required to recognize that the walls are a chimera. God hides as a sort of provocation to humans to seek God, for one seeks only that which is hidden.
The Eclipse of God
In the Torah, God takes responsibility for hiding. In contrast, Martin Buber&rsquo;s The Eclipse of God (1952) apportions the responsibility not with humanity or with God, but in between:
Eclipse of the light of heaven, eclipse of God&mdash;such indeed is the character of the historic hour through which the world is passing. But it is not a process which can be adequately accounted for by instancing the changes that have taken place in man&rsquo;s spirit. An eclipse of the sun is something that occurs between the sun and our eyes, not in the sun itself.[15]
Here the responsibility is shared but in a different way. The vagaries of history, the insensitivity of human beings, perhaps the evil of other people, create a block that causes the Divine face to be hidden. Buber&rsquo;s imagery captures the complexity of how many of us experience the absence of God in our world.
An Age of Divine Concealment
A Psalmist declares that God&rsquo;s glory is clear from just looking at the wonders of the universe:
תהלים יט:ב הַשָּׁמַיִם מְסַפְּרִים כְּבוֹד אֵל וּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדָיו מַגִּיד הָרָקִיעַ.
Ps 19:2 The heavens declare the glory of God, the firmament proclaims His handiwork.
This psalmist does not invoke revelation or a divine message, but assumes that just by looking that sky, the evidence of God should be clear to the eye of the beholder. It is one of the four principal domains of revelation, through nature, history, scripture, and direct experience. But this kind of revelation is less palpable to the modern eye as it once was.
Nature&mdash;As moderns, the world appears far more instrumental and depersonalized. What was once perceived as inexplicable divine will now is now subject to the more mundane analysis of mathematics, physics, and chemistry.
History&mdash;One&rsquo;s attitude toward history is largely dependent upon whether one attributes triumphs and catastrophes to God&rsquo;s hand or to the accidents of human behaviors.[16]
Scripture&mdash;As readers of this site know well, scripture is a far more ambiguous testimony than once it seemed. The intrusion of the human element into the text has created a cornucopia of interpretive problems. The very fact of human authorship creates a crisis for those who hunt for God&rsquo;s living presence in every word of Torah.
Direct experience&mdash;once a commonplace of prayer, of contemplation and of expectation, personal experience of the divine presence has waned in an age when focus on the self has supplanted yearning for the Divine.
Tzimtzim&mdash;The Withdrawal of God
Perhaps we can invoke the kabbalistic doctrine of tzimtzum, &ldquo;withdrawal,&rdquo; the idea that God created the world by shrinking the divine presence to make room for the physical manifestation of the universe. In this age, our age, we might imagine ourselves as living through multiple withdrawals.
Tzimtzum, of course, is primarily associated with creation,[17] but we can extend the concept and see tzimtzum as a manifestation of God&rsquo;s hiding. And yet, the hiding expresses God&rsquo;s desire that people come find him, as R. Ephraim wrote, an image captured nicely in the title of Abraham Joshua Heschel&rsquo;s central work of theology God in Search of Man.
Piercing the Veil
The Talmud records a debate about the phrase between two sages as to whether God, while in hiding, reaches out through dreams or shadows:
בבלי חגיגה ה: אמר רבא: "אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא: 'אף על פי שהסתרתי פני מהם - בחלום אדבר בו.'" רב יוסף אמר: "ידו נטויה עלינו, שנאמר (ישעיה נא:טז) 'ובצל ידי כסיתיך.'"
b. Chagiga 5b Ravah said: &ldquo;The blessed Holy One said: &ldquo;Even though I hid my face from them, I speak with them in a dream.&rsquo;&rdquo; Rav Joseph said: &ldquo;His hand is reaching out to us, as it says (Isa 51:16): &lsquo;with the shadow of my hand I cover you.&rsquo;&rdquo;
Both of these views deal with absence of God in our lives on one hand, but the subtle presence of God on the other&mdash;if only we read the signs. We live in an age when human expansion makes seeing God&rsquo;s presence difficult. And yet, for those of us who share what the Spanish-American philosopher, Santayana (1873&ndash;1952), in his poem &ldquo;O World&rdquo; called &ldquo;the soul&rsquo;s invincible surmise,&rdquo; hiding is a spur to seeking, and reinforced by moments of glimpsing the elusive face of God in moments which can be invited if not forcibly enacted.
While God warns Israel that in the future, the divine face will be hidden, even so, throughout history believers have held fast to the conviction that if we continue to hope for that hidden face to appear, we will catch glimpses of the divine through the interstices of existence, a bitachon, &ldquo;trust&rdquo; that brings a promise of both comfort and salvation.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure url="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b8fd783bee52c8fb59b1fac/66f473d44ff21db292f64cfd_God%25E2%2580%2599s%2520Absence.jpeg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[YHWH’s Covenant: Why Moses Calls Heaven and Earth as Witnesses]]></title>
            <link>https://thetorah.com/article/yhwhs-covenant-why-moses-calls-heaven-and-earth-as-witnesses</link>
            <guid>https://thetorah.com/article/yhwhs-covenant-why-moses-calls-heaven-and-earth-as-witnesses</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2024 10:35:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[Unlike human kings, YHWH does not need witnesses and enforcers. However, Moses in Deuteronomy draws on formulations found in ancient Near Eastern treaties.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[In his opening speech in Moab, Moses warns the Israelites against abandoning YHWH for the worship of idols, and then declares:
דברים ד:כו הַעִידֹתִי בָכֶם הַיּוֹם אֶת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת הָאָרֶץ כִּי אָבֹד תֹּאבֵדוּן מַהֵר מֵעַל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם עֹבְרִים אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן שָׁמָּה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ לֹא תַאֲרִיכֻן יָמִים עָלֶיהָ כִּי הִשָּׁמֵד תִּשָּׁמֵדוּן.
Deut 4:26 I call heaven and earth this day to witness against you that you shall soon perish from the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess; you shall not endure in it, but shall be utterly wiped out.
Why does Moses invoke heaven and earth as witnesses? Before offering his own solution (more on this later), R. Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089&ndash;1164) rejects that Moses is indirectly invoking divine and earthly beings:
אבן עזרא דברים ד:כו יש אומרים כי טעם עדות שמים וארץ המלאכים ובני אדם.
Ibn Ezra Deut 4:26 Some say the witness of heaven and earth refers to the angels and the human beings.
Ibn Ezra is correct: Moses does not intend to invoke living beings. His words, however, draw on ancient Near Eastern treaty traditions that do.
Gods of the Heavens and Earth in ANE Treaties
Many ancient Near Eastern treaties have been excavated: these political documents were written by powerful kings to ensure the loyalty of subject peoples.[1] Their provisions illuminate key aspects of Deuteronomy, including its demand of exclusive loyalty to YHWH (e.g., 6:4&ndash;15) and the threatened curses at its conclusion (28:15&ndash;68). In broadest terms, YHWH assumes the role usually played by the human monarch and the biblical commandments are equivalent to the treaty stipulations.[2]
Moses&rsquo;s call to heaven and earth is comparable to the invocations of divine witnesses before whom these ancient treaties were solemnized. For example, in the treaty between the Hittite king Suppiluliuma I and Huqqana, leader of a territory called Hayasa (c. 1350 B.C.E.), the Hittite king states:[3]
No. 3 &sect;6 (A i 35&ndash;40) &hellip;I have now placed these word (i.e., the terms of the treaty) under oath for you, and we have now summoned the Thousand Gods to assembly in this matter.
An impressively long list of named gods follows. The last entries on this list are:
No. 3 &sect;8 (A i 48&ndash;59) &hellip;all the deities of Hatti, the deities [&hellip;] of the land, the deities of heaven, the deities of the earth, the mountains, [the rivers, the springs, the clouds], heaven, the earth, the great sea&mdash;they [shall be witnesses].&rdquo;[4]
Even closer to Deuteronomy&rsquo;s language is a mid-8th century B.C.E. treaty between Bargaʾyah, king of KTK,[5] and Matiʿel, the king of Arpad, inscribed in Old Aramaic on a stele found at Sefire in Syria, which is formalized in the presence of numerous pairs of named deities as well as the heavens and the earth:
Stele I Face A ll. 6b&ndash;14a &hellip;in the presence of Heav[en and Earth in the presence of (the) A]byss and (the) Springs, and in the presence of Day and Night&mdash;all the god[s of KTK and the gods of Ar]pad (are) witnesses (to it). Open your eyes (O gods!), to gaze upon the treaty of Bargaʾyah [with Matiʿel, the king of Arpad].[6]
The treaty ends with a curse against anyone who changes or violates its terms, now or in the future:
Stele I Face C ll. 17&ndash;24 Whoever will not observe the words of the inscription which is on this stele or will say, &ldquo;I shall efface some of its words,&rdquo; or &ldquo;I shall upset the good treaty-relations and turn (them) [to] evil,&rdquo; on any day on which he will d[o] so, may the gods overturn th[at m]an and his house and all that (is) in it![7]
Permanent Witnesses
These comparisons point up the parallels between Deuteronomy and the ancient treaties, but they also highlight Deuteronomy&rsquo;s particularly monotheistic flavor, in which heaven and earth are animate enough to serve as witnesses, but they are not deities themselves, and certainly do not appear as witnesses alongside any other named deities.
As Ibn Ezra notes, their participation guarantees that the promise of blessing or punishment will last beyond any human&rsquo;s lifetime:
אבן עזרא דברים ד:כו והנכון בעיני להיותם עדים שיראום תמיד הם ובניהם כי הם עומדים כטעם כימי השמים על הארץ [דברים יא:כא] וכן שמעו הרים את ריב ה' [מיכה ו:ב]. וכן האבן הזאת תהיה בנו לעדה [יהושׁע כד:כז].
Ibn Ezra Deut 4:26 However, it appears to me that heaven and earth are witnesses, and the Israelites and their children will always see them, for they are everlasting, as in &ldquo;as the days of the heavens above the earth&rdquo; (Deut 11:21). &ldquo;Hear, O ye mountains, the Lord&rsquo;s controversy&rdquo; (Mic 6:2); and &ldquo;Behold, this stone shall be a witness against us&rdquo; (Josh 24:27) are similar.[8]
The Gods Sign Esarhaddon&rsquo;s Succession Treaty
The extensive 672 B.C.E. succession treaty of king Esarhaddon,[9] which sought to ensure that his son, Assurbanipal, would succeed him as ruler, follows a similar pattern. After the preamble, which identifies Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, the treaty presents a list of astral entities (five planets and the star known as Sirius today) and named deities before whom the treaty was completed. A summary invocation of the gods dwelling in heaven and earth follows this list:
SAA02 006 ll. 11&ndash;24 &hellip;(which he) confirmed, made and concluded in the presence of Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, Mercury, Mars and Sirius; in the presence of Assur, Anu, Ill[il], Ea, Sin, Samas, Adad, Marduk, Nabu, Nusku, Uras, Nergal, Mullissu, Serna, Belet-ili, I&scaron;tar of Nineveh, I&scaron;tar of Arbela, the gods dwelling in heaven and earth, the gods of Assyria, the gods of Sumer and [Akka]d, all the gods of the lands.[10]
The tablet also presents the deities as having &ldquo;signed on the dotted line&rdquo;&mdash;as witnesses do today and might have done even then&mdash;with three seal impressions, produced by rolling cylinder seals across the clay. The document&rsquo;s first written words are:
SAA02 006 ll. i&ndash;iv Seal of the god A&scaron;&scaron;ur, king of the gods, lord of the lands, not to be altered; seal of the great ruler, father of the gods, not to be disputed.
The three seal impressions have been placed between the preamble and the list of divine witnesses. Each impression combines a pictorial image with a textual legend, or caption, that names its divine owner, and each has a history that predates the treaty:[11]
An ancient Assur seal &ndash; Dating to the 19th century B.C.E., and thus over 1000 years old at the time of the treaty, this seal would have been kept in the &ldquo;city hall&rdquo; of the ancient Assyrian capital city, Assur. The legend reads:
Belonging to (the god) Assur; that of the City Hall.
The impression sits between the other two seals on the tablet and is perpendicular to them, which visually underscores its centrality.

Reconstructed impression of the ancient Assur seal, Wiseman, &ldquo;Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon,&rdquo; 18.

Likely Assur and Ninurta&rsquo;s seal &ndash; Dated on art-historical grounds to the Middle Assyrian period (1400&ndash;1200 B.C.E.), the seal&rsquo;s legend is broken, but it mentions the gods Assur and Ninurta, who are depicted in the seal&rsquo;s image with the king kneeling between them.

Trace of the broken Assur and Ninurta seal. Wiseman, &ldquo;Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon,&rdquo; 20.

Assur&rsquo;s seal &ndash; Signed by Sennacherib, Esarhaddon&rsquo;s father (r. 705&ndash;681 B.C.E.), who stands between the gods Assur and Mullissu in the image. On the right, the legend begins by declaring that the seal belongs to Assur:
The Seal of Destinies, with which Assur, king of the gods, seals the destinies of the Igigi and Anunnaki of heaven and earth, and of mankind. What he seals with it, he does not alter.

Reconstructed impression of Sennacherib&rsquo;s Assur seal. Wiseman, &ldquo;Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon,&rdquo; 16.

The presence of Assur&rsquo;s seal on the treaty is evidence of the god&rsquo;s role as a witness. In that capacity, as the legend makes clear, Assur guarantees that the treaty will survive, unchanged, even after Esarhaddon&rsquo;s death.[12] The legend also identifies Assur as the agent of punishment against someone who would dare to change the contents of the document:
He who should alter (it), may Assur, king of the gods, and Mullissu,[13] together with their children kill him with their mighty weapons. I am Sennacherib, king of Assyria, a prince who fears you. Whoever erases my name and discards this Seal of Destinies of yours, erase his name and seed from the land!
Like Assur, who is listed first among the deities who will &ldquo;decree an evil fate&rdquo; for any transgressor,[14] the heavens and earth are also the first witnesses to implement divine judgement in Deuteronomy.
The Witnesses Implement Blessings and Curses
At the end of his speeches, Moses urges the nation to &ldquo;choose life&rdquo;:
&rlm;דברים ל:יט הַעִידֹתִי בָכֶם הַיּוֹם אֶת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת הָאָרֶץ הַחַיִּים וְהַמָּוֶת נָתַתִּי לְפָנֶיךָ הַבְּרָכָה וְהַקְּלָלָה וּבָחַרְתָּ בַּחַיִּים לְמַעַן תִּחְיֶה אַתָּה וְזַרְעֶךָ.
