Introduction To Bible: The Order, Chapters, Text & Vocalization of the Bible

The Adept is a brilliant man who allows me to disseminate his Torah so long as I don't reveal his name. If you know his name, I'd appreciate it if you also refrained from revealing it. In order to understand the following notes, you MUST HAVE a copy of Tanakh with you (and an online Tanakh will not cut it.) It is preferable that you have the Koren Tanakh (the standard one, in layperson's English) in addition to another kind so that you can compare and contrast the two as indicated. As usual, these are my notes and any and all mistakes are mine. Prepare to have The Adept blow your mind. (And if you learn anything, you really ought to donate something to Bernard Revel Graduate School of Jewish Studies, because they are flipping awesome.)

~

The Order of the Biblical Books

There's a passage in Mesechet Bava Basra where the Talmud details the order of the books of the Torah. Open up to Bava Basra 14b. Now, first they list the order of the books of Tanakh: Bereishis, Shemos, Vayikra, Bamidbar, Devarim. So far so good. But now notice this statement:

ת"ר סדרן של נביאים יהושע ושופטים שמואל ומלכים ירמיה ויחזקאל ישעיה

Now take a look at your Tanakh. What comes after Melachim (The Book of Kings) in your Tanakh?

*insert our minds boggling* Isaiah! Every Tanakh in our class is against halakha. Now I will cite you from the Rambam to Hilchos Sefer Torah 7:15:

טו מותר לדבק תורה נביאים וכתובים בכרך אחד, ומניח בין כל חומש וחומש ארבע שיטין, ובין כל נביא ונביא שלוש שיטין, ובין כל נביא ונביא משנים עשר שלוש שיטין--שאם בא לחתוך, חותך. וסידורן של נביאים, כך הוא--יהושוע, ושופטים, שמואל, ומלכים, ירמיה, ויחזקאל, ישעיה, ותרי עשר; וסדר הכתובים--רות, ותילים, ואיוב, ומשלי, וקוהלת, ושיר השירים, וקינות, ודנייאל, ומגילת אסתר, ועזרא, ודברי הימים.

There's no machlokes in the Gemara: the unanimous opinion is that Jeremiah comes before Isaiah. It's also in every edition of Shulchan Aruch. Look at Yoreh Deiah, RP"G, Chapter 283, Siman Hey (5). (רפג – שיכול לדבק תורה נביאים וכתובים יחד )

סדרן של נביאים יהושע שופטים שמואל מלכים ירמיה יחזקאל ישעיה תרי עשר וסדר הכתובים רות תהלים איוב משלי קהלת שיר השירים קינות דניאל מגילת אסתר עזרא דברי הימים - it's a pesak halakha that says Jeremiah, then Ezekiel, then Isaiah. And in every manuscript of haftoros ____.

The Adept is pointing out something that should trouble us! We have to figure out who preserved the manuscripts, printed Tanakh. etc.

The same beraita in Bava Basra says regarding Kesuvim that the order is: סידרן של כתובים רות וספר תהלים ואיוב ומשלי קהלת שיר השירים וקינות דניאל ומגילת אסתר עזרא ודברי הימים

Now look at Tehillim in your Tanakh. The class sees that at least some of us have Tanakhs which have the order of Tehillim, Mishlei and then Iyov. The Adept notes that only 2 major Tanakhs have a different order. He cites the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, which has everything the way we said it (is based on the Leningrad manuscript.) And if you look at the order of Kesuvim in your Tanakh, what order do you have? Some people in the class (including me) have the Koren Tanakh. Thus, our order is Shir HaShirim, Rus, Eicha, Koheles, Esther but nothing that accords with the order we are supposed to have. Others in the class with fancier Tanakhs have different orders.

So even in terms of ordering the biblical books, there's significant variation. Now let's look at the chapters of the biblical books.

The Chapters of the Biblical Books

Please open your Tanakh to Genesis 31:55 in the Koren Tanakh. You have that verse. Others in the class have that as the first verse of Chapter 32.

Now look at Jeremiah 30:25 in the Koren Tanakh. You have that verse. Others in the class have that verse as Jeremiah 31:1.

Chazal, of course, knew no chapters. The Tanaim and Amoraim knew Tanakh by heart and thus knew where things were. These chapters are not of Jewish origin. They appear in no Hebrew manuscript. These are Christian in origin. There's much more in Tanakh that is Christian in origin, so you have to be careful (regarding what you are reading.)

The Adept gave us a handout, but there weren't enough copies so I don't have it. (This is a shame, as otherwise I could have scanned it. For the record, the edition I assume The Adept was using isn't in Gottesman Preserve (all the other volumes are) but only in the Rare Book Room, and currently that room's locked. Even if I come back before 5:00 PM on Monday, I'm doubtful they'll let me photocopy it. So someone else in my class should please provide me with the scan.) Thanks so much to the wonderful guy who scanned this for me! Courtesy of our anonymous friend, you can all understand what I am referring to now. Here is the handout:
Modah L'Bina Masoretic Summary Bereishis

In any case, this handout is a page from the end of Sefer Bereishis that comes from the Chumash Modah L'Bina in a rare & out-of-print 19th century version. And in the middle of the page on the right it gives you the sikkum pesukei d'sefer Bereishis. And it tells you as follows: There are 1534 verses in Bereishis. Now see how it gives you this statement: אך ל"ד סימן? So the gematriah of אך is 1000 for the aleph plus 500 for the chaf. And ל"ד is 34. So this is a סימן to remember that there are 1534 verses in Bereishis. And the middle point of these pesukim is Genesis 27:40. And there are 12 parshiyos. What do they refer to when they reference parshiyos? They mean: Bereishis, Noach, Lech Lecha, etc. Now it says: זה שמי לעולם is a סימן. You see, זה is the gematriyah of 12 and thus a sign for the 12 parshiyos. Next it states that there are 43 סדרים. What does that mean?

