Monday, April 6, 2026

Vayikra (Leviticus) 10:8-11 – Why did G-d tell Aharon not to drink wine after the deaths of Nadav and Avihu?

Vayikra (Leviticus) 10:1,2 records that Nadav and Avihu died in the ceremony of the eighth day. Afterwards, Moshe gave various instructions to Aharon, Nadav and Avihu’s father, Elazar and Itamar, Nadav and Avihu’s surviving brothers, and Mishael and Eltzafan, cousins of Nadav and Avihu, 10:3-7. Afterwards, 10:8,9 records that G–d told Aharon not to drink wine when they would enter the ohel moed, which I think refers to both the courtyard of the mishkan and the mishkan, see our discussion on 1:1, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra.” 

Afterwards 10:10,11 explain why Aharon and his sons cannot drink wine since they need to be able to separate from what is considered kadosh or not, what is considered tamei or tahor, and they need to teach the people the laws. Presumably the idea is that when a person drinks, then this clouds their judgement. Note the Torah did not say not to get drunk, but simply not to drink. (This law while technically not applicable to contemporary Jewish practices, still raises questions how a person can marry, mekadesh the Shabbat, and say havdalah when drinking wine?)

These four verses, 10:8-11, mark the first time in the Torah that G-d spoke only to Aharon concerning laws. (The only other prior time that G-d spoke only to Aharon was in Shemot 4:27, when G-d told Aharon to meet Moshe.) Why at this time after his sons just died, did Aharon have to know that he and his two living sons could not drink wine in the ohel moed? Was Aharon, a grieving father, really able to focus on what G-d was telling him?

In addition, after this conversation between G-d and Aharon, Moshe gave further instructions to Aharon, Elazar and Itamar, 10:12-18. Why did G-d speak to Aharon in the midst of Moshe’s instructions to his family?

Various answers have been suggested to suggest why the verses 10:8-11 are recorded in the midst of the tragedy of the deaths of Nadav and Avihu.

Rashi (on 10:2) quotes R. Yishmael that Nadav and Avihu violated this law of not drinking wine, which might have caused them to sin (see Ramban on 10:9), and this is why the law was recorded immediately after they died. This could be, but it is very unlikely. Firstly, one wonders how much wine the people had in the desert? Secondly, 8:35,36 records how in the previous seven days, Nadav and Avihu had undergone a seven-day initiation process where they had to be in or near the ohel moed, which suggests that they would not have access to wine during this process.

A second approach is that the Bekhor Shor (on 10:9) and Hoffmann (1953, on 10:8) write that it was then the practice of mourners to drink wine, and hence the law was needed to tell Aharon that even though he was devastated by the loss of his sons, he should not drink wine. This could have been the practice of mourners, but again, did the people have wine in the desert? Also, still why were the instructions about not drinking wine in the middle of Moshe’s instructions to the survivors? The instructions could not have waited until after all of Moshe’s instructions at the end of chapter 10?

Ramban (on 10:9) suggests a conceptual connection between the law of not drinking wine and Nadav and Avihu’s sin. Nadav and Avihu sinned because they thought erroneously, for whatever reason, how to worship G-d, and so too wine is prohibited since it leads one to think speciously. One could add to this idea that 10:8 records that drinking wine can lead to a lack of separation between kodesh and the profane, and this is similar to Nadav and Avihu’s sin that their fire, which was co-existent with G-d’s fire, reduced the separation between G-d and mankind, see our discussion on 10:1,2, "Nadav and Avihu." Again, this could be true, but why in the day of the great tragedy of the deaths of Nadav and Avihu did G-d have to tell Aharon about not drinking wine? The instructions could not have waited for another day?

A different idea is that these verses are an example where the Torah, acting like a narrator, inserts information into the narrative that initially seems out of place, but that this information can give a greater understanding of the ensuing narrative. I believe these narrative inserts occur at least 14 times in the Torah.  Some examples are Bereshit 2:25; 3:1; 11:30; 18:11, 25:27,28, 27:1, 29:16,17, 31:19; 39:6; 48:10; Shemot 9:31,32; Bemidbar 12:3 and 13:20, and Devarim 3:29. In this case, the Torah wants to add information to the very important ensuing argument between Moshe and Aharon concerning whether the hatta’t sacrifice should have been eaten or burnt, and the argument was related to the deaths of Nadav and Avihu. The prelude to this argument is recorded in 10:12-15 and the argument itself is recorded in 10:16-20. For a discussion of the significance of this argument, see our discussion on 10:16-20, “Moshe and Aharon’s argument after the death of Aharon’s sons: An argument for the sake of heaven.”

How do G-d’s instructions to Aharon not to drink wine enhance one’s understanding of the argument between Moshe and Aharon? It does this in two ways.

One, a person reading this story might wonder who was Aharon to argue with Moshe, even if Aharon was Moshe’s older brother? Moshe had been on Mount Sinai forty days with G-d, two or three times, and had come as close to G-d as any human being, Shemot 34:5,6. The answer from 10:8-11 is that G-d also spoke directly and only to Aharon about laws.