Deut 30:19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day: I have put before you life and death, blessing and curse. Choose life&mdash;if you and your offspring would live.
Referring to the law of stoning the idolater, R. Yosef Bechor Shor (12th cent.) teases out the function of heaven and earth as witnesses by arguing that like the human witnesses, heaven and earth&rsquo;s &ldquo;hands&rdquo; shall be first against Israel:
בכור שור דברים ל:יט יש לפרש: פמליא של מעלה ופמלייא של מטה. ועיקר הפשט: השמים והארץ הם יעידו עליכם, וידם תהיה בכם בראשונה הן לטוב הן לחילוף, כדכתיב יד העדים תהיה בו בראשונה [דברים יז:ז].
Bechor Shor Deut 30:19 It can be interpreted to mean an entourage from above and an entourage from below. But the simple meaning is: The heavens and the earth will testify about you, and their hand will be against you first, both for good or for its opposite, as it is written, &ldquo;Let the hands of the witnesses be the first against him&rdquo; (Deut 17:7).
Bechor Shor continues, drawing a connection to verses in which agricultural blessings and curses come through heaven and earth:
בכור שור דברים ל:יט אם תעשו טובה יעידו: "ונתנה הארץ פריה" [ויקרא כה:יט], "והשמים יתנו טלם" [זכריה ח:יב], וגשמיהם בעתם, ואם רע "ועצר את השמים ולא יהיה מטר, והאדמה לא תתן את יבולה" [דברים יא:יז], אפילו מה שמובילין לה [ספרי דברים מג].
Bechor Shor Deut 30:19 If you do good, they will testify: &ldquo;And the earth gave her fruit&rdquo; (Lev 25:19), and &ldquo;the heavens will give their dew&rdquo; (Zech 8:12), and their rains in their season (cf. Lev 26:4); and if bad, &ldquo;the heavens will be closed up and there will be no rain, and the earth will not give its crops&rdquo; (Deut 11:17)&mdash;even what they try to plant in it (cf. Sifrei Deuteronomy 43).[15]
YHWH Rules the Enforcers
Moses calls on heaven and earth as witnesses for comparable reasons. He demonstrates that God&rsquo;s treaty with the nation is permanently binding. Ever-present heaven and earth guarantee that it will last well beyond the day of its promulgation, and that it will apply to all future generations. And, because the blessings and curses pertain directly to heaven and earth, there can be no better witnesses to stand behind the promised future outcomes.
These parallel purposes apply only within Deuteronomy&rsquo;s theological limits, however. Like the other Near Eastern kings, YHWH forges a treaty with the vassal nation, Israel. Unlike these human kings, however, YHWH is not subject to the witnesses; indeed, it is Moses, rather than YHWH, who invokes heaven and earth.
Comparison with the Near Eastern treaties can explain Moses&rsquo;s invocation as a rhetorical device that imagines the heavens and earth as independent enforcers of the treaty&rsquo;s terms. The treaty itself, however, says otherwise. It is YHWH, and YHWH alone, who can command or prohibit blessings of heaven and earth.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure url="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b8fd783bee52c8fb59b1fac/66eb170dbd63d7c7d2b44b86_esarhaddon-succession-treaty.jpeg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Do Not Plow an Ox with a Donkey—Reasons, Metaphors, and Sexual Undertones]]></title>
            <link>https://thetorah.com/article/do-not-plow-an-ox-with-a-donkey-reasons-metaphors-and-sexual-undertones</link>
            <guid>https://thetorah.com/article/do-not-plow-an-ox-with-a-donkey-reasons-metaphors-and-sexual-undertones</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2024 12:58:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[Is the prohibition about animal compassion, keeping species separate, or does it hold symbolic and metaphorical meanings? Beyond its surface, the law against &ldquo;plowing&rdquo; with an ox and a donkey also conveys a double entendre.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[Between the laws forbidding planting different types of seeds together and making garments of wool and linen, we find a brief prohibition of using two different kinds of animals to plow together:
דברים כב:י לֹא תַחֲרֹשׁ בְּשׁוֹר וּבַחֲמֹר יַחְדָּו.
Deut 22:10 You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.[1]
As Samuel Driver observed, in late 19th century Palestine, &ldquo;Plows are still sometimes harnessed to an ox and an ass.&rdquo;[2] The lack of an explicit explanation for the prohibition, combined with the specificity regarding the animals, inspired commentators from the Second Temple period to modern times to explain the meaning of this law.
1. Compassion for Animals
The most common interpretation of the law is that it reflects the Torah&rsquo;s compassion for animals like we see in the prohibition of boiling a goat in its mother&rsquo;s milk (Exod 23:19) and the proscription of muzzling an ox while it treads grain (Deut 25:4).[3] Commentators have offered more than one explanation for the nature of the problem for the animals.
a. Unequal Burden
One explanation, found already in the works of Philo Judaeus, the 1st century C.E. Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, is that the work is unevenly distributed between the bigger and smaller animal:
Philo, Special Laws 4:205 [T]hat which is the really sacred law takes such exceeding care to provide for the maintenance of justice, that it will not permit even the ploughing of the land to be carried on by animals of unequal strength, and forbids a husbandman to plough with an ass and a heifer yoked to the same plough, lest the weaker animals, being compelled to exert itself to keep up with the superior power of the stronger animal, should become exhausted, and sink under the effort. (Yonge translation, with adjustments.)
Philo continues by noting that even though the Torah classifies donkeys as unclean animals (as per Lev 11 and Deut 14),[4] we are still to have compassion on them:
Special Laws 4:206 and the bull is looked upon as the stronger animal, and is enrolled in the class of clean beasts and animals, while the ass is a weaker animal and of the class of unclean beasts; but nevertheless he has not grudged those animals which appear to be weaker, the assistance which they can derive from justice.
He finishes, as was his wont, with an allegorical take-home message that applies, that being kind to even unclean animals teaches us that we need to treat all people equally, no matter their origins:
in order, as I imagine, to teach the judges most forcibly, that they are never in their decisions to give the worse fate to the humbly born, in matters the investigation of which depends not on birth but on virtue and vice.[5]
In this vein, Paul of Tarsus, in his Second Letter to the Corinthians (6:14), tells his followers &ldquo;Do not be unevenly yoked (&epsilon;̔&tau;&epsilon;&rho;&omicron;&zeta;&upsilon;&gamma;&omicron;&upsilon;͂&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf;) with unbelievers,&rdquo; likely a play on this verse.[6] The faithful are the strong ox, and the unfaithful are the weak donkey, holding the faithful back.
A Geonic collection called Midrash Chaseirot ve-Yeteirot, which explains why words are written with unusual plene or full spellings, expresses a similar sentiment:
מדרש חסרות ויתרות בראשית מו כל חמור שבתורה מלא וא"ו חוץ מארבעה...[7] "לא תחרש בשור ובחמר[8] יחדיו" (דברים כב:י)&mdash;שהשור הוא חמר של חמור טוען טרחותו עליו.[9]
Midrash Chaseirot veYeteirot Genesis &sect;46 The word chamor (&ldquo;donkey&rdquo;) is always spelled full in the Torah except for four instances&hellip; &ldquo;Do not plough with an ox and a donkey together&rdquo; (Deut 22:10)&mdash;for the ox is like a donkey-driver for the donkey, lugging its burden upon itself.[10]
The most influential articulation of this position appears in the commentary of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089&ndash;1164) writes:
אבן עזרא דברים כב:י ...והשם חמל על כל מעשיהו, כי אין כח השור ככח החמור.
Ibn Ezra Deut 22:10 &hellip;God took mercy on all He created because the strength of the donkey is not like the strength of the ox.
R. Isaiah deTrani (Rid, ca. 1180 &ndash; ca. 1250) quotes this view in the name of the Yerushalmi,[11] and it also appears in Midrash Aggada[12] on the Torah, and as Chizkuni&rsquo;s (Hezekiah ben Manoah, France, 13th century) third explanation.[13]
Among modern scholars, Rabbi Elijah Schochet writes that, &ldquo;the yoking of an ox and an ass is prohibited by the Bible, presumably because of differences between the species in strength, gait, and endurance that might cause difficulties for the weaker of the pair.&rdquo;[14] Jeffrey Tigay, Professor (emeritus) of University of Pennsylvania, offers this interpretation as well:
[T]he present law protects draught animals. Since they are of unequal strength, if they were yoked together, the strong might exhaust the weaker or one might cause the other to stumble and be injured.[15]
For support, Tigay quotes an ancient Roman expert on agriculture, Marcus Varro, who writes regarding teams of oxen,
They should be powerful and equally matched, so that the strong will not exhaust the weaker when they work together.
If this was true for mismatched oxen, it would certainly be true regarding an ox and a donkey, as the latter is perhaps half of the weight of the former.[16] Of course, the ox may also deserve some compassion because it is compelled to pull a much larger load when is yoked to a smaller less powerful partner, and must bear a greater percentage of the burden, as Jack Lundbom notes in his commentary:
This law is to prevent yoke-mates of unequal strength, which can impose a hardship on either or both of the animals&mdash;the ox because it is left to do most of the pulling or the ass because it is forced to work harder than it is able.[17]
b. The Nonruminant Donkey Is Envious
Another approach focuses on the difference between the ox as a ruminant and the donkey as non-ruminant. Thus, the latter might become jealous and suffer because of the former&rsquo;s seeming constant access to food.
ר' יוסף קרא דברים כב:י כי הוא מעלה גרה וסבור החמור שהשור אוכל ואית ליה צערא.[18]
R. Joseph Kara Deut 22:10 Since it chews its cud and the donkey will think that the ox is eating and this will cause it pain.
This view appears as well in the commentaries of Rid,[19] Chizkuni,[20] Paaneakh Raza,[21] Hadar Zekeinim,[22] Daʿat Zekeinim,[23] and Rosh (R. Asher ben Yehiel, ca. 1250&ndash;1327).[24] His son, R. Jacob ben Asher (d. 1340), in his short commentary, ties this explanation to a moral lesson in the book of Proverbs, which uses the same term ח.ר.שׁ &ldquo;plow&rdquo; in the context of how one person mistreats another:
בעל הטורים [הקצר] דברים כב:י לפי שהשור מעלה גרה והחמור אינו מעלה גרה וכשיראה שהשור מעלה גרה יהיה סבור שהוא אוכל ומצטער וזהו אל תחרוש על רעך רעה שגורם לחמור שחורש על רעהו רעה.
Baal HaTurim (short com.) Deut 22:10 Because the ox chews its cud and the donkey does not chew its cud, and when it sees that the ox is chewing its cud it will think that [the ox] is eating, and this will cause it pain. And that is (Prov 3:29): &ldquo;Do not plow (ח.ר.שׁ) harm against your fellow.&rdquo;[25]
This interpretation ascribes human perception and emotions to animals; an unusual imagining of a donkey&rsquo;s inner life. That said, in an experiment, when capuchin monkeys received different rewards&mdash;a sweet grape versus a bland cucumber&mdash;for handing their trainer pebbles, the monkey that received the cucumber, after watching his partner receive grapes, violently threw the pebble at the trainer.[26] Monkeys, however, are much smarter than donkeys.
c. Species Prefer to Be with Their own Kind
The Sefer HaChinukh (13th cent.) also talks about kindness to animals, arguing that the different species make each other uncomfortable:
ספר החינוך תקנ מטעמי מצוה זו ענין צער בעלי חיים שהוא אסור מן התורה, וידוע שיש למיני הבהמות ולעופות דאגה גדולה לשכון עם שאינם מינן וכל שכן לעשות עמהן מלאכה, וכמו שאנו רואים בעינינו באותן שאינם תחת ידינו כי כל עוף למינו ישכון, וכל הבהמות ושאר המינין גם כן ידבקו לעולם במיניהן.
Sefer HaChinukh &sect;550 Among the reasons for this precept there is the matter of [causing] living animals pain, which is forbidden by the law of the Torah.[27] It is known that the various species of animals and fowl have great anxiety in staying with others not of their own kind, and all the more certainly [if we decide] to do work with them&mdash;as we see with our eyes about those that are not under our hands [dominion]; that every bird will dwell with its own kind, and so all animals and other species will equally cling to their own kind always.[28]
Like Philo (quoted above), the author continues with a derivative moral lesson:
ספר החינוך תקנ וכל חכם לב מזה יקח מוסר שלא למנות שני אנשים לעולם בדבר מכל הדברים שיהיו רחוקים בטבעם ומשונים בהנהגתם כמו צדיק ורשע והנקלה בנכבד, שאם הקפידה התורה על הצער שיש בזה לבעלי חיים שאינם בני שכל, כל שכן בבני אדם אשר להם נפש משכלת לדעת יוצרם.
Sefer HaChinukh &sect;550 So let everyone wise of heart learn a lesson not to ever appoint two men in any matter whatever who are far apart in their nature and different in their conduct, such as a righteous person and a wicked one, or a despicable person and a distinguished one. For if the Torah minded about the pain that animals have through this, which are not possessed of intelligence, then all the more so with people, who have an intelligent, reasoning spirit [by which] to know their Maker.
The Sefer HaChinukh&rsquo;s idea of species wishing to remain separate overlaps with the other main approach to the law&rsquo;s meaning, that it has to do with the Torah&rsquo;s doctrine of separation of species.
2. Keeping Animal Species Separate
The set of three verses all speak of keeping species separate from each other&mdash;first two plant species, then two animal species, and then one animal and one plant product:
דברים כב:ט לֹא תִזְרַע כַּרְמְךָ כִּלְאָיִם פֶּן תִּקְדַּשׁ הַמְלֵאָה הַזֶּרַע אֲשֶׁר תִּזְרָע וּתְבוּאַת הַכָּרֶם. כב:י לֹא תַחֲרֹשׁ בְּשׁוֹר וּבַחֲמֹר יַחְדָּו. כב:יא לֹא תִלְבַּשׁ שַׁעַטְנֵז צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים יַחְדָּו.
Deut 22:9 You shall not sow your vineyard with a second kind of seed, else the crop&mdash;from the seed you have sown&mdash;and the yield of the vineyard may not be used. 22:10 You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together. 22:11 You shall not wear cloth combining wool and linen.
Thus, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan translates:
תרגום ירושלמי פסודו-יונתן דברים כב:י לא תהוון רדיין בתורא ובחמרא ובכל ברייתא בתרין זינין קטירין כחדא.
Targum Yerushalmi, Pseudo-Jonathan Deut 22:10 Do not drive with an ox and a donkey or with any animals from two different species tied together.
Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki, 1140&ndash;1105) states the same principle:
רש"י דברים כב:י הוא הדין לכל שני מינין...