Those of you who have a Koren Tanakh, please open it up. Now, you will notice that there are two sets of chapter numbers in the Koren Tanakh. That's because one of these sets refers to the sedarim of the Baalei HaMesorah and the other refers to the Christian chapter divisions. The number of the sedarim of the Baalei HaMesorah in Sefer Bereishis is 43 (see how there's a מג there?)

(Adds The Adept: And that's why it's a mitzvah to own a Koren Tanakh even though it is far from the best edition.)

Returning to this page from Moda L'Bina: it says here that there are 29 peskitos. What's that? Look at Genesis 1:5. Look at the verse. You see that little vertical line after the words וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים ? What is that line? That's a pesikta.

And then it says (per the Baalei HaMesorah) that there are 50 chapters. And there they are referring to the Christian chapters!

Now look at the bottom of the page. The editor who is publishing this Tanakh is astounded by what he just read. His name, adds The Adept, is Wolf Heidenheim. He published the best Machzor & Siddur and is one of the great Baalei HaMesorah of Frankfort. So he said: "Many people have no idea how to read this paragraph. They don't know what sedarim are because no edition of Tanakh mentions this. Here I'll inform you of what it's all about." (He gives a history of where the chapters came from in the Latin Bible. Basically, Jews had to have public debates with Christians and had to respond to Christians with exact references, thus the use of Christian chapters.) Heidenheim discusses the true chapter divisions, aka the 43 sedarim that belong to the Baalei HaMesorah.

(The Adept went into a fascinating digression here about the mistakes people make when they assume things are from Sinai, but I can't repeat it without publicly shaming a Gadol. I don't think The Adept would like me to do that, so if you want to know about it, you can ask me to email it to you. I'm going to refrain from making the information available forevermore upon the Web.)

In case we are ever on a quiz show and need to know, Jerome helped invent biblical chapters and Stephen Langton perfected them. All of this is discussed in The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible.

The Text of the Biblical Books

Please open to Deuteronomy 23:2. Look at the verse.

ב לֹא-יָבֹא פְצוּעַ-דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה, בִּקְהַל יְהוָה. {ס} 2 He that is crushed or maimed in his privy parts shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD.

If you have the Koren Tanakh, you've got the word 'daka' spelled with a 'hey.' Everybody else has an aleph. The question is: Which one is right? This can make the Torah pasul! These aren't small matters.

Please open up to Mishlei 8:16. Look at the verse.

טז בִּי, שָׂרִים יָשֹׂרוּ; וּנְדִיבִים, כָּל-שֹׁפְטֵי צֶדֶק. 16 By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.

Here, some of you have the verse ending with the word 'tzedek.' But others have the word 'aretz.'

Look at I Samuel 30:30- there's a list of towns there.

ל וְלַאֲשֶׁר {ר} בְּחָרְמָה {ס} וְלַאֲשֶׁר בְּבוֹר-עָשָׁן, {ס} וְלַאֲשֶׁר {ר} בַעֲתָךְ. {ס} 30 and to them that were in Hormah, and to them that were in Bor-ashan, and to them that were in Athach;

If you have the Koren Tanakh, you will see that verse says 'BECHOR Ashan,' while others have 'BeVOR Ashan.'

Here's a fun one. Look at Joshua 21:35-36. Some of you have 'm'mateh Gad' but others have 'm'mateh Reuven.' And if you have the Lublin edition of the Mikraos Gedolos (aka the one with the navy blue cover) you have two whole extra verses there!

The Vocalization of the Biblical Books

Let's look at Jeremiah 11. The differences here are legion. Verse 11:2, for instance, either has v'dibartem or v'dibartam depending on your Tanakh. That's a difference between singular or plural! That's a tremendous difference!

~

So we've raised the issues. But how to resolve them? For that we have the readings on this section which will provide the background material to answer this. The first readings are:

1. C.D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (London, 1897; reissued: New York, 1966), pp. 779-976.

2. M B. Cohen and D.B. Freedman, “The Snaith Bible -- A Critical Examination of the Hebrew Bible Published in 1958 by the Brtitish and Foreign Bible Society,” HUCA 45(1974)97-132.

3. M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, ed., The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Isaiah — (Jerusalem, 1995), English section, pp. xi-xlviii.

4. M. Cohen, “(Hebrew) Mavo LiMahadurat HaKeter” appended to “Mikro'ot Gedolot HaKeter: Yehoshua/Shofetim”, Ramat Gan, 1992, pp. 1-100.

~

Since the advent of printing (which was approximately created in 1415), you would think the text would be frozen and yet you see that is not so! The ultimate goal of the Baalei HaMesorah was to preserve a perfect copy of Tanakh. Printing should have accomplished this goal but it didn't.

The most important reading of the four mentioned above is C.D. Ginsburg's. He was a meshumad and a pretty good scholar. It's worth reading his books. The late R' Yaakov Kamenetsky in his Emes L'Yaakov quotes C.D. Ginsburg. And don't think he didn't know he was a meshumad! R' Kamenetsky, whenever he had a doubt about vocalization, etc, looked at C.D. Ginsburg Bibles.

What Ginsburg properly recalls is that all printed bibles simply reflect the manuscripts. The manuscripts differed from each other (some were poor; others were better) and printers added printers' errors to add to the mess. There were many first printed editions of Tanakh that were based on terrible manuscripts. The great turning point came in 1524/ 1525 when the Venice Edition of the Mikraos Gedolos was published. It has masoretic notes (which are crucial.) There, for the first time, the editors made a deliberate effort to gather together many manuscripts of Tanakh in an attempt to publish the perfect copy. And that's the model for our Tanakh nowadays.

The Baalei Mesorah would write notes saying how many times certain words (like for example ays vs. es or David with a yud vs. without) would appear in Tanakh and the spelling thereof and would list the places for you. So a sofer writing every book of Tanakh will know that they did this for every word of Tanakh!