Two, while Moshe agreed with Aharon in the end, maybe Moshe’s first argument was correct that the sacrifice should have been eaten. Maybe Moshe only agreed to Aharon since the sacrifice was already burnt and could not have been eaten anymore.  Thus, 10:8-11 inform us that Aharon was empowered to separate from kadosh and chol, which means that Aharon could decide if the sacrifice was truly kadosh or not. Accordingly, the insert of the laws of 10:8-11 are to tell us that Aharon’s argument that the sacrifice should have been burnt was truly the correct approach.

This suggestion that 10:8-11 is a narrative insert to explain the argument recorded in 10:16-20 means that this conversation between G-d and Aharon about not drinking wine did not have to occur on the day when Aharon’s sons died, but could have been some time afterwards. Yet, when the Torah was written, the insert was recorded in the aftermath of their deaths to help the reader understand the argument between Moshe and Aharon that did happen on day when Nadav and Avihu died.

Bibliography:

Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1953, Leviticus, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Monday, March 23, 2026

The 2026 version of Andrew Schein's commentary on the Haggadah is now available

Hello,

As I have been doing annually since 2014, I offer anyone a free copy of my commentary on the Haggadah. No adds or requests for donation, though I would be happy for feedback how to improve the commentary (typos, mistakes, etc.). The commentary is 120 pages, 1.5 spacing with a bibliography. If you are interested in reading the commentary, please send me an email at ajayschein@gmail.com, and I will send you the file. 

I wish everyone a chag kasher ve-samaech and pray for peace in the land of Israel.

Andrew Schein

Sunday, March 8, 2026

Shemot (Exodus) 26:9, 31-33, 36; 27:21, 36:35,36; 40:3, 21 – The parochet in the mishkan/ ohel moed: A pavilion and a screen

 שמות כו: ז- יב: וְעָשִׂיתָ יְרִיעֹת עִזִּים לְאֹהֶל עַל־הַמִּשְׁכָּן עַשְׁתֵּי־עֶשְׂרֵה יְרִיעֹת תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם׃  אֹרֶךְ  הַיְרִיעָה הָאַחַת שְׁלֹשִׁים בָּאַמָּה וְרֹחַב אַרְבַּע בָּאַמָּה הַיְרִיעָה הָאֶחָת מִדָּה אַחַת לְעַשְׁתֵּי עֶשְׂרֵה יְרִיעֹת׃ וְחִבַּרְתָּ אֶת־חֲמֵשׁ הַיְרִיעֹת לְבָד וְאֶת־שֵׁשׁ הַיְרִיעֹת לְבָד וְכָפַלְתָּ אֶת־הַיְרִיעָה הַשִּׁשִּׁית אֶל־מוּל פְּנֵי הָאֹהֶל׃ וְעָשִׂיתָ חֲמִשִּׁים לֻלָאֹת עַל שְׂפַת הַיְרִיעָה הָאֶחָת הַקִּיצֹנָה בַּחֹבָרֶת וַחֲמִשִּׁים לֻלָאֹת עַל שְׂפַת הַיְרִיעָה הַחֹבֶרֶת הַשֵּׁנִית׃ וְעָשִׂיתָ קַרְסֵי נְחֹשֶׁת חֲמִשִּׁים וְהֵבֵאתָ אֶת־הַקְּרָסִים בַּלֻּלָאֹת וְחִבַּרְתָּ אֶת־הָאֹהֶל וְהָיָה אֶחָד׃ וְסֶרַח הָעֹדֵף בִּירִיעֹת הָאֹהֶל חֲצִי הַיְרִיעָה הָעֹדֶפֶת תִּסְרַח עַל אֲחֹרֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן׃

שמות כו:לו: וְעָשִׂיתָ מָסָךְ לְפֶתַח הָאֹהֶל תְּכֵלֶת וְאַרְגָּמָן וְתוֹלַעַת שָׁנִי וְשֵׁשׁ מׇשְׁזָר מַעֲשֵׂה רֹקֵם.

שמות כז: כא: בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד מִחוּץ לַפָּרֹכֶת אֲשֶׁר עַל־הָעֵדֻת יַעֲרֹךְ אֹתוֹ אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו מֵעֶרֶב עַד־בֹּקֶר לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה חֻקַּת עוֹלָם לְדֹרֹתָם מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.

שמות מ:ג: וְשַׂמְתָּ שָׁם אֵת אֲרוֹן הָעֵדוּת וְסַכֹּתָ עַל־הָאָרֹן אֶת־הַפָּרֹכֶת.

שמות מ: כא: וַיָּבֵא אֶת־הָאָרֹן אֶל־הַמִּשְׁכָּן וַיָּשֶׂם אֵת פָּרֹכֶת הַמָּסָךְ וַיָּסֶךְ עַל אֲרוֹן הָעֵדוּת כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת־מֹשֶׁה׃ 
Shemot (Exodus) 26:31-33 records instructions from G-d to Moshe to build a parochet, that was to be on four pillars and underneath the claps that connected the two parts of the covers of the mishkan. 36:35,36 record the fulfillment of these instructions. Afterwards, 40:3 records that G-d instructed Moshe to put the parochet within the mishkan and 40:21 records that Moshe fulfilled these instructions. What was the parochet?