Rashi Deut 22:10 That is the rule for every combination of kinds&hellip;
Among modern commentators, Carl Keil (1807&ndash;1888) and Franz Delitzch (1813&ndash;1890) make this connection:
In vv. 9-11, there follow several prohibitions against mixing together the things which are separated in God&rsquo;s creation&hellip;[29]
Notably, Elijah Benamozegh (1823&ndash;1900), in his Em LeMikra commentary, uses the Torah&rsquo;s requirement of separating the species as evidence against Darwin&rsquo;s view that the species are all related and that nothing essentially divides one species from the other.
To Prevent Mating
A subcategory of this interpretation focuses specifically on the problem of two species mating and producing hybrid offspring. Several commentators point to the parallel verse in Leviticus as evidence, since it also has three laws against mixing, and here, the animal law is about mating instead of plowing:
ויקרא יט:יט אֶת חֻקֹּתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ בְּהֶמְתְּךָ לֹא תַרְבִּיעַ כִּלְאַיִם שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרַע כִּלְאָיִם וּבֶגֶד כִּלְאַיִם שַׁעַטְנֵז לֹא יַעֲלֶה עָלֶיךָ.
Lev 19:19 My statutes you shall keep. Your beasts you shall not mate with a different kind. Your field you shall not sow with different seeds. And a garment of different kinds of thread, sha&rsquo;atnez, shall not be donned by you.
Thus, R. Joseph Bekhor Shor (12th cent) suggests interpreting the Deuteronomy passage in light of the Leviticus passage:
בכור שור דברים כב:י ונראה שלכך אסר רחמנא חרישה משני מינין, שלא יבא להרגילם ולהרביעם זה עם זה. תדע שהרי בקדושים תהיו כתיב... (ויקרא יט:יט), והכא במקום "בהמתך לא תרביע" כתיב: "לא תחרוש בשור". אלמא: משום לא תרביע הוא.
Bekhor Shor Deut 22:10 It would seem that God forbade plowing with two species so that they don&rsquo;t become used to each other and come to mate. Know that to be the case since in [Parashat] Kedoshim Tihiyu it says (Lev 19:19)&hellip; and here, in place of &ldquo;your beasts you shall not mate&rdquo; it says &ldquo;do not plow with an ox&hellip;&rdquo; Clearly, it is so that they don&rsquo;t mate.
In his discussion of the reasons for the commandments, Moses Maimonides (1138&ndash;1204) offers the same understanding:
Guide or the Perplexed 3:49 I think the reason for the ban on teaming different species in work of any sort is just to make crossbreeding less likely. It says, &ldquo;You may not plow with a donkey and an ox together&rdquo; (Deut 22:10). If they are teamed, one might mount the other.[30]
R. Moses Nahmanides (ca. 1195&ndash;ca. 1270) writes similarly:
רמב"ן דברים כב:י והוא הדין לכל מיני הכלאים, והיא מצוה מבוארת מן: בהמתך לא תרביע כלאים (ויקרא יט:יט), שדרך כל עובד אדמתו להביא צמדו ברפת אחת וירכיב אותם.
Ramban Deut 22:10 This is the rule regarding all the diverse species. This is mitzvah is clarified by &ldquo;your beasts you shall not mate with a different kind&rdquo; (Lev 19:19), for the way of all farmers is to bring his working animals into the same stall and cause them to mate.[31]
This is also the view of R. Bahya ben Asher (ca. 1255&ndash;ca. 1340), who argues that it is more compelling than Ibn Ezra&rsquo;s argument about proper treatment of animals.[32] Among moderns, Samuel R. Driver writes that the underlying principle of Deuteronomy is the same as Leviticus:
The motive of the prohibition appears to be the preservation of natural distinction: species... are designed by God to be distinct (Genesis 1); each possesses its own characteristic features; and a principle thus visibly impressed by the Creator upon nature is not to be interfered with by man.[33]
According to Jacob Milgrom, mixed species belong only in the sacred sphere,[34] as is evident in the case of cherubim and other hybrid animals that were consigned to the realm of the holy, in Israel&rsquo;s case, the Tabernacle.[35]
The difficulty with the mating explanation, as Jeffrey Tigay notes, are that bulls and donkeys are very unlikely to attempt mating. Further, if the goal was to prevent mating, they would not only be isolated at work, but after work as well.[36]
3. The Ox and the Donkey as Symbol and Metaphor
The ox is a ritually pure animal and the most desirable sacrifice; its image ornaments Solomon&rsquo;s Temple and serves as one of the four animals of the cherub, the composite creature of Ezekiel&rsquo;s divine chariot.[37] In contrast, the donkey (as an equid) is ritually impure. A common possession because of its status as the primary beast of burden in the ancient Near East, the disdain it could evoke is indicated by Jeremiah&rsquo;s prediction about King Jehoiakim&rsquo;s corpse:
ירמיה כב:יט קְבוּרַת חֲמוֹר יִקָּבֵר סָחוֹב וְהַשְׁלֵךְ מֵהָלְאָה לְשַׁעֲרֵי יְרוּשָׁלָ͏ִם.
Jer 22:19 He shall have the burial of a donkey, dragged out and left lying outside the gates of Jerusalem.[38]
Thus, some commentators view the ox and donkey as sharply contrasting symbols or metaphors.[39] R. Jacob bar Asher, for example, connects this prohibition to the distinction between pure and impure:
בעל הטורים (הקצר) דברים כב:י טהור וטמא רמז שלא ישתתף צדיק עם רשע.
Baal Turim (short commentary) Deut 22:10 One is impure and the other pure, an indication that a righteous person should not associate with an evildoer.
In contrast, R. Yoel (12th cent.) offers an allegorical reading that does not focus on the purity/impurity split, namely that each animal represents one of the two coming messiahs, following the tradition that first a Joseph descendent will come, then he will die, and a descendent of David will bring the final redemption:
רמזי ר' יואל דברים כב:י אין משיח בן יוסף הנקרא שור ומשיח בן דוד הנקרא חמור באין יחדו אלא בן יוסף בא קודם ואחר כך בן דוד. וזהו "בשור ובחמור יחדו", בשור ובחמור בגימ[טריה] "בשני משיחים."
Rimzei R. Yoel Deut 22:10 The Messiah from the house of Joseph, who is called &ldquo;ox&rdquo; and the messiah from the house of David, who is called &ldquo;donkey&rdquo; cannot arrive together. Rather, the one from the house of Joesph arrives first, and afterwards, the son of David. This is what it means &ldquo;with an ox and a donkey together&rdquo; bashor ubachamor [with ox and donkey] in gematria (giving letters number value) comes out to the same as &ldquo;with two messiahs.&rdquo;[40]
The Zohar understands both animals as representatives of the sinister (lefthand) side of the world. It begins the comment on a verse in Isaiah that mentions the two animals:
זוהר שמות בשלח ויבא עמלק "מְשַׁלְּחֵי רֶגֶל הַשּׁוֹר וְהַחֲמוֹר" (ישעיה לב:כ)&mdash;אִינּוּן תְּרֵין כִּתְרֵי שְׂמָאלָא, דַּאֲחִידָן בְּהוּ עַמִּין עכו"ם, דְּאִקְרוּן שׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר.... א"ר אַבָּא, כַּד מִזְדַּוְּוגֵי כַּחֲדָא, לָא יַכְלֵי בְּנֵי עָלְמָא לְמֵיקָם בְּהוּ, וְעַל דָּא כְּתִיב (דברים כב:י) "לֹא תַחֲרוֹשׁ בְּשׁוֹר וּבַחֲמוֹר יַחְדָּיו." יַחְדָּיו דַּיְיקָא.
&ldquo;Who let the ox and donkey range freely&rdquo; (Isa 32:20)&mdash;These are the two crowns of the left of which the Gentile nations have possession, that are called &ldquo;ox and donkey&rdquo;&hellip; Rabbi Abba said: &ldquo;When they are joined together, the world cannot endure them. And regarding this, it is written (Deut 22:10): &ldquo;Do not plow with an ox and a donkey together.&rdquo; Specifically together.[41]
Jonathan Fisher, in his work Scripture Animals (first published in 1833),[42] suggests that the law is &ldquo;to teach decency and symmetry in their conduct.&rdquo; Or else, he suggestions, &ldquo;it might be to impress the idea of the distinction there ought to be between God&rsquo;s people and the people of the world -- between saints and sinners.&rdquo;
These symbolic lessons have no real controls and can go in any direction. Nevertheless, it appears to me that one particular metaphorical reading has quite a bit of literary backing.
4. Critiquing Sex Between Jews and Gentiles
The small Geonic tractate, Derekh Eretz Rabbah, states that if a Jew has relations with an enslaved woman (shifcha), he violates the prohibition of plowing with an ox and a donkey together; the impure donkey is a reference to the woman.[43]
דרך ארץ, עריות יא הבא על השפחה חייב עליה משום ארבע עשרה לאוין וכרת בידי שמים, משום לא תזרע כרמך כלאים, ומשום לא תחרש בשור ובחמר ומשום לא תלבש שעטנז, ומשום לא תרצח, ומשום לא תנאף, ומשום לא תגנב, ולא תענה, ולא תחמד, ומשום אשת אב, ומשום אשת אח, משום שפחה, משום זונה, משום נדה, משום גויה.
Derekh Eretz, Arayot &sect;11 One who has relations with an enslaved woman violates on her account fourteen prohibitions and a punishment of karet (a divine punishment meaning &ldquo;cutting off&rdquo;) from heaven: for &ldquo;Your field you shall not sow with different seeds&rdquo; and for &ldquo;do not plow with an ox and a donkey&rdquo; and for &ldquo;do not wear a garment of different kinds of thread&rdquo; and for &ldquo;do not murder,&rdquo; and for &ldquo;do not commit adultery,&rdquo; and for &ldquo;do not steal,&rdquo; and for &ldquo;do not testify [falsely],&rdquo; and for &ldquo;do not covet,&rdquo; and for &ldquo;[lying with] one&rsquo;s father&rsquo;s wife&rdquo; and for &ldquo;[lying with] one&rsquo;s brother&rsquo;s wife,&rdquo; and for &ldquo;enslaved woman,&rdquo; and for &ldquo;harlot,&rdquo; and for &ldquo;menstruant,&rdquo; and for &ldquo;gentile woman.&rdquo;
The modern scholar Calum Carmichael, who argues in general that the Torah&rsquo;s laws are built upon the biblical narratives, argues that the is meant to allude to the story of Shechem and Dinah:
Shechem was the son of the Ass, Hamor, and he seduced (sexually ploughed in the colloquial of the time) Dinah, the daughter of the Ox, Jacob/Israel (Gen 49:6).[44]
Plowing a field in the traditional sense involved the introduction of a wooden or metal tip into the earth in order to create a linear furrow, &ldquo;in ways that tend to emphasize the receptive nature of female genitals.&rdquo;[45] Marten Stol notes that the likening of a woman to a fertile field &ldquo;to be worked by a man&rdquo; is ubiquitous and found in &ldquo;all ages and regions.&rdquo;[46] Marvin Pope notes, &ldquo;The sexual symbolism of terms like &lsquo;vineyard,&rsquo; &lsquo;orchard,&rsquo; &lsquo;field&rsquo; is well established. The plowing and cultivation of a field is a natural figure for sexual intercourse.&rdquo;[47]
Sumerian/Akkadian Sexual Plowing
&ldquo;The Courtship of Inanna and Dumuzi,&rdquo; a Sumerian text of the second millennium B.C.E., relates that Inanna, the goddess of love, looks to Dumuzi (the shepherd king of Uruk) for fulfillment:
As for me, Inanna,Who will plow my vulva?Who will plow my high field?Who will plow my wet ground?As for me, the young woman,Who will plow my vulva?Who will station the ox there?[48]
In another example of an &ldquo;agricultural presentation&rdquo; of Inanna, the goddess says:
Do not dig a canal, let me be your canal.Do not plow a field, let me be your field.Farmer, do not search for a wet place,Let this be your furrow.[49]
In the Amarna Letters, we find a message to the Pharaoh from King Rib-Adda of Byblos, that states:
EA &sect;75 My field is like a woman without a husband due to lack of cultivation.[50]
Plowing as Sexual Metaphor in the Bible and Second Temple Literature
During his wedding celebration, the powerful Danite Samson poses a riddle to his thirty Philistine wedding companions, which they have to answer by the end of the seven days, or else they must pay. The men only guess by threatening his wife to tell them the answer. Angry and resentful over his loss of the bet, Samson retorts,
שופטים יד:יח ...וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם לוּלֵא חֲרַשְׁתֶּם בְּעֶגְלָתִי לֹא מְצָאתֶם חִידָתִי.
Judg 14:18 &hellip;Had you not plowed with my heifer, you would not have solved my riddle.
The sexual connotation is obvious: Samson imagines that his wife was unfaithful rather than acting under a death threat,[51] as Ralbag (Rabbi Levi Ben Gershon, 1288&ndash;1344) comments:
רלב"ג שופטים יד:יח ...אמר זה להורות שהוא היה חושד אשתו שזנתה עם אחד מהם ולזה גלתה לו ענין החידה...
Ralbag Judg 14:18 &hellip;He said this to show that suspected that his wife had sexual relations with one of them and that&rsquo;s why she revealed to him the meaning of the riddle&hellip;[52]
The Wisdom of Ben Sira (also known as Ecclesiasticus), written around 180 B.C.E., praises the man who marries a wise woman rather than one as incompatible for him as a donkey is for an ox:
בן סירא כה:ח אשרי בעל אשה משכלת ולא חורש כשור עם חמור.