We are fortunate to be living in the 21st century. For the first time, Jews are becmoing independent, have their own printing houses (don't have to answer to the Russian cencor, etc.) They can try to publish the perfect copy of Tanakh. Of course, that means one must determine which manuscripts are trustworthy and which are not.

(For those of you who are going to say holchim achar ha'rov, the rule is that you ONLY follow the majority when you are not sure. You only do it when you are not certain. It is a last resort! When we do know which manuscripts are better, we want to focus on those. For example, if we had a manuscript authorized by Rambam, that would be much better than the majority. You could have a sofer who copies poorly who floods the market, etc, so majority means nothing.)

Deliberate attempts were made to produce perfect copies of Tanakh. The best editions of Tanakh are:

1. The Hebrew University Bible Project (they're publishing every book of Tanakh per the best manuscripts.) They read every manuscript just to check who is a sloppy scribe/ who are the best scribes (you can tell this by looking to see which manuscripts have correct or incorrect spelling, pesukim repeating or left out, etc.) They have columns giving every variant reading in Chazal, then every variant reading per the good manuscripts, etc. The one drawback is that they are functioning for about 60 years and yet they've only finished Isaiah, Jeremiah & Ezekiel. At this rate they will not be finished until the Messiah comes.

2. Bar-Ilan's הכתר which publishes a wonderful text of Tanakh, the masoretic text, and some of the mefarshim as well. (Menachem Cohen is in charge of this and they've put out about 15 volumes.)

The only thing that rivals these texts are actual copies of the Aleppo Codex or Leningrad Codex. (No other Tanakh, including Breuers, is based on one single text.)

Ibn Ezra & Biblical Criticism: The Secret of the Twelve

This is my understanding of the lecture given by The Adept on the subject of Ibn Ezra to Devarim 1:2. Any and all mistakes are mine. The Adept is a brilliant man and if I fail to convey that, it's due to my inability to express his knowledge as opposed to his lack of it. Also, you have to learn this post, not just read it. You're not going to understand it unless you print off the sources and learn them.

UPDATE: A blog reader named Dan created a definitive source packet linking most of the text of this post and all of its PDFs together into one PDF. You can download that here. Thanks, Dan.

~

One lovely night, The Adept informed us that our homework would be to learn the Ibn Ezra to Deuteronomy 1:1 on divrei hamatchil "Beyond the Jordan," or בְּעֵבֶר, הַיַּרְדֵּן. Imagine our confusion and surprise upon realizing there was no such Ibn Ezra.





Confused, we saw the term referenced in Deuteronomy 1:2 and learned that one instead as our preparation for the lecture. (For those of you reading this post, you will have to learn it, too, in order for any of this to make sense.) Was it possible that The Adept had simply gotten confused and assigned us the wrong homework? I thought so. But when he came to class he asked us, "Now, since there is no dibur hamatchil on 'Beyond the Jordan,' why did I assign it to you as such?" Nobody had the answer. "Ah," he said, "none of you read Spinoza!" Opening up the Theological-Political Treatise, he read us the following excerpts:
Theological Political Treatise (Spinoza)

Spinoza was under the misimpression that the point Ibn Ezra was troubled by was that 'ever ha'yarden' meant 'east of the Yarden.' The difficulty was that Moshe never went west and only somebody on the west side would call it 'east of the Jordan!' Thus, he would suggest, this passage cannot have been written by Moshe, and that would be the beginning of biblical criticism. However, Ibn Ezra intended no such thing. The word 'ha'taam' in Ibn Ezra means 'the sense is.' The idea here is that these words were said in 11 days. That's when the mitzvos were given over, etc. And that's what it means when it says 'be'er es ha'torah ha'zos'- it is referencing the fact that Moshe began reteaching the laws here. That's the meaning of k'chol asher tziva aleihem- he retaught them words they had heard before. Ever HaYarden simply refers to the place where Moshe did this and taught them. In fact, Shadal, who we will come to later, cites the Sephardic scholar Motot who had this opinion and says it could be that Spinoza learned from him, quote Spinoza and shows how he did not learn this Ibn Ezra correctly.

Now that we have ascertained that the words Ever HaYarden are not what trouble Ibn Ezra here, what triggered the following comment in Ibn Ezra, namely: "And if you want to understand the sod, it's in these 12 verses?" Well, perhaps we may understand these last 12 verses as referring to the last 12 verses of the Torah; those would not have been written by Moshe.

Let's look at the verses cited in this Ibn Ezra as those alongside which the last 12 verses of the Torah "reveal a sod, a secret." According to the Toras Chaim edition put out by Mosad HaRav Kook, the first verse is from Deuteronomy 31:22.

כב וַיִּכְתֹּב מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הַשִּׁירָה הַזֹּאת, בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא; וַיְלַמְּדָהּ, אֶת-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. 22 So Moses wrote this song the same day, and taught it the children of Israel.

"Well, what's wrong with that verse?" The Adept questioned us and we struggled to answer him. He finds the Toras Chaim edition to be a 'shake well before using' type; he thinks it's better to get the Mosad HaRav Kook editions with the supercommentaries that lumping everything together and removing the commentaries.

"Perhaps it's that he couldn't have taught the whole Torah to them when it wasn't all finished and written down yet?" one student questioned hopefully.

"Who says it's the whole Torah? Look at the plain sense of the verse," The Adept guided us. "It seems perfectly fine to say that Moshe taught all of them a song. Therefore, if I had to guess, the verse being cited in vayichtov Moshe is actually referring to Deuteronomy 31:9."