The standard/ traditional understanding (see Rashi on 26:31) is that the parochet was a screen that hung over four pillars that were standing in a row and the parochet divided the special building (mishkan/ ohel moed) into two parts, an inner and outer room. Yet, this understanding does not accord with 27:21, which records that the parochet was to be on the  tablets (luchot, edut), while according to the traditional interpretation the parochet was in front, not on, the tablets. Similarly, 40:3 and 40:21 record that the parochet was to cover the aron which contained the luchot, but according to the traditional understanding the parochet did not cover the aron at all. Rashi (on 40:3) is aware of the difficulty of 40:3 and tries to defend the traditional understanding that the parochet was just a screen by claiming that the word to cover means to protect and the screen can be thought of as protection of the aron. Similarly, the Talmud (Menachot 94a) quotes Rebi that the word on, al, does not really mean on, but near. These two attempts are very difficult.

Friedman (2003, p. 263) makes the fascinating suggestion that really the parochet was a pavilion that rested on the four pillars that were standing not in a row but as a box. The aron would then be within this box or pavilion. This suggestion accords with 27:21 that the parochet was on the luchot and 40:3,21 that the parochet covered the aron. Hurowitz (1995) discusses this idea by Friedman, which Friedman had first suggested in 1992, and notes that it is supported by the Sumerian word BARAG and its Akkadian cognate par- akku, which are believed to baldachins, a canopy on top of an altar or throne. He notes that the connection between these two terms and the word parochet was made in 1874 by Delitzsch. Hurowitz also notes that if this suggestion is correct, then the curtains that rested on the four pillars must have continued to the floor to stop anyone from seeing the aron that was within the parochet, so it was also a masach, screen.

Friedman notes that his suggestion accords with Bemidbar 4:5 that when the priests had to pack up the mishkan, they would take down the parochet and the parochet covered the aron, and the idea would be that once the four poles were removed, the curtain would fall and cover the aron.

This understanding also explains the term ohel edut in Bemidbar 9:15, 17:22,23 and 18:2, as well as the reference to the tent, ha-ohel, in Bemidbar 18:3. The idea being that with the parochet hanging over the four pillars, the parochet was a tent (ohel) covering the aron, which had the tablets (the luchot, the edut), within the mishkan.

This idea that the parochet was a pavilion and not a screen also suggests a new interpretation of Shemot 26:9. 26:9 records that with regard to the second cover of the mishkan, the cover made of goat hairs, which consisted of eleven segments, each four amot (cubits) by thirty amot (cubits), the sixth segment was to be folded towards the ohel. All the explanation that I have seen (for example Rashi on 26:9 and Hurowitz, p. 137), understand that half of the first segment of this cover, namely two amot of the first segment, was to hang in some form over the entrance to the mishkan. Presumably the basis for this idea is that as the length of the mishkan was 30 amot and the heigh of the mishkan was 10 amot, then 40 amot was sufficient to cover the mishkan and its back. Yet, the second cover had 44 (11*4) amot, an extra four amot. We also know that the second cover had an extra two amot in the back of the mishkan, 26:12, and then it “must be” that the remaining extra two amot were in the front of the mishkan. Yet, 26:9 refers to the sixth segment of the cover, while this explanation claims the first segment of the cover was folded over. Also, according to this explanation, there is no folding since the two amot just hang down in the front of the mishkan.

A simple reading of 26:9 is that the second cover of the mishkan starts at the beginning of the mishkan, just like the first cover of the mishkan, and then the sixth segment of the second cover would begin at the twentieth amah of the mishkan. This would be the same spot where the sixth segment of the first cover of the mishkan would begin, but by the first cover, the beginning of the sixth segment would be attached by loops and claps to the fifth segment. However, by the second cover, the sixth segment is attached to the seventh segment, and not the fifth segment, with loops and clasps, 26:10,11.

26:9 is then informing us that after the five segments of the second cover of the mishkan, the sixth segment was folded over, which means that it would cover two amots of the mishkan and not four amot. This doubling of the sixth segment, would establish the measurements of the pavilion of the parochet that it would have two poles at the twentieth amot of the mishkan, and two poles at the twenty second amot of the mishkan. Within this two amot and undetermined length (ten amot?), the aron, which had a depth of one and half amots (25:10), was situated, 26:33. After the sixth segment was folded over, the loops and clasps of the second cover were attached to the end of sixth segment and the beginning of the seventh segment, at the twenty-second amot of the mishkan. The parochet was then under both sets of clasps of the two covers of the mishkan (26:33), the first two pillars were under the clasps of the first cover of the mishkan, and the back two pillars were under the clasps of the second cover of the mishkan. (Note this configuration would have occurred even according to the traditional interpretation of 26:9, see Cassuto, 1967, p. 352.) After the loops and clasps were attached to the sixth and seventh segments of the second cover, there would be another five segments to the second cover, segments seven, eight, nine, ten and eleven, twenty more amot, which would give an extra two amot beyond the end of the mishkan, 22+20 = 42, 26:12.