Ben Sira 25:8 Happy is the husband of a sensible wife, and who does not plow like an ox with a donkey.[53]
In the Talmud
The Jerusalem Talmud uses this plowing metaphor to express how Rabbi Yossi Bar Halafta, a Tanna from the second century C.E., produced many children:
ירושלמי יבמות א:א דרבי יוסי בן חלפתא ייבם את אשת אחיו, חמש חרישות חרש, וחמש נטיעות נטע...
j. Yebamot 1:1 R. Yossi ben Ḥalaphta contracted a levirate marriage with his brother&rsquo;s wife. He plowed five times and planted five saplings&hellip;[54]
In Genesis 38, Judah&rsquo;s son Er uses coitus interruptus to avoid getting Tamar pregnant and thus endanger his inheritance. Genesis Rabba (&sect;85) uses a related metaphor, referring to his technique as דש מבפנים וזורה מבחוץ &ldquo;threshing inside and winnowing outside.&rdquo;
Finally, the Babylonian Talmud discusses the case of a man who intends to divorce his wife yet still cohabits and has sexual relations with her:
בבלי גיטין צ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא לְרָבָא: אִם לִבּוֹ לְגָרְשָׁהּ, וְהִיא יוֹשֶׁבֶת תַּחְתָּיו וּמְשַׁמַּשְׁתּוֹ, מַהוּ? קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ: ״אַל תַּחֲרֹשׁ עַל רֵעֲךָ רָעָה וְהוּא יוֹשֵׁב לָבֶטַח אִתָּךְ״.
b. Gittin 90a &ldquo;Rabbi Mesharshiyya said to Rava, &ldquo;If he intended to divorce her and she is living with him and &ldquo;serving&rdquo;[55] him, what is the halakha? Rava replied &ldquo;Plow not evil against your fellow seeing that he lives securely near you&rdquo; (Prov 3:29).[56]
Thus, I suggest that the metaphor of avoiding sexual connection with non-Israelites can be plausibly read into the verse. And yet, this does not mean that it should not also be understood literally. Rather, I suggest that what we have here is a double entendre.
A Double Entendre
Scripture is primarily intended for a listening, rather than a reading, audience. Wordplay, therefore, especially if witty and suggestive, kept the audience attentive. In this case, it is a double-entendre, &ldquo;an idiom or other figure of speech that may be understood in two ways. The first is straightforward and innocuous, whereas the second is usually risqu&eacute;.&rdquo;[57]
The verse prohibiting plowing an ox with a donkey may well be concerned with the incompatibility of the two animals or forbidding mixture of species, but at the same time, the erotic usage of &ldquo;plowing&rdquo; in ancient Near Eastern texts, the negative connotation of donkey in comparison with the ox, and Deuteronomy&rsquo;s usage of double-entendre elsewhere (see addendum) suggests that the phrasing of the verse was also meant to playfully warn against sexual activity with an outsider.
Addendum
Double Entendres in Deuteronomy
Presented as Moses&rsquo; final address to the Israelite nation, Deuteronomy is distinctive regarding the various rhetorical techniques employed to engage the listener, including double entendres.[58]
For example, Deuteronomy forbids taking the upper or lower components of a portable grain mill in pawn because grinding wheat berries or whole barley into flour was necessary for survival. The upper, smaller stone was rubbed back and forth over a larger stone base.
The verse comes immediately after the requirement that a newly married man not leave his bride for the first year of marriage because of his obligation to make his wife &ldquo;happy,&rdquo; usually understood as a reference to sexual gratification.
דברים כד:ה כִּי יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה חֲדָשָׁה לֹא יֵצֵא בַּצָּבָא וְלֹא יַעֲבֹר עָלָיו לְכָל דָּבָר נָקִי יִהְיֶה לְבֵיתוֹ שָׁנָה אֶחָת וְשִׂמַּח אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר לָקָח. כד:ו לֹא יַחֲבֹל רֵחַיִם וָרָכֶב כִּי נֶפֶשׁ הוּא חֹבֵל.
Deut 24:5 When a man has taken a bride, he shall not go out with the army or be assigned to it for any purpose; he shall be exempt one year for the sake of his household, to give happiness to the woman he has married. 24:6 A handmill or an upper millstone shall not be taken in pawn, for that would be taking someone&rsquo;s life in pawn.
The placement of v.6 after v.5 and not later in the chapter with the laws regarding taking garments in pledge hints at its allusiveness. Abraham Ibn Ezra quotes (while strongly rejecting) a sexual interpretation:
אבן עזרא כד:ו אמרו המכחישים: כי נדבקה זאת הפרשה עם: ושמח את אשתו (דברים כד:ה), רמז למשכב,⁠ כי אסור שימנע המשכב, וזה הבל.
Ibn Ezra Deut 24:6 The deniers[59] say that this section is connected to &ldquo;and shall cheer his wife whom he has taken&rdquo; (v. 5), for our verse alludes to coitus, namely, that it is forbidden to abstain from sexual intercourse. However, this is sheer nonsense.
והביאו ראיה מפסוק: תטחן לאחר אשתי (איוב לא:י), וכבר פירשתיו... והאמת שהוא כמשמעו, שאין רשות לאדם שיחבול רחים.
They offer as proof, &ldquo;Then let my wife grind unto another&rdquo; (Job 31:10). I have previously explained the latter&hellip; The truth is that our verse is to be taken at face value, that a person is prohibited from taking a mill to pledge.[60]
While the plain sense of the verse should be maintained, the juxtaposition of ideas or images may very well have been intended to invoke a wry smile.[61]
Another example is the case of a woman who intervenes to save her husband in a street fight by grasping the genitals of his opponent.
דברים כה:יא כִּי יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים יַחְדָּו אִישׁ וְאָחִיו וְקָרְבָה אֵשֶׁת הָאֶחָד לְהַצִּיל אֶת אִישָׁהּ מִיַּד מַכֵּהוּ וְשָׁלְחָה יָדָהּ וְהֶחֱזִיקָה בִּמְבֻשָׁיו. כה:יב וְקַצֹּתָה אֶת כַּפָּהּ לֹא תָחוֹס עֵינֶךָ.
Deut 25:11 If two men get into a fight with each other, and the wife of one comes up to save her husband from his antagonist and puts out her hand and seizes him by his genitals, 25:12 you shall cut off her hand; show no pity.[62]
This law is juxtaposed to a prohibition of deceptive weights and measures:
דברים כה:יג לֹא יִהְיֶה לְךָ בְּכִיסְךָ אֶבֶן וָאָבֶן גְּדוֹלָה וּקְטַנָּה. כה:יד לֹא יִהְיֶה לְךָ בְּבֵיתְךָ אֵיפָה וְאֵיפָה גְּדוֹלָה וּקְטַנָּה.
Deut 25:13 You shall not have in your pouch alternate weight-stones, a big one and a small one. 25:14 You shall not have in your house alternate measures, a big one and a small one.
The juxtaposition is evocative.[63] Two examples may not be sufficient to say that Deuteronomy does this generally, but it does make reading the plowing verse as a third example more plausible.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure url="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b8fd783bee52c8fb59b1fac/66e423a712fbc7ffbc1b8287_Ox%2520and%2520donkey.jpeg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[An Eye for an Eye—The Biblical Principle of Proportionality]]></title>
            <link>https://thetorah.com/article/an-eye-for-an-eye-the-biblical-principle-of-proportionality</link>
            <guid>https://thetorah.com/article/an-eye-for-an-eye-the-biblical-principle-of-proportionality</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2024 19:20:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus challenges the talion law of &ldquo;an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,&rdquo; instructing his followers to turn the other cheek. While this may be admirable as a personal practice, society requires a policy for protecting its people. Positioned between the extremes of total annihilation of the enemy and passive acceptance of aggression, the principle of talion law advocates for measured justice.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[The Amalek Paradigm
How should one respond to violent aggression? One biblical answer to this question arises from the story of Amalek.
Following the exodus from Egypt, the Israelites are attacked in the wilderness by the Amalekites (Exod 17:8&ndash;16), a nomadic or semi-nomadic group located in southern Canaan.[1] After Joshua defeats them, YHWH makes a solemn promise to destroy Amalek, and Moses makes an oath:
שמות יז:טז וַיֹּאמֶר כִּי יָד עַל כֵּס יָהּ מִלְחָמָה לַי־הוָה בַּעֲמָלֵק מִדֹּר דֹּר.
Exod 17:16 He said, &ldquo;A hand upon the throne of YHWH! YHWH will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.&rdquo;
Here, YHWH is to fight Amalek, but in Deuteronomy, Moses explains that the Israelites themselves must carry out this war:
דברים כה:יז זָכוֹר אֵת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְךָ עֲמָלֵק בַּדֶּרֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶם מִמִּצְרָיִם. כה:יח אֲשֶׁר קָרְךָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ וַיְזַנֵּב בְּךָ כָּל הַנֶּחֱשָׁלִים אַחַרֶיךָ וְאַתָּה עָיֵף וְיָגֵעַ וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים. כה:יט וְהָיָה בְּהָנִיחַ יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְךָ מִכָּל אֹיְבֶיךָ מִסָּבִיב בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ תִּמְחֶה אֶת זֵכֶר עֲמָלֵק מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמָיִם לֹא תִּשְׁכָּח.
Deut 25:17 Remember what Amalek did to you on your journey out of Egypt, 25:18 how he attacked you on the way, when you were faint and weary, and struck down all who lagged behind you; he did not fear God. 25:19 Therefore when YHWH your God has given you rest from all your enemies on every hand, in the land that YHWH your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess, you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; do not forget.[2]
According to the book of Samuel, the destruction of Amalek indeed takes place at the hands of the Israelite army. When the prophet Samuel presents this charge to Saul, the first king of Israel (1 Sam 15:2&ndash;3), he instructs Saul to kill women and children as well as men, and even to destroy the Amalekites&rsquo; animals, which Saul proceeds to do.[3]
Divine Commands?
The claim of divinely sanctioned genocide, whether against the Amalekites or any other peoples, raises profound questions about the morality of the Bible.[4]
Religious conservatives tend to take biblical commands at face value as expressions of the will of God. For example, discussing the biblical mandate for the Israelites to utterly destroy the Canaanite peoples of the land (Deut 7:1&ndash;6; 20:16-18)[5]&mdash;a mandate allegedly carried out by Joshua (Josh 10:40&ndash;43)[6]&mdash;the Protestant reformer Jean Calvin noted that he was troubled by &ldquo;the indiscriminate and promiscuous slaughter, making no distinction of age or sex, but including alike women and children, the aged and decrepit.&rdquo;[7] Nevertheless, he acquiesces to its ultimate justice since Joshua&rsquo;s actions were in response to a divine command: &ldquo;when it is added, that so God had commanded, there is no more ground for obloquy against him, than there is against those who pronounce sentence on criminals.&rdquo;[8]
A more pernicious problem than simply justifying the past is how these ancient laws and stories are applied by some to contemporary issues. In 1689, the Puritan preacher Cotton Mather urged the American colonists to &ldquo;go forth against Amalek annoying this Israel in the wilderness.&rdquo;[9] In that case, the &ldquo;Amalekites&rdquo; were native Americans.
To choose a timelier example, in the wake of the Hamas&rsquo; attack on Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a speech: &ldquo;You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember.&rdquo;[10] Netanyahu was by no means the first to invoke the memory of Amalek with reference to the Palestinians.
In 1980, Bat Kol, a student publication of Bar-Ilan University, published an article by Rabbi Israel Hess claiming that genocide is a commandment of the Torah and that the Palestinians deserve the same fate as the Amalekites.[11] He was roundly critiqued by other Jewish leaders at the time,[12] and was dismissed from his position in the university.[13]
The Amalek paradigm is unquestionably grounded in the Torah, but to many people, Jews as well as Gentiles, it seems extreme, dangerous and inhumane, because it claims divine authorization for unrestrained slaughter.[14] Appeal to divine command is not enough to settle the morality of genocidal response to the aggression of the Amalekites; the Torah does not provide a stenographer&rsquo;s record of the words of God but is rather a human composition which attributes certain actions and words to the deity.[15]
The Perspective of Tradition
In an article published in 1995, the late Moshe Greenberg, Professor of Hebrew Bible at the Hebrew University, admitted that &ldquo;the plain sense of Scripture&rdquo; is that all Amalekites needed to be killed, but argued that that interpretation was cancelled by &ldquo;the moral sensibility of postbiblical Judaism.&rdquo;[16] Thus, he tries to soften the ethical problem with the law by filtering it through the lens of tradition.
Greenberg first suggests that the command is addressed to a specific generation and commands the destruction of only one people, one which no longer exists. Thus, the commandment cannot be used to justify violence against anyone in a modern context. This line of argument is not entirely satisfactory, however.
Scripture lives by analogy. If we limit its application to the original situation, then we cannot use it at all. Moreover, the commandment to blot out another people, whether Amalekites or Canaanites, is morally offensive even in its original context.
Greenberg&rsquo;s next, and more compelling point, is that Scripture speaks in many voices, which are not always consistent. Fortunately, tradition sometimes provides summaries of the most important commandments.[17] Scripture itself sometimes does this, in texts such as the Decalogue. Other times, later teachers point to overarching principles, such as how Rabbi Akiba is said to have singled out Leviticus 19:18, וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ &ldquo;you shall love your neighbor as yourself&rdquo; as a key principle (כלל גדול), implying that it is the greatest overarching tenet.[18]
The focus on loving one&rsquo;s neighbor was not peculiar to Akiba but seems to have been widely accepted in Judaism around the turn of the era. In the New Testament,[19] Jesus couples that commandment with the command to love God in the Shema (Deut 6:4&ndash;5). The commandment to destroy Amalek is never highlighted as one of the key religious tenets in any such text,[20] nor is any requirement to demand vengeance against one&rsquo;s enemies.[21]
Thus, the problem that divinely sanctioned genocide presents for people in the modern world who want to be faithful to the biblical tradition is not only that it conflicts with modern values but that it conflicts with the central principles of the biblical tradition.
An Alternative Biblical Response
A different kind of response is provided by the law of the talion (lex talionis),[22] which stipulates that punishment should correspond to the offense committed in kind and degree. It appears three times in the Torah. First, in the context of striking a pregnant woman, the Torah states:
שמות כא:כג&nbsp;וְאִם אָסוֹן יִהְיֶה וְנָתַתָּה נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ. כא:כד עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן שֵׁן תַּחַת שֵׁן יָד תַּחַת יָד רֶגֶל תַּחַת רָגֶל. כא:כה כְּוִיָּה תַּחַת כְּוִיָּה פֶּצַע תַּחַת פָּצַע חַבּוּרָה תַּחַת חַבּוּרָה.
Exod 21:23 If any harm follows, you will give a life for a life. 21:24 Eye for eye; tooth for tooth; hand for hand; foot for foot; 21:25 burn for burn; wound for wound; bruise for bruise.
In Deuteronomy, the principle comes in the context of punishing a false witness with the very penalty he tried to bring about for the person he testified against:
דברים יט:כא וְלֹא תָחוֹס עֵינֶךָ נֶפֶשׁ בְּנֶפֶשׁ עַיִן בְּעַיִן שֵׁן בְּשֵׁן יָד בְּיָד רֶגֶל בְּרָגֶל.