Aside from the 12 verses at the end of Deuteronomy and this verse regarding the length of the Hebrews' travels we have other-

Seemingly Later Additions to the Moses-Written Text

1. ט וַיִּכְתֹּב מֹשֶׁה, אֶת-הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת, וַיִּתְּנָהּ אֶל-הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי לֵוִי, הַנֹּשְׂאִים אֶת-אֲרוֹן בְּרִית יְהוָה; וְאֶל-כָּל-זִקְנֵי, יִשְׂרָאֵל. 9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, that bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and unto all the elders of Israel. (Deuteronomy 31:9)

This verse poses a question/problem. Moses wrote 13 copies of the Torah, one for each tribe, one deposited; how could that verse have been written until after the Torah was fully complete and given? It seems like a later addition to the text.

2. ו וַיַּעֲבֹר אַבְרָם, בָּאָרֶץ, עַד מְקוֹם שְׁכֶם, עַד אֵלוֹן מוֹרֶה; וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי, אָז בָּאָרֶץ. 6 And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Shechem, unto the terebinth of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land. (Genesis 12:6)

It sounds like whoever wrote the words "and the Canaanite was then in the land" was suggesting they are not now in the land. (For example, now Bnei Yisrael are in the land.) So the problematic word is az. Ibn Ezra on Genesis 12:6 states: Of course Canaan is there; who else would it be? The idea is that already they were there. But if that's not the answer, then there is a sod.

3. יד וַיִּקְרָא אַבְרָהָם שֵׁם-הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא, יְהוָה יִרְאֶה, אֲשֶׁר יֵאָמֵר הַיּוֹם, בְּהַר יְהוָה יֵרָאֶה. 14 And Abraham called the name of that place Adonai-jireh; as it is said to this day: 'In the mount where the LORD is seen.' (Genesis 22: 14)

This statement ( בְּהַר יְהוָה יֵרָאֶה) seems like a common saying. However, it would not have been common at that time. It wasn't yet called har Hashem in those days so how can there be a saying that people say of har Hashem? Ergo there are those that say this is from a later period.

4. יא כִּי רַק-עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן, נִשְׁאַר מִיֶּתֶר הָרְפָאִים--הִנֵּה עַרְשׂוֹ עֶרֶשׂ בַּרְזֶל, הֲלֹה הִוא בְּרַבַּת בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן: תֵּשַׁע אַמּוֹת אָרְכָּהּ, וְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת רָחְבָּהּ--בְּאַמַּת-אִישׁ. 11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the Rephaim; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbah of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.-- (Deuteronomy 3: 11)

Everyone knew the height of Og in that day, so why would they have to provide it? They had just defeated him! This sounds like a reference for doubters later on. But this had just happened! So it sounds like whoever wrote this wrote it later on.

FIVE SHITOS/ APPROACHES TO THIS IBN EZRA

There are many people who comment on this Ibn Ezra. I (The Adept) am going to provide someone to speak for each category/ approach, with the understanding that there are many more people who agree with each person in each category.

1. Sefer Tzafnat Paneach (and all those who agree with him.) He was a Rishon who lived in the 14th century by the name of R' Yosef Tov Elam. He states as follows: Tzafnas Paneach on Ibn Ezra

The plain sense of these verses suggests a 3rd party wrote them (not Moshe.) The secret is that these are editorial glosses added by others later. However, that other is definitely a Navi, prophet. These glosses could not be part of the Torah unless they were revealed by God. Thus, an authorized later hand made these changes.

2. R' Yehuda the Chasid- author of the Sefer Chasidim. He has a comment on וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי, אָז בָּאָרֶץ and notes that later in the same parsha it states that the Canaanites and the Perizim were in the land. He compares Genesis 12:6 to Genesis 13:7 and he notes in 13:7 the word yoshev appears.

ז וַיְהִי-רִיב, בֵּין רֹעֵי מִקְנֵה-אַבְרָם, וּבֵין, רֹעֵי מִקְנֵה-לוֹט; וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי, וְהַפְּרִזִּי, אָז, יֹשֵׁב בָּאָרֶץ.
7 And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram's cattle and the herdmen of Lot's cattle. And the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelt then in the land.

R' Yehuda the Chasid here states that Ibn Ezra figures out a sod. This peirush was written by the son of R' Yehuda. The son writes, "My father explained the sod! No nation could settle in the land unless the angel on high in charge of that land settles there first. And by the time we see Genesis 13:7 they're already residing there." So he is suggesting that every time there is a sod in one of these verses, each one has a unique exegetical secret.

There's a Rishon who wrote a book entitled Peirush HaSodos Shel Ibn Ezra. Click here for the book. This Rishon is R' Yosef Ibn Kaspi. See page 4 of the download I gave you for his comment to וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי, אָז בָּאָרֶץ. He explains that this means that every nation can occupy the land only with God's permission. The Canaanites were there and did not have God's permission to be there yet. So again you see this is a whole sefer on every sod in Ibn Ezra with every sod having a different solution. Two totally different people both concur with this approach.

3. Mechokekei Yehudah is a five-volume commentary on Ibn Ezra by R' Yehuda Leib Krinsky (1928) of Minsk. He states that what these passages have in common is that it looks like someone else wrote them but in fact Moshe wrote them through nevuah. These are projections by Moshe.

Now The Adept chose to digress to show how careful one has to be when reading Sefarim.

This is what the Mechokekei Yehudah states:

So he states: "There are heretics out there who read into the Ibn Ezra heresy (namely, saying that these verses are later additions to the Torah.) They wanted to trap Ibn Ezra to fall into the same trap they fell into (he's referring to bible critics and maskilim of the 19th century.) Therefore I will cite a passage from Shadal who proves otherwise. Here's the passage: 'These verses here are among those some say are not authored by Moshe but several generations later were added...and you have to ask if they were added, for what purpose? Like why add a gloss saying it took 11 days to get from Har Seir to Kadesh Barnea? Now that writings of Spinoza are widespread, even Hebrew biographies of him, that is why even Jews read his writings; therefore we must inform them of the sheker that Spinoza writes.'" So according to the Mechokekei Yehuda, even Shadal the Maskil says that Spinoza lies!