The end of 26:9 records that the folding of the sixth segment was facing or towards the front of the tent, ohel. The ohel is the tent that was made by the parochet, and the end of 26:9 is stating that when one folded the sixth segment, the coming together of the folded segment was at the edge (vertically above) from where the front two poles of the parochet and the curtains of the parochet were situated. This means that the edge of the folded over part of the sixth segment of the second cover was facing (downwards) the front of the tent that was made by the parochet.

The idea that the parochet was a pavilion also suggests a simple reading of 26:36 (and 36:37 and 39:38), which records that there was a masach, which was just a screen, and it was by the entrance to the ohel (the tent).  What ohel

According to the traditional understanding it is not clear what is the reference to the ohel in 26:36. However, once one understands that the parochet made a tent, ohel, above the aron within the mishkan, then, as in 26:9, the term ohel in 26:36 (and in 36:37 and 39:38) is referring to the tent that was created by the parochet, and the masach, screen, was in front of the area that led to the parochet.

Bibliography:

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1967, A commentary on the book of Exodus, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.

Friedman, Richard Elliott, 2003, Commentary on the Torah with a new English translation and the Hebrew text, New York: HarperSanFrancisco.

Hurowitz, Victor Avigdor, 1995, The form and fate of the Tabernacle: Reflections on a recent proposal, Jewish Quarterly Review, 86: 1-2, pp. 127-151.

Sunday, February 22, 2026

Shemot (Exodus) 33:12-19 – The beginning of the amazing conversation between G-d and Moshe

Shemot (Exodus) 33:12-34:10 record an amazing conversation between G-d and Moshe. This conversation can be divided into three (or more) parts, 33:12-23, 34:1-4 and 34:5-10. In this discussion we will focus on the conversation that is recorded in 33:12-19 and try to do our best to understand the flow of the conversation, which is not obvious. The discussion on the blog “As close as it gets,” focuses on the end of the first part of the conversation and the second part of the conversation, 33:18-34:7.

The conversation begins with Moshe speaking to G-d, and saying, “You say to me, bring up this people, yet You have not made known to me whom You will send with me. And you have said, I know you by name, and you have found favor in My eyes,” 33:12, Alter translation, 2004, p. 504. The phrase in the first half of 33:12, “yet You have not made known to me whom You will send with me” was Moshe referring to G-d's statement in 33:1-3, that after the sin of the golden calf, G-d agreed to send a malakh to accompany the people to the land of Israel, but G-d and/ or the glory of G-d would not accompany the malakh and the people.  This statement by G-d is the background to the conversation in 33:12-19.

What was the point of the first half of 33:12, “You say to me, bring up this people, yet You have not made known to me whom You will send with me” or why did Moshe start the conversation by stating that G-d had not made known to him whom G-d would send? My guess is that Moshe was pointing out that since G-d had not told him who was to be the malakh who would accompany the people, this indicated that the decision recorded in 33:1-3 to send a malakh “without G-d” was not final. Accordingly, Moshe could then make an effort to rescind the decision since Moshe wanted G-d’s glory to accompany the people in their travels in the desert, as he stated in the end of the conversation in 34:9.

In the second half of 33:12, Moshe recalled that G-d told him, G-d’s name, which is recorded in 3:14 and 6:3, and that G-d had stated that Moshe had found favor in G-d’s eyes. This last statement is never recorded prior to this conversation, but was a reasonable assumption by Moshe since G-d had chosen Moshe to be His messenger and Moshe had gone up to Mount Sinai to speak to G-d.

33:13 then records that Moshe continued to speak and said, “And now, if, pray, I have found favor in Your eyes (the end of 33:12), let me know, pray, your ways, that I may know You, so that I may find favor in Your eyes. And see, for this nation is Your people,” Alter translation, 2004, p. 504.

In 33:13, Moshe began by stating that if his assumption in 33:12, that he had found favor in G-d’s eyes, was correct, then he asked to know G-d’s ways since knowledge of G-d’s ways would lead him to know G-d, and knowing G-d could cause G-d to look favorably on him and/ or the people. It is interesting that Moshe did not just think that G-d would look favorably on a person based on a person following the laws, but rather Moshe thought that for G-d to look favorably on a person, something extra was needed and that was to “know” G-d in some way. Thus, the Rambam (Moreh 1:54) quotes this verse to argue that the crucial aspect of religion is knowledge of G-d and not praying and fasting. Also, Moshe seems to have been asking for some knowledge of G-d that he did not learn when he was on Mount Sinai for forty days.

One question concerning 33:13 is what are G-d’s ways? I have found six different suggestions to what Moshe meant by the phrase G-d’s ways.

One explanation is from Talmud (Berakhot 7a) is that Moshe was asking about the theodicy question. This is such a basic question in religion that maybe knowing the answer to this question would lead people to have a better knowledge of G-d.