Deut 19:21 Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
The principle is explicated most clearly in Leviticus&rsquo; Holiness Collection, as an aside in the story of the blasphemer:
ויקרא כד:יז וְאִישׁ כִּי יַכֶּה כָּל נֶפֶשׁ אָדָם מוֹת יוּמָת.... כד:יט וְאִישׁ כִּי יִתֵּן מוּם בַּעֲמִיתוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה כֵּן יֵעָשֶׂה לּוֹ. כד:כ שֶׁבֶר תַּחַת שֶׁבֶר עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן שֵׁן תַּחַת שֵׁן כַּאֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן מוּם בָּאָדָם כֵּן יִנָּתֶן בּוֹ.
Lev 24:17 Anyone who kills a human being shall be put to death&hellip; 24:19 Anyone who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return: 24:20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury inflicted is the injury to be suffered.[23]
Although the law has long been interpreted as symbolic&mdash;monetary compensation as opposed to actual dismemberment&mdash;its very tit-for-tat principle has often been dismissed as primitive and vengeful. Indeed, in his Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus preaches against vengeance, he dismisses the talion, telling his followers not to react to an attack:
Matt 5:38 You have heard that it was said: &ldquo;an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.&rdquo; 5:39 But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also....
There has been much debate as to the rationale underlying Jesus&rsquo; advice. Was it a tactic to shame the enemy?[24] Nonviolence has been used effectively as a tactic, most famously by Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King, but its effectiveness varies with the situation in which it is used. Or perhaps Jesus may have been leaving it to God to exact retribution.
The apostle Paul tells his readers in the Epistle to the Romans:
Romans 12:19 Never avenge yourselves but leave room for the wrath of God... 12:21 No, if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty give them to drink, for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads (Rom 12:19&ndash;21).
Presumably, for Paul, the burning coals are in Hell.[25] In that case, non-retaliation is not the perfection of love but of hatred.[26] Since Jesus famously and exceptionally preached that we should love our enemies (Matt 5:44; Luke 6:27) this rationale seems unlikely. (That command is not found in the New Testament outside of the Gospels).
But however admirable the teaching of Jesus may be, and whatever potential it may have as a strategy of resistance in some circumstances, it can hardly serve as a guide for public policy. The main principle of the talion is worthy of consideration.
The Talion and Justice: Balancing between Forbearance and Vengeance
The purpose of the talion law was first of all to control the impulse to vengeance by subjecting it to the rule of law.[27] It limits the scope of retaliation by making it proportional to the damage inflicted. Contrast this with the vengefulness of Lamech:
בראשית ד:כד כִּי שִׁבְעָתַיִם יֻקַּם קָיִן וְלֶמֶךְ שִׁבְעִים וְשִׁבְעָה.
Gen 4:24 If Cain is avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-seven fold.
Following the talion may not qualify as exemplifying the golden rule of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. But at least it refrains from doing to others anything worse than what they did to you. As Philo writes, in defense of the talion:
Special Laws 3. 181&ndash;2 Inequality and unevenness is repugnant to the commonwealth that pursues truth. Our law exhorts us to equality when it ordains that the penalties inflicted on offenders should correspond to their actions... For to tolerate a system in which the crime and the punishment do not correspond... is to subvert rather than uphold legality.[28]
Moreover, it has great practical value as a deterrent. It may be that an eye for an eye would leave everyone blind, but history provides all too many examples of the death and suffering caused by aggressive violence, and it is not difficult to imagine what would happen if no one resisted evildoers at all. In the Bible, YHWH often follows the law of talion, sometimes applying it to individuals such as David (2 Sam 12:11 and 16:21&ndash;2) and Ahab (1 Kgs 21:19), and at other times to peoples, such as Edom (Obad 1:16) and Judah (Hab 2:8).
The story of Amalek, then, is not the only paradigm for how to respond to violence in the Hebrew Bible. If we must resist evil, and we surely must, the lex talionis allows for satisfaction of the demand for justice while tempering it with a principle of proportionality.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure url="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b8fd783bee52c8fb59b1fac/66e19680c97472587db393da_An%2520Eye%2520for%2520an%2520Eye%2520-%2520Amalek.jpeg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[The Hated Wife]]></title>
            <link>https://thetorah.com/article/the-hated-wife</link>
            <guid>https://thetorah.com/article/the-hated-wife</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2024 12:19:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[Hate in ancient Near Eastern law, the Torah, and Elephantine ketubot is a legal term. If a man demotes his wife to second in rank for no fault, merely because he &ldquo;hates&rdquo; her, he cannot also take away her firstborn son&rsquo;s right to inherit a double portion.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[Hate is an emotion, but the Bible and other ancient texts use the term &ldquo;hate&rdquo; to express a legal point. For instance, in the case of divorce and remarriage, Deuteronomy distinguishes between the reason for first and second divorce:[1]
דברים כד:א כִּי יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּבְעָלָהּ וְהָיָה אִם לֹא תִמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינָיו כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ.
Deut 24:1 A man takes a wife and possesses her. She fails to please him because he finds something obnoxious about her, and he writes her a bill of divorcement, hands it to her, and sends her away from his house.
דברים כד:ב וְיָצְאָה מִבֵּיתוֹ וְהָלְכָה וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ אַחֵר. כד:ג וּשְׂנֵאָהּ הָאִישׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ אוֹ כִי יָמוּת הָאִישׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן אֲשֶׁר לְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה.
Deut 24:2 She leaves his household and becomes the wife of another man; 24:3 And (if) the second husband hates her, writes out for her a bill of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her away from his house, or if the second husband who took her as a wife dies&hellip;[2]
While the first husband divorces the woman for ʿervat davar, a negative term implying that she is at fault for something, the second husband&rsquo;s divorce is because he &ldquo;hates&rdquo; ש.נ.א her, i.e., without grounds.[3] The parallel case in the verse is that the second husband passes away, i.e., in both, the woman is not at fault. We see here that men could divorce their wives with grounds or without grounds;[4] the latter, divorce for &ldquo;hate,&rdquo; is what we now call a no-fault divorce.
Elephantine Ketubot: No Fault Divorce
The ending or renegotiating of a marriage because of hate appears in the legal clauses of several Aramaic marriage contracts&mdash;ancient versions of a ketubah&mdash;found among the remains of the fifth century B.C.E. Jewish colony on the island of Elephantine in Egypt. One such contract (TAD B3.8; Kraeling 7) details the arrangements in the marriage of Ananiah to Jehoishma daughter of Anani and Tamet.[5]
The contract begins with the date, Tishrei, year 4 of Darius, and Ananiah&rsquo;s declaration that Jehoishma is his wife ואנא בעלה מן יומא זנה עד עלם &ldquo;and I am her husband from this day until forever.&rdquo; The contract then states the mohar, &ldquo;brideprice,&rdquo; that Ananiah paid, and lists the many items Jehoishma brought in with her and their values. At this point, it turns to consider what to do should one spouse hate the other:[6]
מחר או יום אחרן יקום ענניה בעדה ויאמר שנית לאנתתי יהוישמע לא תהוה לי אנתת כסף שנ[א]ה בראשה כל זי הנעלת בביתה ינתן לה תכונתה ולבשיה דמי כסף כרשן שבעא ש[קלן תמניה חלרן /// /]/ ושארת נכסיה זי כתיבן ינתן לה ביום / בכף | [ו]תהך [לה מנה] אן [זי צבי]ת.
Tomorrow or (the) next day, should Ananiah stand up in an assembly and say: &ldquo;I hate my wife Jehoishma; she shall not be to me a wife,&rdquo; silver of hatred is on his head. All that she brought in into his house he shall give her&mdash;her money and her garments, valued (in) silver (at) seven karsh, [eight] sh[ekels] 5 [hallurs], and the rest of the goods which are written (above). He shall give her on 1 day at 1 stroke [and] she may go [away from him] where[ever] she [desires].
והן יהוישמע תשנא לבעלה ענניה ותאמר לה שניתך לא אהוה לך אנתת כסף שנאה בראשה מהרה יאבד תתב על מוזנא ותנתן לבעלה ענניה כסף שקלן /// ///\ ר[//] ותנפק מנה עם שארת תכונתה ונכסיה קנינה דמי כסף כרשן /// /// שקלן //|/ /// /\ ח/// // ושארת כנ זי כתיבן ינתן לה בי[ום /] בכף / ותהך לבית אבוה.
And if Jehoishm[a] hate her husband Ananiah, and say to him: &ldquo;I hated you; I will not be your wife,&rdquo; silver of hatred upon her head (and) her mohar (brideprice) will be forfeit. She shall place upon the balance scale and give her husband Ananiah silver, 7 shekels, [2] q(uarters), and go out from him with the rest of her money and her goods and her property, [valued] (in) silver (at) 6 karsh, 8 [shekels], 5 h(allurs), and the rest of her goods which are written (above). He shall give her on [1] da[y] at 1 stroke and she may go to her father&rsquo;s house.[7]
In this marriage contract, the hatred of either spouse for the other is more than just a feeling, but a declaration that brings with it a required payment, and freedom of the woman to leave and return to her father&rsquo;s house. Alejandro Botta interprets the documents to be about divorce; declaring that one hates one&rsquo;s spouse is akin to demanding the dissolution of the marriage.[8]
In contrast, Zvi Szubin and Bezalel Porten suggest that the term for &ldquo;hate&rdquo; here indicates a demotion for a woman from first-ranking wife to second-ranking wife; and that she receives compensation for this if it is based on his request, and he receives compensation if it is based on hers.[9]
Ranking Wives
When a man had more than one wife in the ancient Near East, he typically considered one to be his wife of first rank, and he had the liberty of promoting and demoting his wives as he chose. To be first-ranking wife typically meant having more privileges than any other wife in the household: more rations and resources, better living arrangements, more frequent interactions (social and sexual) with the husband, and sometimes more privileges for her children.[10] A Babylonian marriage agreement from the Persian period reveals the husband&rsquo;s rights in this regard.[11]
(Three brothers) voluntarily gave their sister Nab&ecirc;-ḫinnī to Aqr&acirc; as a wife. As for the children that Nab&ecirc;-ḫinnī bears for Aqr&acirc;, the male children will go with Aqr&acirc; to his father's house.... If he takes a second wife, Nab&ecirc;-ḫinnī is (still) the first-ranking wife.
The contract includes a special provision to ensure that Nab&ecirc;-ḫinnī will retain her status of first rank even if Aqr&acirc; decides to marry a second wife. Without this provision, Aqr&acirc; could indeed demote Nab&ecirc;-ḫinnī if he so desired.[12]
The Demotion of Leah?
The ranking of wives explains what the Torah means by Leah being &ldquo;hated.&rdquo; She began as Jacob&rsquo;s only wife but is demoted only a week later, without grounds, when Jacob marries her sister Rachel:
בראשית כט:ל וַיָּבֹא גַּם אֶל רָחֵל וַיֶּאֱהַב גַּם אֶת רָחֵל מִלֵּאָה... כט:לא וַיַּרְא יְ־הוָה כִּי שְׂנוּאָה לֵאָה... כט:לב וַתַּהַר לֵאָה וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ רְאוּבֵן כִּי אָמְרָה כִּי רָאָה יְ־הוָה בְּעָנְיִי כִּי עַתָּה יֶאֱהָבַנִי אִישִׁי. כט:לג וַתַּהַר עוֹד וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן וַתֹּאמֶר כִּי שָׁמַע יְ־הוָה כִּי שְׂנוּאָה אָנֹכִי וַיִּתֶּן לִי גַּם אֶת זֶה וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ שִׁמְעוֹן.
Gen 29:30 So he went in to Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah&hellip; 29:31 And YHWH saw that Leah was the hated one&hellip; 29:32 And Leah conceived and bore a son, and she named him Reuben. For she said, &ldquo;Because YHWH saw my affliction. Surely now, my husband will love me.&rdquo; 29:33 And she once again conceived and bore a son. And she said, &ldquo;Because YHWH heard that I am the hated one, he gave this son to me as well.&rdquo; And she named him Simeon.
When Leah says, &ldquo;Surely now, my husband will love me,&rdquo; she expects that she will regain the status of first rank as the loved wife.[13] And when she gives birth to Simeon, she openly acknowledges that she still occupies the position of the demoted wife, the &ldquo;hated one.&rdquo;
The Firstborn Son of a &ldquo;Hated&rdquo; Wife
The hated wife is also found in the context of the laws of inheritance:
דברים כא:טו כִּי תִהְיֶיןָ לְאִישׁ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים הָאַחַת אֲהוּבָה וְהָאַחַת שְׂנוּאָה וְיָלְדוּ לוֹ בָנִים הָאֲהוּבָה וְהַשְּׂנוּאָה וְהָיָה הַבֵּן הַבְּכוֹר לַשְּׂנִיאָה. כא:טז וְהָיָה בְּיוֹם הַנְחִילוֹ אֶת בָּנָיו אֵת אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה לוֹ לֹא יוּכַל לְבַכֵּר אֶת בֶּן הָאֲהוּבָה עַל פְּנֵי בֶן הַשְּׂנוּאָה הַבְּכֹר. כא:יז כִּי אֶת הַבְּכֹר בֶּן הַשְּׂנוּאָה יַכִּיר לָתֶת לוֹ פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִמָּצֵא לוֹ כִּי הוּא רֵאשִׁית אֹנוֹ לוֹ מִשְׁפַּט הַבְּכֹרָה.
Deut 21:15 If a man has two wives, one loved and one hated, and the loved and hated wife both bear sons for him, and the firstborn son is that of the hated one, 21:16 then on the day when he bequeaths his goods to his sons, he shall not be able to make the son of the loved wife the firstborn in place of the son of the hated wife, the (true) firstborn. 21:17 For he must treat the son of the hated wife as the firstborn, giving him a double share of all that he has. Because he is the first of his virility, the right of the firstborn is his.[14]
Deuteronomy&rsquo;s law is in conversation with ancient Near East practice, which, despite the default practice of granting the eldest son a larger inheritance portion&mdash;twice that of his younger brothers[15]&mdash;gave fathers the right to divide their property among their heirs however they saw fit.[16] In other words, they could designate a younger son as &ldquo;the eldest&rdquo; or &ldquo;firstborn.&rdquo;
In a will from the site of Nuzi in northern Iraq,[17] a man named Zigi, who already has sons, marries a new wife, &Scaron;uwarḫepa, and promises that her first son will become Zigi&rsquo;s primary heir:
Thus says Zigi: &ldquo;If &Scaron;uwarḫepa bears sons, then the oldest son of &Scaron;uwarḫepa will take an inheritance share as my oldest son. He will take a double share. The other sons of &Scaron;uwarḫepa will take an inheritance share together with the other sons of Zigi according to their rank.&rdquo;
Regarding the law in Deuteronomy, the late Isaac Mendelsohn of Columbia University, writing in 1938, argued that &ldquo;the innovation in this law is the abrogation of the arbitrary power of the father to choose a firstborn.&rdquo;[18] Similarly, Tikva Frymer-Kensky (1943&ndash;2006) of Reconstructionist Rabbinical College and the University of Chicago, interpreted the text as &ldquo;prohibit[ing] a man from making the first-born of his favored wife his first-born; instead, it demands that the first to be born be made the first-born.&rdquo;[19]
These interpretations, however, read the description of &ldquo;loved&rdquo; and &ldquo;hated&rdquo; wife as if the authors are merely painting the narrative picture of why the man wishes to change which son inherits double. I suggest, however, that these terms are being used in their legal and specific sense, that the law is penalizing a man who &ldquo;hates,&rdquo; i.e., demotes his wife.