But it's a misquote.

Here's what Shadal really said: Shadal on Ibn Ezra

In truth, Shadal agrees with Approach 1! "It's true that Ibn Ezra alluded to the fact that some verses were not written by Moshe." He disagrees with Spinoza in that Spinoza drew the conclusion that the whole Torah was not written by Moshe. Shadal states that's definitely not what Ibn Ezra was saying; what he was saying is that certain glosses were not written by others. But the Mechokekei Yehuda made Shadal out to say and misquoted him to say that there's no way that anything in the Torah was not written by Moshe. The Mechokekei Yehuda left out a very important line. He skipped out the line where Shadal writes: כי יש בתורה קצת מקראות נוספים אחרי מות משה. The Mechokekei Yehuda deliberately skewed the quote!

Not just that but you see that other scholars were not careful to check up on this. For instance, the מפרשי המקרא by Ezra Tzion Melamed has a whole section on the Ibn Ezra in Volume 2 where he addresses this passage. He says to look at the Mechokekei Yehuda who proved from Shadal that Ibn Ezra would never have imagined that these words were written by another.


And if you look at R' Menachem Kasher's Torah Sheleima (which by the way is a tremendous work, The Adept adds), Volume 19, page 378, you will see that he has a long dissertation on this passage of Ibn Ezra. He states that Ibn Ezra means to say that these verses are projections and/or nevuah by Moshe. And he writes kein pirash Shadal and says to look at the Karnei Ohr who quotes him. See here:

Torah Sheleima (Menachem Kasher) on Ibn Ezra

So you see he did not check it up either.

So now you know that whenever you see something cited, you must go look up the original source. There can be misquotes, censorship or something else- you have to do the research!

4. עזרה להבין is a commentary on Ibn Ezra by R' Yitshak Meler (lived in the 19th century, published in 1897). In his introductoin to Ibn Ezra he says this statement in Deuteronomy comes from a talmid to'eh- a student that erred. (Chana: Really he is agreeing with approach 1 but find it heretical and therefore determines it cannot have been written by Ibn Ezra.)

Ezra L'Havin on Ibn Ezra (Talmud Toeh in Hakdama)

5. There was a scholar in England named M. Friedlaender who wrote Essays on the Writings of Abraham Ibn Ezra (four-volume work.) He says as follows:

M. der on Ibn Ezra

Basically, that what all these passages have in common is that they are all trivia. Who cares? Why does the Torah have to tell us this? These are trivia and that is the problem Ibn Ezra has- there may be some secret but who knows?

All right, so now that we know the five different approaches one may take to understand this Ibn Ezra, let's raise questions on them- in reverse order.

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FIVE APPROACHES TO THIS IBN EZRA

5. Regarding Friedlaender's approach: the statement that what all these verses have in common is that they are trivia does not work for the last 12 verses of the Torah. Those verses tell you about the death of Moshe! That's why Friedlaender is forced to say that "the secret of the twelve" has nothing to do with the last twelve verses of the Torah. He says it is referring to the 12 nesiim when each one brought the same exact korban. But even if he reads it that way, the fact that Moses wrote 13 copies of the Torah is hardly trivia. And if Ibn Ezra were truly connecting these verses because they are trivia, this is too short a list! One would think there are many other verses in the Torah one could link under trivia. So this is not a convincing approach.

4. The talmid to'eh approach- if this is indeed true, the mistake should appear in one or two manuscripts of Ibn Ezra, but this appears in all of them. Also, R' Yehuda HaChasid, who is Ibn Ezra's contemporary, cites this passage (and he certainly does not seem to think it is a talmid to'eh who wrote it.) There is also a great Rishon, kabbalist and teacher of Ramban named R' Ezra. We have a letter that he wrote. See הנוספות למנחת שי:

HaNosfos L'Minchas Shai Letter of Rabbi Ezra

So as you can see he wrote: "The entire Torah is revealed by God; there is nothing superfluous. No difference between what you might think of as trivia and the Ten Commandments. If you leave out one letter of the Torah it is like you left out worlds or the name of God. Don't listen to anyone who tells you that Ezra (the Sofer) added something to the Torah like 'v'haCanaani az b'aretz' or by Og."

So he's saying there are people walking around making this claim- but don't believe it! So you see he does not resort to the talmid to'eh idea. R' Bachya also argues with Ibn Ezra but does not resort to the talmid to'eh idea.

3. When it comes to the idea of this having been written via projections/ prophecy of Moshe, look at Genesis 14:14 regarding 'vayirdof ad dan' and see what Ibn Ezra says there. He writes that this might have been stated derech nevuah or there were two different names of the place. So the problem with claiming the sod here is that these pesukim were written via nevuah is that it is Ibn Ezra's custom to stay that explicitly. See Ibn Ezra to Deuteronomy 11:30- he states explicitly that this was derech nevuah. It seems like regarding these specific pesukim Ibn Ezra is making a distinction. It would be a much longer list of verses if he were stating all of those that he thinks were given over b'derech nevuah.

2. The approach where each pasuk has a secret of its own: if so, why did Ibn Ezra cite these 5 pesukim together? He clearly linked them for a reason. Also, this would be much too short a list because Ibn Ezra has hundreds of sodos. It seems clear he cited these particular pesukim for a reason; they linked together in some way.

So we are down to approach 1, namely that what all these verses have in common is that they were written later and this has to be explained. In the 18th century a whole series of Geonei Yisrael started arguing regarding this Ibn Ezra. The Chida alludes to this controversy. It is discussed in a book by Naftali ben Menachem in Inyanei Ibn Ezra. He quotes a gadol defending approach 1. By believing this approach one is not being mevazeh devar Hashem. One still believes it is devar Hashem! That is Ibn Ezra's stance. His approach was that as long as a verse was said by a Navi with permission later/ written in by an authorized hand, that was fine.