Rashi (on 33:13) varies the approach in the Talmud and suggests that Moshe’s request to know G-d’s ways was that Moshe was asking what is the reward of a person who finds favor in G-d? This request is less significant of a question than the theodicy question, and it is unclear why Moshe would want to know about the rewards for the righteous, unless Rashi understood that Moshe was asking about the rewards in the next life. Maybe Rashi thought that Moshe thought that if a person knew the rewards for fulfilling the mitzvot, then more people would follow the Torah.

Rashbam (on 33:13) suggests that Moshe was asking G-d to show him the (best?) way to get to the land of Israel. This approach continues Moshe’s statement in 33:12 that G-d had not told him who was to accompany him, and now, according to the Rashbam, Moshe was saying whoever would accompany the people, still Moshe wanted G-d to tell him the way to the land of Israel. Or, maybe Moshe was asking G-d to accompany the people and not a malakh. This request was partially fulfilled in the second half of 33:14. This approach makes Moshe’s request to know G-d’s ways limited to the circumstances of the people living in the desert, and it is unclear how it relates to the remainder of 33:13.

A fourth approach, which I believe is the most popular approach to 33:13, is from the Bekhor Shor (on 33:12, Hizkuni on 33:12 quoting the Bekhor Shor, also Rambam, Moreh I:54) who explains that G-d’s ways is the thirteen middot, attributes of G-d recorded in 34:6,7. With this understanding, Moshe’s request was fulfilled in 34:6,7, and the idea would be that by knowing these attributes a person would have a better knowledge of G-d. Furthermore, the Ran (derashot 4) suggests that Moshe wanted to know G-d’s ways (the 13 middot) in order that Moshe would be able to pray more effectively for the people if they sinned, and then if G-d’s glory would accompany the people, and the people sinned, the Glory would not necessarily kill all the people. Accordingly, with this approach, the ability to pray more effectively would then allow G-d’s glory to be within the malakh who would accompany the people

A fifth suggestion is from the Ibn Ezra (in his introduction to the Decalogue on 20:1) that knowing G-d’s way is to understand astronomy or maybe all of science. The idea here is that by knowing science, then this would lead to a knowledge of G-d.

Seforno (on 33:13) offers a sixth suggestions that it is not the knowledge of science which leads to a knowledge of G-d but a knowledge of philosophical question concerning G-d. For example, Soforno suggests that Moshe was asking G-d to explain how G-d can know the future and yet there still be free will.

With regard to the first, second, fifth and sixth suggestions, it is not recorded that G-d answered Moshe’s request. According to these suggestions, one would have to say that the conversation moved on to other issues.

My guess is that the phrase G-d’s ways refer to how G-d decides to forgive or to punish people, which varies suggestions one and four, and is referred to in the second half of 33:19. Maybe the reason why Moshe was asking this question at this time was because previously in 32:32 Moshe had asked G-d to forgive the people for the sin of the golden calf and G-d had rejected his plea, 32:33,34. Thus, in 33:13, Moshe was asking G-d’s ways to know how and when G-d will forgive the people or punish people. Also, similar to the Ran’s idea with regard to Moshe’s request to learn the 13 middot, Moshe thought that if he had this knowledge of when G-d would forgive or punish the people, then this would lead G-d to returning the glory of G-d to be with the people. Note, this suggestion differs from suggestion four since one does not have to assume that Moshe had known before his question that there existed some specific attributes of G-d as the fourth approach seems to imply.

A second question concerning 33:13 is that in the second half of 33:13, Moshe requested to find favor in G-d (Your eyes), but this request seems superfluous after Moshe had already stated in the end of 33:12 that he knew that G-d had found favor with him. Maybe Moshe was asking that if G-d taught Moshe G-d’s ways, then Moshe would be able to find more favor in G-d’s eyes? Maybe in 33:13, Moshe was asking to find ways to find favor in G-d in the future. Maybe, the answer is that in the second half of 33:13, Moshe was trying to learn about G-d’s way to enable other people to find favor in G-d’s eyes, and this is why in the end of the verse Moshe recalls that the Jewish people are G-d’s people. Also, in 33:16, Moshe refers to the people wanting to be able to ascertain that they had found favor in G-d’s eyes.

If in 33:13, Moshe was requesting that G-d look favorably on the people, then maybe the request was to have the covenant renewed based on the idea that the sin of the golden calf led to the breaking of the covenant. I am not sure if the sin of the golden calf led to the breaking of the covenant, and even if it did, already by 32:14, it seems that G-d had agreed to re-new the covenant. 

Other possibilities, independent of whether the covenant had been renewed or not, are that maybe the request by Moshe for G-d to look favorably on the people was an attempt to renew or improve the relationship between G-d and the Jewish people after the sin of the golden calf or to compensate for G-d not being with the people on their way to the land of Israel? Or, maybe Moshe thought that if G-d would look favorably upon him or the people, then G-d would return G-d's glory to be within the malakh who was to lead the people in the desert. Or, maybe Moshe thought that if G-d looked favorably upon him or the people, then G-d would help him or the people in their march to the land of Israel? With this last possibility, the goal was to replace in some way the loss of G-d’s glory who would not be within the malakh that was to lead the people.