Penalty for Hating
In the ancient Near East, acting based on &ldquo;hatred&rdquo; could come with a penalty. For example, the Laws of Eshnunna deal with a man who has been away from the city for a long time and his wife, in the meantime, married another man. If he is forced to leave the city, he gets her back, but if he leaves the city because &ldquo;he hates it,&rdquo; he is at fault, and loses the privilege of keeping his wife:
LE &sect;29 If a man should be captured or abducted during a raiding expedition or while on patrol, even should he reside in a foreign land for a long time, should someone else marry his wife and even she should bear a child, whenever he returns, he shall take back his wife. &sect;30 If a man hates (izērma) his city and his lord and flees, and another marries his wife, when he returns, he shall not have a claim to his wife.
The same law appears in Hammurabi:
LH &sect;135 If a man should be captured and there are not sufficient provisions in his house, before his return his wife enters another&rsquo;s house and bears children, and afterwards her husband returns and gets back to his city, that woman shall return to her first husband; the children shall inherit from their father. &sect;136 If a man deserts his city and flees, and after his departure his wife enters another&rsquo;s house&mdash;if that man then should return and seize his wife, because he hated (izēruma) his city and fled, the wife of the deserter will not return to her husband.
Thus, we see that abandoning one&rsquo;s wife out of hate&mdash;in this case, hate for the city&mdash;ends in a penalty clause, loss of the privilege to have her back when he returns.
Penalty for False Charges Due to Hate
Another example of a penalty clause for a man who hates his wife is the law of the newly married husband who brings false charges against his new wife for no reason:
דברים כב:יג כִּי יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּבָא אֵלֶיהָ וּשְׂנֵאָהּ. כב:יד וְשָׂם לָהּ עֲלִילֹת דְּבָרִים וְהוֹצִא עָלֶיהָ שֵׁם רָע וְאָמַר אֶת הָאִשָּׁה הַזֹּאת לָקַחְתִּי וָאֶקְרַב אֵלֶיהָ וְלֹא מָצָאתִי לָהּ בְּתוּלִים.
Deut 22:13 If a man takes a wife and sleeps with her, but then hates her 22:14 and brings charges against her and causes an evil name to come upon her, saying, &ldquo;I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find in her the signs of virginity.&rdquo;
The charges are fabricated, however, as the parents prove by bringing the evidence of virginity in the to the town elders (v. 15). Then the father states for the record that the real problem is that the man hates his daughter:
דברים כב:טז וְאָמַר אֲבִי (הנער) [הַנַּעֲרָה] אֶל הַזְּקֵנִים אֶת בִּתִּי נָתַתִּי לָאִישׁ הַזֶּה לְאִשָּׁה וַיִּשְׂנָאֶהָ.
Deut 22:16 The father of the young woman shall say to the elders: &ldquo;I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he hates her&hellip;
The parents then prove that the charges are false (v. 17), and the elders then punish the man with a fine. In addition, they take away his right to ever divorce this woman:
דברים כב:יח וְלָקְחוּ זִקְנֵי הָעִיר הַהִוא אֶת הָאִישׁ וְיִסְּרוּ אֹתוֹ. כב:יט וְעָנְשׁוּ אֹתוֹ מֵאָה כֶסֶף וְנָתְנוּ לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה כִּי הוֹצִיא שֵׁם רָע עַל בְּתוּלַת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלוֹ תִהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה לֹא יוּכַל לְשַׁלְּחָהּ כָּל יָמָיו.
Deut 22:18 The elders of that town shall take the man and punish him; 22:19 they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver (which they shall give to the young woman&rsquo;s father) because he has slandered a virgin of Israel. She shall remain his wife; he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.
The man did not have a legitimate claim against the woman but pretended that he did. Because his claim was baseless, the biblical text can say that the man &ldquo;hated&rdquo; his wife. As a consequence, he loses his right to divorce.
Penalty for No-Fault Demotion
As noted, the term &ldquo;hate&rdquo; in Deuteronomy&rsquo;s law of inheritance refers to a no-fault demotion. Just as husbands who &ldquo;hated&rdquo; and divorced their wives forfeit their right to the dowry in the Elephantine marriage contracts,[20] the husband who demotes his wife without grounds in Deuteronomy forfeits the right to give the status of firstborn to a younger son. Elevating a younger son would thereby demote the eldest son, without any justification, to a lower status&mdash;thereby limiting his inheritance to a much smaller share of the estate than he was originally entitled to.[21]
Logically, then, if a man has not arbitrarily demoted a wife, he is free to choose a younger son of any wife as his primary heir. The man is allowed to either demote his wife or demote his son; he can&rsquo;t do both.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure url="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b8fd783bee52c8fb59b1fac/66dfbf059028df9c22124e9f_Hated%2520wife%2520Torah%2520Bible%2520Leah.jpeg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[An Eye for an Eye or for Shekels: Canaan’s Cuneiform Laws]]></title>
            <link>https://thetorah.com/article/an-eye-for-an-eye-or-for-shekels-canaans-cuneiform-laws</link>
            <guid>https://thetorah.com/article/an-eye-for-an-eye-or-for-shekels-canaans-cuneiform-laws</guid>
            <pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2024 18:20:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[The cuneiform Laws of Hazor, from the first half of the 2nd millennium B.C.E., suggest that biblical laws had roots in Canaanite law. This challenges, for example, the idea that the Bible&rsquo;s lex talionis was borrowed from Hammurabi&rsquo;s laws. While some ancient Near Eastern laws draw distinctions between social classes, Leviticus later makes clear that all human lives are equally valuable.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[As an Assyriologist, I study cuneiform, the writing system of ancient Mesopotamia (today&rsquo;s Iraq) that was invented over 5,000 years ago in southernmost Iraq in the city of Uruk, a neighbor of Abraham&rsquo;s hometown of Ur.[1] This writing system makes use of signs, not letters, and for the sake of time and simplicity, if not total accuracy, can be compared quite nicely to the way that Chinese or Japanese script is used in our world today.
The cuneiform script was the international writing system of the entire Middle East from the time of the Babylonian king Hammurabi (1792&ndash;1750 B.C.E.) down to the historical victory of the alphabet over sign-systems ca. 1000 B.C.E.[2] It was originally used for Sumerian, a non-Semitic language. From there, it came to be used for the Semitic languages of the ancient Near East, including Akkadian, Amorite, and Ugaritic.[3]
In the second millennium B.C.E., cuneiform writing spread to cities in what is today Lebanon, Israel, and Egypt, with main centers at the time of Hammurabi including Mari and Emar in today&rsquo;s Syria, and Hazor in the Hula Valley in the Galilee, not far from the modern development town of the same name and Rosh Pina.
Cuneiform in Canaan
The earliest inscriptions and cuneiform documents that were deciphered in the middle of the 19th century C.E. came, for the most part, from the capital cities of the Assyrian Empire&mdash;including Assur, Nineveh, and biblical Nimrud. The first cuneiform tablets from Hazor were found in the 1950s and 60s by Hebrew University excavators under the supervision of the now near legendary Professor Yigal Yadin, also the excavator of Masada. They were published by Professor Hayim Tadmor of the old Assyriology department of Hebrew University.[4]
Soon after my own arrival in Israel in 1986 as an oleh chadash (new immigrant), I was invited to take the project of studying and publishing cuneiform finds from the renewed excavations at Hazor directed by Professor Amnon Ben-Tor of the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University on Mount Scopus. For many years, my partner in this work was Professor Aaron Shaffer, the first Sumerologist at the Hebrew University. Our work together on the &ldquo;Cuneiform in Canaan&rdquo; project continues today under the leadership of my student, Dr. Peter Zilberg.[5]
Fragments of a Legal Tablet
In the summer of 2010, two tiny fragments of a cuneiform tablet in Middle Bronze Age script (ca. 20th&ndash;16th c. B.C.E.) were discovered by the Hazor excavators. I was immediately informed, and I waited patiently for a few days for the fragments to be brought back to Jerusalem for my inspection, after the process of preliminary cleaning and preservation of the artifacts by the archaeological team.
On a Friday afternoon, just a few hours before Shabbat, I met the fragments, for the first time in the parking lot of the two grocery stores (makolet) on French Hill, near today&rsquo;s light rail station: the larger of the two was smaller than the palm of my hand. The idea was that I would take the tablets home for Shabbat and return them to the Institute of Archaeology on Sunday. Of course, I tried to read the tablets in the parking lot right then and there.
I was stunned. Even at first glance I could make out signs for noses, ears, human beings (awēlum) and silver. Though I said nothing that day, allowing myself the chance to process what I was seeing, I immediately thought of the famous laws of Hammurabi that prescribe a range of punishments, including monetary fines, when one person puts out another&rsquo;s eye, breaks their bone, or knocks out their teeth (more on this later).
When I reached home a few minutes later I confirmed my readings, and then spent the next 36 hours behind locked doors yelling at my children to not let any strangers into the house, fearing that someone might somehow damage the priceless artifacts under my watch. A week or so later, after further study, I presented to the excavation team a preliminary translation of what has come to be known as &ldquo;The Laws of Hazor.&rdquo;
The surviving text, with some restoration, contains parts of seven laws.[6] The full tablet would have contained many more laws, and this one tablet itself could have been but a small part of a much larger collection of laws, such as the 282 laws included in Hammurabi&rsquo;s collection.
Fragment A:
0' [If ... eye ... ]1'. 12 shekels of [silver ...2' If (it is) the n[ose &hellip;3.' 10 (shekels of silver) to the owner of the sla[ve ...]4'. If (it is) a tooth [ ...5'. 3 shekels of silver t[o the owner of the slave ... ]6' If the cheek of [the slave he has slapped ...7'. and the slave to the owner of the s[lave ...9'. If a man, the e[ar ...10' and the slave . [ ...
Fragment B:
1' ... ] . . [ ...2' ... ] to the own[er of the slave ...3' ... ] . . [ ...
The laws depict a situation in which one human being (an awēlum) has rented out his slave (wardum) to another awēlum, and the slave has been injured (damaged). It is clear that the individuals involved are not of equal social status. The injured slave is property, and compensation must be paid to the slave&rsquo;s owner for damage to the slave&rsquo;s ears and nose.[7] For comparison, the Torah does not address the situation of a rented slave, but the Covenant Collection does require an owner who damages his slave&rsquo;s eye or tooth to free the slave (21:26&ndash;27).
Similar types of property-damage provisions are present elsewhere in the law collections of the ancient Near East as well. For example, several provisions in the Laws about Rented Oxen (ca. 1800 B.C.E, Nippur) are very close in wording to the laws from Hazor:
LOx 1 If he (the renter) destroys the eye of the ox, he shall weight and deliver one-half of its value (in silver).
LOx 2 If he (the renter) cuts off the horn of an ox, he shall weight and deliver one-third of its value (in silver).[8]
Significance of Hazor&rsquo;s Laws for Biblical Legal Traditions
The discovery of Hammurabi&rsquo;s Law Code in 1901 generated significant excitement among biblical scholars as a potential source for biblical law.[9] One prominent example is the talion law, in which an injury is punished with a matching injury&mdash;&ldquo;an eye for an eye&rdquo;:
&rlm;ויקרא כד:יח וְאִישׁ כִּי יִתֵּן מוּם בַּעֲמִיתוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה כֵּן יֵעָשֶׂה לּוֹ. כד:כ שֶׁבֶר תַּחַת שֶׁבֶר עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן שֵׁן תַּחַת שֵׁן כַּאֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן מוּם בָּאָדָם כֵּן יִנָּתֶן בּוֹ.
Lev 24:19 If anyone maims his fellow, as he has done so shall it be done to him: 24:20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The injury he inflicted on another shall be inflicted on him (cf. Exod 21:23&ndash;25; Deut 19:21).
In Hammurabi&rsquo;s Laws (196&ndash;201), this principle applies to injuries to an awēlum, referring in this context to a full citizen:
LH 196 If an awēlum put out the eye of another awēlum , his eye shall be put out. An eye for an eye.
LH 197 If he breaks another awēlum&rsquo;s bone, his bone shall be broken.
In contrast to the Torah, where the law does not distinguish social status, in Hammurabi, injuries done to those of lower social status call for monetary compensation:
LH 198 If he put out the eye of a mu&scaron;kēnum (a lower-status citizen),[10] or break the bone of a mu&scaron;kēnum, he shall pay one gold mina.
LH 199 If he put out the eye of an awēlum&rsquo;s wardum (slave), or break the bone of an awēlum&rsquo;s wardum, he shall pay one-half of its value.
Over the century since the recovery Hammurabi&rsquo;s Laws, parallel codices from the ancient Near East have been recovered&mdash;the laws of Ur-Namma, Lipit-Ishtar, and the Middle Assyrian laws, for example&mdash;that reflect the same &ldquo;eye for an eye&rdquo; principle.[11]
It has thus often been assumed that the talion laws in the Torah were a result of borrowing from traditions outside the land of Israel. While it is clear that the biblical talion laws are deeply rooted in the legal traditions of Israel&rsquo;s neighbors in the ancient Near East,[12] finding fragments of the cuneiform Laws of Hazor in the land of Canaan means that the biblical laws may not have been a 1st millennium B.C.E. import from those neighbors. Rather, some aspects of biblical law were already present in the land of Canaan in the Middle Bronze Age, before the Israelites and before the composition of the Torah&rsquo;s legal collections.
Are Talion Laws Relevant Today?
It has become common for us to dismiss talion laws as ancient, not worthy of serious consideration in modern law and legal theory. Yet, we must remember that laws of this type are still operative in some Islamic circles that embrace Shariah Law, while in the United States, the death penalty continues to be imposed for murder in some jurisdictions. In Israel, many have proposed recently that the death penalty be imposed for terrorist murderers such as those who committed the atrocities of October 7th.