Approach 3 (the Mechokekei Yehuda, etc) regarding Moshe saying these verses were written via nevuah has been canonized. But Approach 1 makes the most sense to us. The Tzafnas Paneach has a most extensive defense of Ibn Ezra on this matter in pages 91-93 on Genesis:

Defense of Ibn Ezra by the Tzafnas Paneach

Huzzah.

Labels: Ibn Ezra, The Adept, Revel, הנוספות למנחת שי, עזרה להבין, תורה שלמה, מפרשי המקרא, ספר צפנת פענח, פירוש שד"ל על חמישה חומשי תורה, תורה מחוקקי יהודה

A Brief Introduction To Biblical Criticism & Orthodox Thought

Disclaimer: This is a brief introduction to biblical criticism & Orthodox thought as taught by The Adept. This is not for everyone. I cannot be more clear. If you have never heard the words 'biblical criticism' before, this is probably not for you. If this is not something that troubles you, don't read this. This is only for those who find themselves on winding paths they must travel. Be very careful before choosing to read. Of course, per usual, any and all mistakes are mine.

~
Books for the Interested Student To Read:

1. The Old Testament in Modern Research by Herbert F. Hahn (this will take you up to the 20th century- get the 2nd Edition)
2. The Hebrew Bible Today: Introduction to Critical Issues
3. The Hebrew Bible and its Modern Interpreters
4. Sources of the Pentateuch

He also suggested that I read Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah.

A Brief Introduction to Biblical Criticism

In the original literature dealing with the Bible, there was no doubt as to the Mosaic authorship of the Torah. The contention that was raised was that Moshe wrote the Torah of his own volition.

Late Antiquity: First doubts regarding the Mosaic authorship of the Torah appear in late antiquity. See Ibn Ezra to Deuteronomy 1:2 and commentaries to him. He speaks of a 'secret'- the intention is that some passages of the Torah may not have been written by Moses. However, no matter who writes them, Ibn Ezra states that it would have been done via divine inspiration. Various Rishonim already raise some doubts about verses in the Torah.

17th Century: This is when modern bible criticism begins. The two big names are a) Thomas Hobbes and b) Benedict Spinoza. Thomas Hobbes pens Leviathan while Spinoza writes his Theological-Political Treatise.

SPINOZA

* Claimed Ibn Ezra denied Mosaic authorship (which Ibn Ezra most certainly did not)

* Moses is spoken about in 3rd person. If he wrote the Torah, he ought to have written 'vayedaber Hashem eilai' rather than "l'Moshe."

* Is troubled by Numbers 12:3

ג וְהָאִישׁ מֹשֶׁה, עָנָו מְאֹד--מִכֹּל, הָאָדָם, אֲשֶׁר, עַל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה. {ס}
3 Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men that were upon the face of the earth.--

Could a humble man really write that about himself?

* Is troubled by Genesis 14:14-

יד וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָם, כִּי נִשְׁבָּה אָחִיו; וַיָּרֶק אֶת-חֲנִיכָיו יְלִידֵי בֵיתוֹ, שְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת, וַיִּרְדֹּף, עַד-דָּן. 14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued as far as Dan.

Compare with Judges 18:29

כט וַיִּקְרְאוּ שֵׁם-הָעִיר, דָּן, בְּשֵׁם דָּן אֲבִיהֶם, אֲשֶׁר יוּלַּד לְיִשְׂרָאֵל; וְאוּלָם לַיִשׁ שֵׁם-הָעִיר, לָרִאשֹׁנָה. 29 And they called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father, who was born unto Israel; howbeit the name of the city was Laish at the first.

This suggests that the verse regarding the fact that Abraham pursued as far as Dan was added to the text after the time of Judges.

Now, while Hobbes, Spinoza and those that followed cast doubt on Mosaic authorship, they had no idea who did write the Bible. Spinoza suggested Ezra.

JEAN ASTRUC

The groundwork for the literary approach to the Bible was laid by Jean Astruc, a Roman Catholic, who wrote a defense of the Torah (specifically of Genesis) in 1873. He noticed that the Shem Havayah (יְהוָה) and Elohim were both used and concluded that Moses drew material from two different documents, J and E. J stands for Jehovah (the Shem Havayah) whereas E stands for Elohim. Moses then fused these documents into one.

Astruct was thus defending Mosaic authorship of the Torah but introduced the Documentary Hypothesis as a defense thereof.

What's an example of how stating that there are two documents- J and E- solves problems? Well, let's compare Genesis 26:34 and Genesis 36:2. Here's Genesis 26:34:

לד וַיְהִי עֵשָׂו, בֶּן-אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה, וַיִּקַּח אִשָּׁה אֶת-יְהוּדִית, בַּת-בְּאֵרִי הַחִתִּי--וְאֶת-בָּשְׂמַת, בַּת-אֵילֹן הַחִתִּי. 34 And when Esau was forty years old, he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite.

Here's Genesis 36:2-3:

ב עֵשָׂו לָקַח אֶת-נָשָׁיו, מִבְּנוֹת כְּנָעַן: אֶת-עָדָה, בַּת-אֵילוֹן הַחִתִּי, וְאֶת-אָהֳלִיבָמָה בַּת-עֲנָה, בַּת-צִבְעוֹן הַחִוִּי. 2 Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Oholibamah the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite,
ג וְאֶת-בָּשְׂמַת בַּת-יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אֲחוֹת נְבָיוֹת. 3 and Basemath Ishmael's daughter, sister of Nebaioth.

These are not the same wives. These kinds of contradictions are solved by stating that one document is J and another is E.