G-d responded to Moshe, and said, “My face will go and I will grant you rest,” 33:14 (variation of Alter, 2004, p. 504 translation). What does the term G-d’s face mean? In 33:18, Moshe asked to see G-d’s glory and G-d said that no person can see His face, 33:20. It seems that G-d’s face is referring to G-d’s glory and this is Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon’s (on 33:14) explanation of the term. With this idea, we understand that in 33:12,13, Moshe was asking, in an indirect manner, for G-d’s glory to go with the people.

Is this statement “My face (or glory) will go” a positive or negative response? I believe that many people understand it in a positive manner.  The Ran (see middle of derashot haRan 4) explains that G-d’s response was partially positive that G-d was saying that He would not go with the people in the desert but He would join them in the land of Israel.  I think from Moshe’s statement in the beginning of 33:15, “If your face does not go,” we see that G-d’s statement in 33:14 was not a positive response since G-d was not agreeing to allow His glory to be within the people. Furthermore, from Moshe’s request in 34:9, that G-d should “walk” with the people, we see that G-d had not agreed to accompany the people.

The second half (the last two words) of 33:14 records “I (G-d) will grant you rest, va-ha-neechoti.” What do these words mean? One approach is that this phrase can be understood as “I (G-d) will lighten your burden” (JPS translation, in Sarna, 1991, p. 213).  Tigay (2004, p. 188) varies this and writes that the phrase means “I (G-d) will deliver you to safety.” 

What then is the meaning of 33:14? My guess is that G-d was saying that G-d’s glory would go in the front of the people to help guide the people to the land of Israel which would ease Moshe’s concern in 33:12,13 that G-d was only sending a malakh and not G-d’s glory to help take the people to the land of Israel. This answer would be addressing Moshe’s request to know G-d’s ways according to the Rashbam’s understanding of the phrase, but according to the other opinions in 33:13, in 33:14, G-d was not addressing Moshe’s request to know G-d’s ways, but responded to Moshe’s underlying concern of the need for assistance to bring the people to the land of Israel.

33:15,16 record Moshe’s response to G-d statement in 33:14. The verses state, “And he (Moshe) said to G-d: If your face does not go, do not take us up from here. And how then, will it be known that I have found favor in Your eyes, I and your people. Will it not be by Your going with us, that I and Your people may be distinguished from every other people that is on the face of the earth?” variation of Alter translation, 2004, pp. 504,505. 

In this response, Moshe does not seem to be referring to his request from 33:13 to know G-d’s ways, but instead Moshe is responding to G-d’s statement in 33:14 that G-d’s glory would be present, albeit in front of the people. In 33:15,16, Moshe was not happy with G-d’s offer. Moshe wanted the glory of G-d to return and be with the malakh and the people, and not in front and separate from the people.

Why did Moshe want G-d's glory to accompany the people if the glory of G-d was so dangerous and could wipe out the people, as recorded in 33:3,5? The answer is from 33:16 where Moshe gave two reasons for desiring the glory of G-d. One reason is that the glory of G-d would enable the people to know that G-d had found favor with them. Presumably this would occur by the people seeing the glory of G-d and the glory of G-d not destroying them, as for example in 40:34. Two, its appearance would make the people distinct from all other people. Apparently, Moshe though that these reasons were worth the risk that G-d’s glory could destroy the people.

33:17 records G-d’s response that “G-d said to Moshe, this thing too, which you have spoken I will do, for you have found favor in My eyes, and I have known you by name,” variation of Alter translation, 2004, p. 505.  What did G-d agree to? Also, this agreement is referred to as being a second agreement, the word too, what was G-d’s first agreement? My guess is that G-d's previous agreement to Moshe's request was for G-d not to kill all the people for the sin of the golden calf, 32:14. What is the second agreement here?

One possibility could be that G-d agreed to Moshe’s request in 33:15,16, to have G-d’s glory be within the people, but from Moshe's request in 34:9 for G-d to accompany the people, we see that G-d had not agreed to Moshe's request for the glory of G-d to return, as otherwise Moshe would not have had to ask another time. Furthermore, if G-d had agreed to have G-d’s glory within the people, why would Moshe need to ask to see G-d glory in 33:18?

A second possibility to what was G-d’s agreement, following the Bekhor Shor, Hizkuni and Ralbag (all on 33:17), is that in 33:17, G-d was acceding to Moshe’s request in 33:13, to show Moshe His ways, and these commentators follow the approach that G-d’s ways are the attributes of G-d. 