One approach to the talion laws is to view them as a message that punishment or compensation should be commensurate with the crime committed or damage caused by the perpetrator&rsquo;s actions. In other words, if one knocks out the eye of a man, one does not blind both eyes of the perpetrator, and likewise one does not knock out all the teeth of someone who knocks out only a single tooth. This can even be seen as a merciful step away from overly harsh punishment. In the case of &ldquo;a life for a life,&rdquo; imposing the death sentence only for murder, not manslaughter, reflects a similar principle (Exod 21:12&ndash;14).
As opposed to the payment of damages to the owners in cases of both injured cattle and slaves in the cuneiform laws, we can appreciate Leviticus&rsquo; clear separation of the value of animal lives from all human lives, including slaves:[13]
&rlm;ויקרא כד:כא וּמַכֵּה בְהֵמָה יְשַׁלְּמֶנָּה וּמַכֵּה אָדָם יוּמָת.
Lev 24:21 One who kills a beast shall make restitution for it; but one who kills a human being shall be put to death.
We can agree or disagree about the issue of capital punishment, or of talion in general. The underlying principle, however&mdash;that all human life is precious, not just some human lives depending on legal status, or other criteria that divide us&mdash;is deeply rooted in the legal traditions of biblical Israel, and it has been and is a crucial value of ancient and Modern Judaism.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure url="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b8fd783bee52c8fb59b1fac/66df18714688808c9685329b_Laws-of-Hazor.jpeg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[If the Criminal Is Unknown, Should We Punish the Crime?]]></title>
            <link>https://thetorah.com/article/if-the-criminal-is-unknown-should-we-punish-the-crime</link>
            <guid>https://thetorah.com/article/if-the-criminal-is-unknown-should-we-punish-the-crime</guid>
            <pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2024 11:55:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[Up until recent times, throughout the Near East, communities and their leaders were held responsible for crimes committed in their vicinity.]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[In 1931, my late teacher Cyrus Gordon (1908‒2001) was a young archaeologist working at an excavation in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq. The region was much safer than it is in our day; indeed, usually there were no problems with the local villagers on such scholarly expeditions. On one occasion, however, as Professor Gordon related, a minor annoyance occurred.
Each morning the archaeological team would awake to find that its jeep had been overturned. The staff would turn the jeep right side up each time, but the next day, the jeep was overturned again. After several days of such activity, the archaeologists complained to the local mukhtar (the Arabic word for &ldquo;mayor&rdquo; or &ldquo;village head,&rdquo; though in the typical village he serves as mayor, chief-of-police, and magistrate judge all rolled into one). The mukhtar replied that he would take care of the matter.
Later that day the mukhtar came to the archaeologists and said, &ldquo;Your jeep will not be overturned again.&rdquo; The excavators asked, &ldquo;What did you do?&rdquo; The mukhtar pointed to the nearest house situated atop one of the nearby hills and said, &ldquo;Do you see that house up there? My men went in there and roughed up the place.&rdquo; The archaeologists asked, &ldquo;Are they the ones who overturned the jeep?&rdquo; And the mukhtar replied, &ldquo;No, but they will find out who did it, and they will take care of them.&rdquo;
The archaeologists understandably were astonished by such a display of justice, but the mukhtar had a ready reply. He had been exposed to some Western ideas of jurisprudence and he explained to the visitors from America, &ldquo;You see, we have a different sense of justice than in your society. In your society, you punish criminals. In our society, we punish crimes.&rdquo;[1]
The Corpse and the Town Elders
Deuteronomy 21:1‒9 describes a situation in which a slain corpse is found in the open field between two cities and the identity of the slayer is unknown (Deut 21:1).[2] The elders are called upon to measure the distance between the scene of the crime and the cities:
דברים כא:ב וְיָצְאוּ זְקֵנֶיךָ וְשֹׁפְטֶיךָ וּמָדְדוּ אֶל הֶעָרִים אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹת הֶחָלָל.
Deut 21:2 And your elders and your judges shall go-out, and they shall measure (the distances) to the towns which are around the slain-person.
The elders of the closest town must then perform an unusual ritual in which they break the neck of a heifer that has never been worked over a body of running water,[3] at which point, the elders declare that they are not responsible for the person&rsquo;s death:
 דברים כא:ז וְעָנוּ וְאָמְרוּ יָדֵינוּ לֹא (שפכה) [שָׁפְכוּ] אֶת הַדָּם הַזֶּה וְעֵינֵינוּ לֹא רָאוּ.
Deut 21:7&nbsp;And they shall declare and they shall say:&nbsp; &ldquo;Our hands did not shed this blood, and our eyes did not see (anything).&rdquo;
Why do the village elders need to deny culpability for the murder? As the Sifre Devarim, a 3rd cent. C.E. midrash, asks:
ספרי דברים &sect;ר"י "ידינו לא שפכה"&mdash;וכי עלת על לבנו שזקני בית דין שופכי דמים הם?!
Sifrei Deut &sect;210 &ldquo;Our hands did not shed this blood&rdquo;&mdash;Did it cross our minds that the elders of the court were shedders of blood?
The Sifre answers that the elders are declaring that they did not cause the death indirectly by ignoring a person in need:
אלא שלא בא לידינו ופטרנוהו בלא מזונות ולא ראינוהו והנחנוהו בלא לויה.
Rather [what they are saying is]: &ldquo;he did not approach us, and we [did not then] send him away without food. And we didn&rsquo;t see him and leave him to travel without accompaniment.&rdquo;
Putting aside the Sifre&rsquo;s answer, the question they ask highlights the key message: the elders are responsible for a trespass simply by virtue of their being leaders. We find a similar attitude towards the responsibility of town officials among other ancient Near Eastern cultures.[4]
Hammurapi: Theft
For example, a law in the section of Hammurapi&rsquo;s laws (c. 1750 B.C.E.) dealing with robbery declares that the heads of a city are responsible for repaying a person&rsquo;s stolen property if they cannot find the thief:
Laws of Hammurapi &sect;23 If the robber should not be seized, the man who has been robbed shall establish the extent of his lost property before the god; and the city and the governor in whose territory and district the robbery was committed shall replace his lost property to him.[5]
While this Babylonian law deals with theft, not murder, the procedure for the unresolved crime is essentially the same: the local city (or its governor) bears responsibility.
Hittite Parallels: Murder
Hittite texts offer us multiple parallels. A letter found at Ḫattu&scaron;a, the capital of the Hittite realm, refers to a murderer who seems to be known or at least suspected. As the responsible parties have elected not to carry out jurisprudence, &ldquo;they (only) purify (the city) in which the person was killed.&rdquo;[6] The specific means of purification is not described, though once again the city bears some responsibility.
In another Hittite text known as &ldquo;Instructions to Commanders of Border Garrisons&rdquo; (for which we have multiple copies), we hear about how the people must bathe in response to a murder:
[The] governor, the city commander, (and) the elders must consistently judge cases properly, and carry out (their decisions), as the rule for serious crimes (has been) done from of old. &hellip; Furthermore, afterward (the people) of the city must bathe and [make a declaration].[7]
The bathing of the people is akin to the washing of the elders&rsquo; hands in Deuteronomy (21:6), as is the requirement that they make a declaration.
The most important ancient Near Eastern text to shed light on the law in Deuteronomy appears within the Hittite law collection,[8] which depicts almost the same case:
Hittite Laws If the place where the dead person was found is not private property, but uncultivated open country, they shall measure &hellip; in all directions, and the dead person&rsquo;s heir shall take those same payments from whatever village is found to lie within that radius.[9]
Note that, as in the biblical law, a dead person is found in the countryside, measurements are taken, and the closest village bears responsibility.
Compensation Versus Atonement
As Hammurapi was dealing with a case of theft, the fact that this law focused on payment is intuitive. But in the Hittite law, the case is of a murdered person, and again, the focus is on compensation, this time to be made to the deceased&rsquo;s heir.
In contrast, the biblical murder victim law says nothing about monetary compensation, in line with the value of human life in the biblical mindset: no amount of money can compensate for the loss of human life. Instead, the focus is on the expiation, for which the elders petition:
דברים כא:ח כַּפֵּר לְעַמְּךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר פָּדִיתָ יְ־הוָה וְאַל תִּתֵּן דָּם נָקִי בְּקֶרֶב עַמְּךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנִכַּפֵּר לָהֶם הַדָּם.
Deut 21:8 &ldquo;Absolve your people Israel whom you redeemed, O YHWH, and do not place innocent blood amidst your people Israel&rdquo;; and they shall be absolved of the blood.
Indeed, the purpose of the ritual is to absolve the people of Israel, as a corporate entity,[10] of any guilt for the shedding of &lrm;דָּם נָקִי &ldquo;innocent blood&rdquo;:
דברים כא:ט וְאַתָּה תְּבַעֵר הַדָּם הַנָּקִי מִקִּרְבֶּךָ כִּי תַעֲשֶׂה הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינֵי יְ־הוָה.
Deut 21:9 And you shall purge the innocent blood from your midst, for you shall do what is right in the eyes of YHWH.&nbsp;
Medieval Arabic Culture: The Responsibility of the Dār
The parallels are not limited to the ancient Near East. As W. Robertson Smith (1846&ndash;1894) writes about the encyclopedic collection Kitāb al-Aghānī &ldquo;The Book of Songs,&rdquo; compiled by Abū al-Faraj al-Iṣfahānī during the 10th century C.E., &ldquo;the responsibility for a homicide is thrown on the nearest homestead (dār).&rdquo;[11]
In all of these cases, the town, the dār, the elders, etc., are in no way guilty of the crime &ndash; at least not according to Western jurisprudential thinking. And yet it is incumbent upon them to act in some fashion, even if the actual criminal or murderer is not thereby punished.
This returns us to the story with which I opened. The mukhtar of the northern Iraqi village understood his society similarly. The identity of the individuals(s) responsible for overturning the archaeologists&rsquo; jeep was unknown, and yet some action was required &ndash; and act he did, even if members of a different society, that is, the American archaeologists, were somewhat gobsmacked by the action.
Millennia of Continuity
The comparison between something experienced within the last century and something from three thousand years ago is possible because the Near East is a region of tenaciously traditional values and lifestyles.[12] Obviously, the Near East today is rapidly changing, so when we speak of the traditional Near East, we do not have in mind people under the influence of Western society who may speak English or French and who dress in European fashion (as one may encounter in urban settings in the modern Near East). Instead, one must seek out villagers and Bedouin in the more isolated areas of the region, where the social world has changed little since antiquity.[13]
In all these cases, ancient, medieval, and modern, the closest people to the scene of the crime are (or were) by no means guilty of an offense. Nevertheless, a crime has been committed and thus some resolution is required.
One need only compare what would occur under similar circumstances in the U.S., Canada, European countries, etc., including the modern state of Israel. Obviously, the police would do all they could to investigate the crime. But if no murderer were found, that would be the end of the matter. True, the police file would remain open, for years in fact, but no further criminal procedure would be necessary since, in our society, we punish criminals; if no criminal is found, then the case does not proceed further.
In the Near East, however, crimes are punished. This is true not only in the story that Professor Gordon related, but in medieval Muslim culture, Hittite culture, Hammurapi&rsquo;s laws, and ancient Israel.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure url="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b8fd783bee52c8fb59b1fac/66d47a7656c30652a958b8b3_Crime%2520Criminal.jpeg"/>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[What Motivates Us? On Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development]]></title>
            <link>https://thetorah.com/article/what-motivates-us-on-kohlbergs-theory-of-moral-development</link>
            <guid>https://thetorah.com/article/what-motivates-us-on-kohlbergs-theory-of-moral-development</guid>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2024 17:19:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[The Bible often provides explicit motivations for adhering to its laws, raising the question: How do these motivations align with contemporary psychological theories of moral reasoning?]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[The Torah motivates the people&rsquo;s adherence to law in numerous ways.[1] In the book of Deuteronomy, for instance, Moses employs a persuasive tone, urging the Israelites towards a life of abundance:[2]
דברים ו:ג וְשָׁמַעְתָּ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְשָׁמַרְתָּ לַעֲשׂוֹת אֲשֶׁר יִיטַב לְךָ וַאֲשֶׁר תִּרְבּוּן מְאֹד כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֶיךָ לָךְ אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ.
Deut 6:3 Obey, O Israel, willingly and faithfully, that it may go well with you and that you may increase greatly [in] a land flowing with milk and honey, as YHWH, the God of your fathers, spoke to you.[3]
Laws may also include a &ldquo;motive clause,&rdquo; a clause or sentence intended to encourage compliance, such as a promise of future blessings from YHWH for the obedient:
דברים כד:יט כִּי תִקְצֹר קְצִירְךָ בְשָׂדֶךָ וְשָׁכַחְתָּ עֹמֶר בַּשָּׂדֶה לֹא תָשׁוּב לְקַחְתּוֹ לַגֵּר לַיָּתוֹם וְלָאַלְמָנָה יִהְיֶה לְמַעַן יְבָרֶכְךָ יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכֹל מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיךָ.
Deut 24:19 When you reap the harvest in your field and overlook a sheaf in the field, do not turn back to get it; it shall go to the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow&mdash;in order that YHWH your God may bless you in all your undertakings.
Biblical scholars studying exhortations and motive clauses often focus on their form and function within the law.[4] In addition, psychology may offer some useful insights into the strategies that biblical authors employ to motivate the Israelites to obey the law.
Lawrence Kohlberg: Cognitive Moral Development
American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927&ndash;1987) used the lens of motivation to examine the question: &ldquo;Why do people do the right thing or avoid doing the wrong thing?&rdquo; He posited that cognitive moral development begins at birth, and proceeds through adolescence and adulthood through three levels of morality&mdash;pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional&mdash;each of which has two stages.[5]
Level 1: Pre-Conventional Morality
At this level, behavior is shaped by the individual&rsquo;s evaluation of the &ldquo;me-centered, material consequences&rdquo; of an action.[6]
In Stage One, individual behaviors are driven by concerns about obedience and punishment, with a focus on the direct consequences of their actions on themselves. At this stage, individuals perceive an action as morally wrong because they are punished for it. In the Bible, laws that reflect this concept may be marked by the cautionary term פֶּן (pen), &ldquo;lest&rdquo;:
&rlm;דברים ו:יד לֹא תֵלְכוּן אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים מֵאֱלֹהֵי הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבוֹתֵיכֶם. ו:טו כִּי אֵל קַנָּא יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּקִרְבֶּךָ פֶּן יֶחֱרֶה אַף יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בָּךְ וְהִשְׁמִידְךָ מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה.