That was Astruc in the 18th century. This was picked up by later writers as proof of different documents/ writers. The idea became that there were four documents in the Torah: J, E, P and D. They looked at Leviticus and Numbers and said, "Hmm, these look quite different from Genesis and Exodus." Leviticus is a priestly code. They examined Deuteronomy and determined that it seemed entirely different. By the beginning of the 19th century, all subscribe to the Documentary Hypothesis. The problem was that they could not date the documents.

JULIUS WELLHAUSEN

Wellhausen lived in the 19th century; he died in 1918. He is the man who dated the documents. He was a Protestant professor of Bible and the first person to attempt to write a history of the biblical period based on J,E,P and D. After dating the documents, he would then be able to say what Israelite practice had been like in different centuries. He wrote the Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Prolegomena to History of Ancient Israel) in 1878.

What Wellhausen said was that he could only date one document perfectly: Deuteronomy. Then he could look at the others and ask, "Are these pre or post-Deuteronomy?"

Wellhausen determined that Deuteronomy was written in 621 BC. This is based on 2 Kings 22. In this book of Kings, a Sefer Torah is discovered in the Temple:

ח וַיֹּאמֶר חִלְקִיָּהוּ הַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל, עַל-שָׁפָן הַסֹּפֵר, סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה מָצָאתִי, בְּבֵית יְהוָה; וַיִּתֵּן חִלְקִיָּה אֶת-הַסֵּפֶר אֶל-שָׁפָן, וַיִּקְרָאֵהוּ. 8 And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe: 'I have found the book of the Law in the house of the LORD.' And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan, and he read it.

It seems like King Josiah institutes new halakhic practices based on finding this book. Upon looking to see what he did, Wellhausen determined that the book found was Deuteronomy. He postulated further that the scroll was planted in the Temple deliberately; it was a "pious fraud" planted in 621 BC so that it would be the new Jewish constitution.

Once Wellhausen had determined Deuteronomy was written in 621 BC, he then examined P, J and E and concluded J and E were older than Deuteronomy. P is post-Deuteronomy. Editors of P edited all four sources and that is what became the Torah of Moses in the 5th Century BCE. He says Ezra and Nehemiah are the people.

Wellhausen taught that "the law came in between." Judaism begins with the prophets. First came prophecy and afterwards came the Law for the Torah of Moses, that constricting, binding law. As a result of the prophets and law came Judaism which was not liberated till the 1st century when Christianity came. Wellhausen was a Christian theologian who desired to hail the success of Christinaity- the worst part of Judaism was the Torah, that binding, constricting Law, [and when Christianity came, it was no longer a concern.] So this is the key innovation of Wellhausen- that the "Law came in between." Judaism begins with Prophets, then follows with the Torah. Wellhausen then wrote a history based on thse assumptions of modern bible criticism. This became the backbone of modern bible scholarship.

Concomitant with the spread of modern bible criticism was the rise of skepticism regarding the Torah and Genesis especially. After all, if you are following Wellhausen's approach, the Torah comes after the Prophets and was constructed in the 5th century BC, presumably canonized in the time of Nehemiah. So you cannot reconstruct the history of Israel by looking at the imaginary constructs of Abraham and other figures in Genesis. And the laws and mores written in these texts are really 5th century laws and mores.

At this juncture it is appropriate to stress that Wellhausen's hypothesis remains a hypothesis. No archeologist has discovered J, E, P and perhaps you shall learn they have not discovered D, either.

There has been much wrestling with Wellhausen's hypothesis. Those who accept bible criticism are skeptical of aspects of it: dating of the documents, order of the documents, questioning whether indeed the scroll in 2nd Kings is really Deuteronomy and thus can be dated to 621 BC. Wellhausen posited that book was forged as well, a plant. Now, it is not at all clear that the book discovered by King Josiah was indeed Devarim. The way Wellhausen figured it out was to look at what King Josiah did in response to what he read in the scroll; he figured those laws came from Sefer Devarim. However, you will see that King Josiah also abolished Molech worship. See 2 Kings 23:10:

י וְטִמֵּא אֶת-הַתֹּפֶת, אֲשֶׁר בְּגֵי בני- (בֶן-) הִנֹּם: לְבִלְתִּי, לְהַעֲבִיר אִישׁ אֶת-בְּנוֹ וְאֶת-בִּתּוֹ בָּאֵשׁ--לַמֹּלֶךְ. 10 And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech.

Nowhere in Deuteronomy is Molech mentioned. So that does not support Wellhausen's contention at all. And we're certainly not sure that this sefer discovered by King Josiah was a "pious fraud"- we're not sure at all.

Modifications of the Documentary Hypothesis in Recent Times:

1) Wellhausen was an intellectual influenced by 19th century intellectual history. Thus, Hegel, Darwinian concepts of straight-line evolution (primitive to complex state.) Since the book of Leviticus is very detailed Wellhausen saw it as late. Modern scholars no longer subscribe to this rigid view of straight-line evolution. We have anthropological evidence for complex things appearing early.

2) Cultic act appears in early stages of most cultures- anthropology and archeology support this. (You will find bones and understand what was consumed in that society; if found by an altar, then these are the bones of sacrifices.) This appears before writing was invented. [I'm not sure what The Adept meant to prove by this contention but I assume he meant to say it undermines the idea of 'the Law came in between' since cultic would appear before the moral.]

3) Long periods of oral traditions being passed on preced written texts. The written text and the content of the text don't necessarily originate at the same time. If you look at the Anchor Bible you will see the book of Genesis dated to 2nd Millenium BC and describing life in those times as opposed to 5th century BC- and this is being written by someone who believes in the Documentary Hypothesis.

4) Archeological Discovery: When Wellhausen wrote, no one had ever heard of Hammurabi. Many scholars denied the antiquity of the Torah because they claimed no writing had been invented and thus Moshe would have been illiterate. (This is no different than the argument that psalms were Maccabean psalms until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found and they are clearly pre-Maccabean. Thus there are no Maccabean psalms.) We also found Law Codes from the 3rd Millenium BC in writing, thus the illiterate argument does not stand.