Rashbam suggests that in 33:17, G-d was agreeing to Moshe’s request in 33:16 to make the people distinguished. This approach connects G-d’s response to Moshe’s most recent request in 33:16 and not to a request from four verses beforehand (33:13). This agreement, according to this approach, is referred to again in 34:10, and was fulfilled when Moshe’s face radiated, 34:29,30. With this idea, in 33:17 G-d agreed to Moshe’s request to make the people special but changed how they were to be distinguished. Moshe intended for the glory of G-d be with the people to signal that the people were distinguished, while G-d was going to do a special miracle with Moshe. Yet, as Moshe’s face was changed due to Moshe’s partial ability to see G-d’s glory in 34:6, then the people also got to see G-d’s glory in a very, very indirect way.

33:18 records that Moshe then asked to see G-d's glory. It is not clear what prompted Moshe to make this request, and likely it depends on how Moshe understood G-d’s statement in 33:17. If Moshe thought that in 33:17, G-d had agreed to have His glory be within the people, then Moshe asked for something extra, that he could see G-d’s glory. Or, if Moshe thought that in 33:17, G-d had agreed to tell him G-d’s ways, then maybe Moshe thought he could ask for one more thing, to see G-d’s glory. Or, if Moshe understood that in 33:17, G-d had not agreed to have G-d’s glory be within the people, then maybe in 33:18 Moshe was asking at least to let him see G-d’s glory. With any of these possibilities, 33:18 appears to have been a personal appeal since in the end of 33:17, G-d had acknowledged that G-d had found favor in Moshe and that Moshe had a special status since he knew G-d’s name (mentioned in 33:12, the beginning of the conversation). However, the Rashbam (on 33:18) adds that this request for a personal vision of G-d’s glory also relates to the renewal or re-affirmation of the covenant after the sin of the golden calf. Maybe that just like by the first covenant, Moshe had experienced an unbelievable revelation from G-d (Shemot 24:10,11), so then Moshe thought that a new revelation would signify the renewal of the covenant.

The beginning of 33:19 records that G-d partially agreed to Moshe's request to see G-d's glory, and the end of 33:19 records that “I (G-d) will grant favor to those I grant favor to, and I will have compassion to those I have compassion to.” The second half of 33:19 is not in response to Moshe’s request in 33:18, but to Moshe’s request in 33:13 for G-d to tell him G-d’s ways. In the end of 33:19, G-d is stating that G-d alone will determine who he is to be granted favor and compassion, and G-d would elaborate on this idea in 34:6,7. This reading of the second half of 33:19 means that G-d rejected Moshe’s request to teach him G-d’s ways.

To summarize, it appears that there are two issues being discussed in 33:12-19, whether G-d’s glory would accompany the people in the desert and whether G-d would share with Moshe, G-d’s ways, which I understand to be how to know when G-d will punish or forgive people who sinned. These issues are interrelated since Moshe thought that knowing G-d’s ways would lead to G-d’s glory being with the people. As of 33:19, G-d had not agreed to send the glory of G-d with the people, and G-d told Moshe that there was no set formula for when G-d would forgive sinners. In this conversation, G-d only agreed to do something which would show that the people were special, and this would be to make Moshe’s face radiate, and to partially show His glory to Moshe.

Bibliography:

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1991, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Tigay, Jeffrey H., 2004, Introduction and annotations to Exodus, in The Jewish Study Bible, edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 102-202.

Monday, January 19, 2026

Shemot (Exodus) 14:1-8, 17 – Pharaoh's heart (brain) at Yam Suf: The true colors of Pharaoh and the Egyptian army by Yam Suf

Shemot 14:1-3 record that G-d had the Jewish people travel in a circuitous course when they left Egypt to make Pharaoh think that the Jews were lost in the desert. 14:4 then records that G-d told Moshe that He would harden Pharaoh's heart in order that the Egyptians would chase after the Jewish people. Afterwards, 14:5-7 record that once Pharaoh heard that the Jewish people had run away, he immediately wanted to enslave them again. Pharaoh gathered his army and began to chase the Jewish people. 14:8 then records that G-d hardened Pharaoh’s heart that Pharaoh chased after the Jewish people. Similarly, Shemot 14:17 records that G-d told Moshe that He would harden the hearts of the Egyptian forces to chase the Jewish people. Note that this hardening of the heart is a little different than by the plagues since there the hardening of the heart was not to let the Jews leave, while here the hardening was to chase the Jewish people to make them slaves again.

These verses raise two somewhat contradictory questions. One, once G-d was going to harden Pharaoh's heart to have him chase the Jewish people, why did the people have to march in a circuitous course? Two, why did G-d have to harden Pharaoh and the Egyptian forces heart since 14:5-7 record that they went to chase after the Jewish people before G-d hardened their hearts (in 14:8)?

Maybe the circuitous route was to show Pharaoh's true colors, when his heart was not yet hardened, that he was evil, even after experiencing the ten plagues. Even though 14:5-7 do not relate Pharaoh’s decision to chase after the Jewish people to the people getting lost in the desert, undoubtedly, he learned this information (see 14:3) and then he thought that G-d had only helped the Jewish people temporarily with the plagues, so he thought he had a chance to enslave the people again. We see that his request for G-d to bless him, 12:32, was a lie.