Deut 6:14 Do not follow other gods, any gods of the peoples about you&mdash;6:15 for your God YHWH in your midst is an impassioned God&mdash;lest the anger of your God YHWH blaze forth against you, wiping you off the face of the earth.
In Stage Two, the individual&rsquo;s self-interest and desire for rewards are activated: &ldquo;What&rsquo;s in it for me?&rdquo; Even if there is concern for others, it is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect, but rather a reciprocal mentality: &ldquo;You scratch my back, and I&rsquo;ll scratch yours.&rdquo; Biblical laws that engage this type of motivation may employ the characteristic word of purpose, לְמַעַן (limaʿan), &ldquo;in order that&rdquo;:
דברים טז:כ צֶדֶק צֶדֶק תִּרְדֹּף לְמַעַן תִּחְיֶה וְיָרַשְׁתָּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ.
Deut 16:20 Justice, justice shall you pursue, that you may thrive and occupy the land that your God YHWH is giving you.
שׁמות כ:יב כַּבֵּד אֶת אָבִיךָ וְאֶת אִמֶּךָ לְמַעַן יַאֲרִכוּן יָמֶיךָ עַל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ.
Exod 20:12 Honor your father and your mother, that you may long endure on the land that your God YHWH is assigning to you.
Deuteronomy also features directives to the individual and the community that combine these first two stages of motivation:
&rlm;דברים יא:כו רְאֵה אָנֹכִי נֹתֵן לִפְנֵיכֶם הַיּוֹם בְּרָכָה וּקְלָלָה.
Deut 11:26 See, this day I set before you blessing and curse&hellip;.
Obeying YHWH brings blessings, and disobeying curses (vv. 27&ndash;29; cf. ch. 28).
Level 2: Conventional Morality
At this level, an individual obeys rules and follows society&rsquo;s norms even when there are no personal consequences for obedience or disobedience. Adherence to rules and conventions is somewhat rigid at this point, and a rule&rsquo;s appropriateness or fairness is seldom questioned.
Stage Three is characterized by the &ldquo;good child&rdquo; attitude, which values being consonant with social norms (as opposed to maintaining them, which is Stage Four). Individuals at this stage may judge the morality of an action by evaluating its consequences in terms of their relationships with others, and they begin to value virtues like respect and gratitude.
Motivations reflecting this stage of development are more implied than stated in the Bible. In many texts, to be seen as a &ldquo;good child&rdquo; is defined less by society&rsquo;s perspective than by YHWH&rsquo;s. An exhortation to be faithful to the speaker&rsquo;s teaching in Proverbs also combines the two:
משׁלי ג:ג חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת אַל יַעַזְבֻךָ קָשְׁרֵם עַל גַּרְגְּרוֹתֶיךָ כָּתְבֵם עַל לוּחַ לִבֶּךָ. ג:ד וּמְצָא חֵן וְשֵׂכֶל טוֹב בְּעֵינֵי אֱלֹהִים וְאָדָם.
Prov 3:3 Let fidelity and steadfastness not leave you; bind them about your throat, write them on the tablet of your mind, 3:4 and you will find favor and approbation in the eyes of God and man.
Stage Four is driven by considerations of authority and social order obedience. The individual perceives the value of obedience to laws, dicta, and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in Stage Four thus moves beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three.
This orientation underlies many biblical dicta.[7] Some have to do with stability of family structure, as in the law that preserves the inheritance rights of the first-born son regardless of the father&rsquo;s preferences among his sons:
דברים כא:יז כִּי אֶת הַבְּכֹר בֶּן הַשְּׂנוּאָה יַכִּיר לָתֶת לוֹ פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִמָּצֵא לוֹ כִּי הוּא רֵאשִׁית אֹנוֹ לוֹ מִשְׁפַּט הַבְּכֹרָה.
Deut 21:17 Instead, he must accept the first-born, the son of the unloved one, and allot to him a double portion of all he possesses; since he is the first fruit of his vigor, the birthright is his due.
Notice the use of the explanatory word, כִּי (ki), which may mean, &ldquo;because,&rdquo; &ldquo;for,&rdquo; or &ldquo;since.&rdquo;[8]
Level 3: Post-Conventional Morality
Post-conventional moralists live by their own ethical principles&mdash;principles that typically include such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice. People who exhibit post-conventional morality view rules as useful but changeable mechanisms&mdash;ideally, rules can maintain the general social order and protect human rights. However, rules are not absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question.
In Stage Five, individuals regard laws as social contracts rather than rigid edicts. Those that do not promote the general welfare should be changed when necessary to meet the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This stage is less evident in the Bible, as biblical law is seen as binding:
דברים ד:ב לֹא תֹסִפוּ עַל הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם וְלֹא תִגְרְעוּ מִמֶּנּוּ לִשְׁמֹר אֶת מִצְוֹת יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם.
Deut 4:2 You shall not add anything to what I command you or take anything away from it, but keep the commandments of YHWH your God that I enjoin upon you (cf. 13:1).
If the laws, per se, represent what is הַיָּשָׁר וְהַטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵי יְ־הוָה &ldquo;right and good in the eyes of YHWH&rdquo; (Deut 6:18),[9] then Kohlberg&rsquo;s stage five is probably the opposite of the stance of biblical law. In practice, however, the biblical authors do revise earlier law, and thus their work may represent stage five thinking.[10]
In Stage Six, moral reasoning is based on abstract universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Outstanding biblical examples of this orientation come less from law than from narrative.
A powerful example is the story of the midwives who disobey Pharaoh&rsquo;s law to kill all Israelite infant boys, because the midwives answer to a higher authority:
שׁמות א:יז וַתִּירֶאןָ הַמְיַלְּדֹת אֶת הָאֱלֹהִים וְלֹא עָשׂוּ כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר אֲלֵיהֶן מֶלֶךְ מִצְרָיִם וַתְּחַיֶּיןָ אֶת הַיְלָדִים.
Exod 1:17 The midwives, fearing God, did not do as the king of Egypt had told them; they let the boys live.
In fact, it is clear that the midwives ignore the motivations that characterize the earlier stages in Kohlberg&rsquo;s model: They are not motivated by fear of punishment; they do not expect any reward; their work, in secret, cannot be reinforced by social approval; and they are breaking, not upholding societal norms and the law of the land (Exod 1:15&ndash;22).[11]
A second example is Abraham&rsquo;s famous argument (Gen 18:17&ndash;33), in which he takes YHWH to task regarding the decision to wipe out the city of Sodom:
בראשׁית יח:כה חָלִלָה לְּךָ מֵעֲשֹׂת כַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה לְהָמִית צַדִּיק עִם רָשָׁע וְהָיָה כַצַּדִּיק כָּרָשָׁע חָלִלָה לָּךְ הֲשֹׁפֵט כָּל הָאָרֶץ לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה מִשְׁפָּט.
Gen 18:25 &ldquo;Far be it from You to do such a thing, to bring death upon the innocent as well as the guilty, so that innocent and guilty fare alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?&rdquo;
Abraham challenges YHWH&rsquo;s plan with the universal value of not punishing the innocent.
Empathy and Care: Noddings
American philosopher Nel Noddings, who has critiqued Kohlberg, has argued that moral development begins with learning what it means to be cared-for: &ldquo;Then, gradually, we learn both to care for and, by extension, to care about others.&rdquo; This caring-about, Noddings argues, is almost certainly the foundation for our sense of justice: caring-about (or, perhaps a sense of justice) must be seen as instrumental in establishing the conditions under which caring-for can flourish.[12]
Indeed, care for the feelings of another person can be seen in the laws that govern the treatment of a woman who is taken captive in war. If the captor does not wish to marry her, he is to let her go:
דברים כא:יד וְהָיָה אִם לֹא חָפַצְתָּ בָּהּ וְשִׁלַּחְתָּהּ לְנַפְשָׁהּ וּמָכֹר לֹא תִמְכְּרֶנָּה בַּכָּסֶף לֹא תִתְעַמֵּר בָּהּ תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִנִּיתָהּ.
Deut 21:14 Then, should you no longer want her, you must release her outright. You must not sell her for money: since you had your will of her, you must not enslave her.
Couched within the explanation for her emancipation is an allusion to the woman&rsquo;s dignity. One can infer a sense of sympathy for the captive woman. It may be that the law is drawing upon the captor&rsquo;s sense of humanity; or it may be guiding the captor in that direction. In either case, the motivation connects with a concern for the other.
Yet another kind of motivation is based on recognizing types of social disadvantages, such as the landlessness of the Levites in Deuteronomy:
דברים יב:יב וּשְׂמַחְתֶּם לִפְנֵי יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אַתֶּם וּבְנֵיכֶם וּבְנֹתֵיכֶם וְעַבְדֵיכֶם וְאַמְהֹתֵיכֶם וְהַלֵּוִי אֲשֶׁר בְּשַׁעֲרֵיכֶם כִּי אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק וְנַחֲלָה אִתְּכֶם.
Deut 12:12 And you shall rejoice before your God YHWH with your sons and daughters and with your male and female slaves, along with the [family of the] Levite in your settlements, for he has no territorial allotment among you.[13]
The word that draws attention to the problem in this case is again ki. No specific motivation for addressing these disadvantages is stated: rather, noticing the reality of the problems seems to be regarded as sufficient to motivate the Israelite to attend to them.
In addition, Noddings makes the case that noticing a problem is a first, but not sufficient, step towards amelioration. Her point of view is implied in a biblical observation of the problem of the persistence of poverty that goes beyond the previous example, stating that it is not sufficient to notice the problem&mdash;the Israelite is to take action:
דברים טו:יא כִּי לֹא יֶחְדַּל אֶבְיוֹן מִקֶּרֶב הָאָרֶץ עַל כֵּן אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ לֵאמֹר פָּתֹחַ תִּפְתַּח אֶת יָדְךָ לְאָחִיךָ לַעֲנִיֶּךָ וּלְאֶבְיֹנְךָ בְּאַרְצֶךָ.
Deut 15:11 For there will never cease to be needy ones in your land, which is why I command you: open your hand to the poor and needy kin in your land.
There are also places where the positive good of keeping a certain law is not stated, suggesting that its benefits are self-evident:
שׁמות כג:יב שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תַּעֲשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂיךָ וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי תִּשְׁבֹּת לְמַעַן יָנוּחַ שׁוֹרְךָ וַחֲמֹרֶךָ וְיִנָּפֵשׁ בֶּן אֲמָתְךָ וְהַגֵּר.
Exod 23:12 Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall cease from labor, in order that your ox and your ass may rest, and that your home-born slave and the stranger may be refreshed.
In addition, the Bible employs Israelites&rsquo; sense of empathy[14] as a motivation for social justice. This is a well-known biblical theme, most often drawing upon the experience of slavery to induce sensitive behavior toward the vulnerable in society.
שׁמות כב:כ וְגֵר לֹא תוֹנֶה וְלֹא תִלְחָצֶנּוּ כִּי גֵרִים הֱיִיתֶם בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.
Exod 22:20 You shall not wrong or oppress a stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Deuteronomy expands on this notion in its justification for its regulations regarding the manumission of slaves:
דברים טו:טו וְזָכַרְתָּ כִּי עֶבֶד הָיִיתָ בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם וַיִּפְדְּךָ יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ עַל כֵּן אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה הַיּוֹם.
Deut 15:15 Bear in mind that you were slaves in the land of Egypt and your God YHWH redeemed you; therefore I enjoin this commandment upon you today.
Deuteronomy goes even further, requiring love of the sojourner because of the Israelites&rsquo; own experience in Egypt:
דברים י:יט וַאֲהַבְתֶּם אֶת הַגֵּר כִּי גֵרִים הֱיִיתֶם בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.
Deut 10:19 You too must befriend the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
These examples point to an emotional/relational mindset. Either this is evidence of the Israelites&rsquo; already having that mindset, and the justification is that Israelites could build on it to keep certain laws; or the law can begin to develop that mindset, linking the two together.
Additional Motivations: Memory &amp; Identity
Yet another motivation employed by the biblical authors is the creation of a national identity, based on an experienced relationship with YHWH. This, too, draws on the Exodus traditions, although it does not have a social justice orientation. In this case, the Israelites are to keep a ritual in order to keep alive a basic memory-based national identity:
דברים טז:ג לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תֹּאכַל עָלָיו מַצּוֹת לֶחֶם עֹנִי כִּי בְחִפָּזוֹן יָצָאתָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לְמַעַן תִּזְכֹּר אֶת יוֹם צֵאתְךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ.
Deut 16:3 You shall not eat anything leavened with it; for seven days thereafter you shall eat unleavened bread, bread of distress&mdash;for you departed from the land of Egypt hurriedly&mdash;so that you may remember the day of your departure from the land of Egypt as long as you live.
A signature motivation for keeping certain laws has to do with identity and the kinship relationship, present or potential, between YHWH and the Israelites:
&rlm;דברים יד:א בָּנִים אַתֶּם לַי־הוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם לֹא תִתְגֹּדְדוּ וְלֹא תָשִׂימוּ קָרְחָה בֵּין עֵינֵיכֶם לָמֵת. יד:ב כִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ אַתָּה לַי־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ וּבְךָ בָּחַר יְ־הוָה לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְעַם סְגֻלָּה מִכֹּל הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה.
Deut 14:1 You are children of your God YHWH. You shall not gash yourselves or shave the front of your heads because of the dead. 14:2 For you are a people consecrated to your God YHWH: your God YHWH chose you from among all other peoples on earth to be a treasured people.
The Bible beyond Kohlberg&rsquo;s Model
The Bible makes room for a greater variety social and emotional dimensions of motivation than Kohlberg&rsquo;s typology.[15] In this way, it seems to attend to concerns voiced by some of Kohlberg&rsquo;s early critics,[16] who noted that considerations of relationships and emotions were absent in the motivations inherent in his stages of moral development. By contrast the Torah presents considerations of sympathy, empathy, and other aspects of care, as well as a multi-valanced relationship with YHWH and the desirability to develop a memory-based national identity, as human motivations.
Finally, while Kohlberg&rsquo;s scheme is hierarchical, privileging &ldquo;justice&rdquo; as the most desirable of motivations, the Torah sees value in drawing on the full range of human motivations to support its vision of a life of unprecedented possibility.]]></content:encoded>
            <enclosure url="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b8fd783bee52c8fb59b1fac/66d0a0e81a8146004d149a06_What%2520Motivates%2520Us%2520Between%2520the%2520Bible%2520and%2520Kohlberg%25E2%2580%2599s%2520Theory%2520of%2520Moral%2520Development.jpeg"/>
        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>