Recent Developments in Last 1/4 of the Century

Bible scholars now fall into one of two schools:

1. Maximalists
2. Minimalists

Both cases move beyond Wellhausen.

Minimalists: They are generally skeptics. Their attitude is, "I will not move one iota beyond the evidence." Modern historians tend to take seriously only contemporary evidence. If asked why they believe George Washington lived, they will say we have documents, pictures, newspapers that we can radiocarbon date and that's why we believe he lived. You can't go beyond the evidence- so there is no archeological evidence that King Solomon ever lived so they will say there is no King Solomon. They said there was no King David either until recently! You will find minimalists especially in Israel.

Maximalists: Students of Albright, Speiser, more open to the idea of long process, oral history, questionable dating of the documents, etc.

Now, all this is extra-evidence (material outside of the bible.) What has been going on in our time is a reevaluation of the material as opposed to rejection. There are some who reject the Documentary Hypothesis but they tend to be thought of as mavericks. In the schools of higher learning in the USA, England, etc the Documentary Hypothesis will be taught. This is the accepted thought in Yale, Princeton, Harvard, etc.

Now let's looks at the Internal Bible Evidence.

Internal Bible Evidence: Roshei Perakim as explained by The Adept

If the Torah was a pious fraud perpetrated in 621 BC or even later, as only Deuteronomy is dated 621 BC whereas the rest, i.e. J,E and P could be written later, it's absolutely astounding to me what's missing in the Torah. Look at Deuteronomy 17. Remember, Wellhausen says this was planted in 621 BC! So look at this verse in Deuteronomy 17:14:

יד כִּי-תָבֹא אֶל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ, וִירִשְׁתָּהּ, וְיָשַׁבְתָּה בָּהּ; וְאָמַרְתָּ, אָשִׂימָה עָלַי מֶלֶךְ, כְּכָל-הַגּוֹיִם, אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹתָי. 14 When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein; and shalt say: 'I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me';

טו שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ, אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בּוֹ: מִקֶּרֶב אַחֶיךָ, תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ--לֹא תוּכַל לָתֵת עָלֶיךָ אִישׁ נָכְרִי, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-אָחִיךָ הוּא. 15 thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose; one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, who is not thy brother.

So it states that you cannot appoint an ish nachri. By 621 BC, after all the Kings of Judah and Israel, why do you need to tell me not a nachri? That seems totally illogical. Also, this scroll is planted for Josiah supposedly- so then why not write anything about the Davidic line? Also, from these verses the idea of a split kingdom is totally unknown.

Now, ordinarily we don't argue from silence- but here we have all the prophets speaking and they theoretically came first- "the Law came in between"- so why not mention these things?

Now let's talk about the Primacy of Morals over Cult.

There are many different categorizations of laws that we could make. We could categorize them as Lo Ta'aseh and Asei, as Chovos HaLevavos mentions, laws that involve mind vs. body but the categorization I will choose right now is Bein Adam L'Chavero vs. Bein Adam L'Makom.

In modern scholarship there are cultic laws and moral laws. Shaking a lulav is a cultic law. When it comes to the Ten Commandments, Anochi Hashem, Avodah Zara, keeping Shabbat are all cultic laws. Moral laws would be not killing, not stealing, etc. Now, interestingly, in the Ten Commandments, no distinction is made between morals and cult. There is nothing that says be more careful regarding the first five laws than the second set of five laws. Nowhere in the Torah does it say that one is more important than the other.

Now look at Isaiah 1:10 - Sedom and Gemorah in this context is referring to Bnei Yisrael. Isaiah is telling the Jews to listen to the Torah- God doesn't want your sacrifices and doesn't like your holidays or prayer! It's a clear message that the cult doesn't work automatically; you can't just bring sacrifices and expect it to work. The neviim are the ones who teach Teshuva. Ultimately, God is really concerned with His morals. Bnei Yisrael were careful about cult, never missed a sacrifice, but it's the morals that are the issue here.

Now look at the contrast! In the book of Judges, Shoftim, it is cultic sin, serving avodah zara, that brings national disaster. But in Neviim Rishonim it is overcharging, not caring for the poor, not caring for the widow that brings national disaster. God wants morals- the nitty-gritty of everyday such as using proper weights, etc. It is in Neviim where morals assume incredible significance but no weight is slanted toward that in the Torah.

What's missing in the Torah that was supposedly put together by J,E,P and D? The word 'Teshuva!' It never appears.

The fact that they don't utilize these themes of moral vs. cultic supremacy that are found in Neviim show that the Torah precedes the Navi, not vice versa.

And let's focus on inconsistencies. Look at Leviticus 18:18. This bans marrying two sisters yet at the same time the Redactor who supposedly edited J,E,P and D stated that Jacob (who for Wellhausen is a literary invention) marries two sisters! Now, if Sefer Bereishis preserves an ancient tradition, then there is no problem with that. But if I am creating an invention in the 5th or 6th century, why create a hero who violates the laws of history?

Or look at Deuteronomy 16:22:

כב וְלֹא-תָקִים לְךָ, מַצֵּבָה, אֲשֶׁר שָׂנֵא, יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ. {ס} 22 Neither shalt thou set thee up a pillar, which the LORD thy God hateth. {S}

And yet look at Genesis 28:18, 35:14 where Jacob sets up a matzeiva (pillar). You know what is interesting? No one after Deuteronomy (throughout Neviim, etc) sets up a matzeiva. Thus we see that Genesis is not written after Deuteronomy; Genesis must, in fact, pre-date Deuteronomy.

A student at the lecture questioned: And how do those who believe in the Documentary Hypothesis answer this (internal bible evidence)?

The Adept replied: Generally, they ignore this as opposed to addressing it. But it is certainly a matter that needs to be addressed.