Why then did G-d harden Pharaoh’s heart after Pharoah was already chasing the Jewish people? The answer is that Pharaoh's desire to chase the Jews and enslave them was his intuitive response to hearing that the Jewish people were trapped (system one of the thinking process of the brain). However, after experiencing the ten plagues, a little more thinking (system two of the thinking process of the brain) would have made Pharaoh realize that he should just let the Jewish people go. Thus, 14:4 tells us that G-d would harden Pharaoh heart and 14:8 tells us that G-d hardened Pharaoh's heart that his thoughtful second system did not overcome his intuition response to chase down the Jewish people, see our discussion on Shemot 9:34,35 "A hard heart: System one and system two."

With regard to Pharaoh's soldiers, their hearts were initially not hardened to show, like Pharaoh, their cruelty that they wanted to attack a defenseless innocent people. This explains why their deaths at Yam Suf were just. When these soldiers saw that G-d split the Yam Suf, their intuitive response (like most soldiers) was to continue chasing the people. However, if they had thought a little bit more, their thoughtful second system of thinking, then they should have been sufficiently awed of the waters being split, that they would have stopped chasing and trying to kill the Jewish people. Accordingly, G-d hardened their hearts to chase the Jewish people into the middle of Yam Suf, and did not allow their second system of thinking to overcome their intuitive response. These soldiers died at Yam Suf, 14:17, 28, and they were no longer a threat to the Jewish people when the people were in the desert.

Monday, December 15, 2025

Bereshit (Genesis) 41:42; 42:8; 45:1,12 – The importance of Yosef’s revid ha-zahav - The golden half mask

Bereshit (Genesis) 41:42 records that Pharaoh gave Yosef linen clothes and a revid ha-zahav to put around his neck. The special clothing re-calls the special coat, ketonet pasim, that Yaakov gave to Yosef in the beginning of the story, 37:3, but what is the revid ha-zahav and is it crucial to the story?

Alter (2004, p. 235) notes that while many people translate the revid ha-zahav as being a gold chain, it should be translated as a golden collar, and from Egyptian bas-reliefs, it would have covered parts of a person’s shoulders, the upper chest and the neck. My guess is that the golden collar also covered Yosef’s cheeks, and if this is true, this would give a new perspective for several verses in the story of Yosef. (Note all of the points below are still possible if Yosef wore a mask even if the revid ha-zahav was not the mask.)

One, 42:8 records that the brothers did not recognize Yosef. This is slightly surprising since there were ten brothers and not one of them recognized Yosef. Rashi (on 42:8) suggests that maybe Yosef had a beard at this point, while when he left them, he was a still a youngster who was not yet able to grow a beard. It is also possible that they did not recognize Yosef since they never would have expected Yosef to be ruling Egypt. Another possibility based on the idea that the revid ha-zahav covered Yosef’s cheeks, is that the brothers did not recognize Yosef since they only saw his upper face.

Two, the end of 45:1 records that Yosef made himself known to his brothers, be-hitvada, but the verse does not record Yosef as saying anything. What did Yosef do to make himself known to his brothers?

I believe the standard explanation for 45:1 is that when the verse states that Yosef revealed himself to his brothers, this is an introduction to the ensuing verses, as 45:3 records that Yosef told his brothers, “I am Yosef.” Yet, there is a break of a verse, 45:2, which records how Yosef cried and that the Egyptians heard him crying, and only afterwards did he say that he was Yosef, 45:3. However, if the revid ha-zahav covered Yosef’s cheeks, then 45:1 could be understood simply that Yosef took off the revid ha-zahav, and then the brothers could recognize him. With this idea, he cried after taking off his half-mask, 45:2. After discussing this idea in my synagogue, Eliyahu Navon suggested that a proof for this idea is that in 45:3, the Torah specifies that the brothers were frightened from his face, panav, but does not record from him, mimenu, to stress that the crucial issue was that they saw his face, which was something new, since only at this point did Yosef remove his half-mask. With this idea, in 45:3 Yosef said that he was Yosef as the introduction to his question about Yaakov, or to remove any lingering doubts his brothers might have had about his identity.

Three, 45:12 records that Yosef told the brothers "Here, your eyes see, as well as my brother Binyamin's eyes, that it is my mouth that speaks to you," (Fox, 1995, translation, p. 215). The verse is within a section where Yosef was telling his brothers to tell Yaakov to come to Egypt, 45:9-13, and the concluding verse in this section, 45:13 records that Yosef told his brothers to tell Yaakov what they saw in Egypt. This seeing in 45:13 seems to refer to the seeing mentioned in 45:12, but what can it mean that the brothers saw that Yosef’s mouth was speaking to them?

Many commentators (see for Rashi and Ibn Ezra on 45:12) explain that the reference to seeing Yosef’s mouth in 45:12 refers to Yosef speaking to the brothers in Hebrew. However, as noted by the Ramban (on 45:12) this is not a strong proof that he was Yosef since many people could have known Hebrew. In addition, if the proof of Yosef that the brothers were to supposed to tell Yaakov was that Yosef spoke Hebrew, then 45:12,13 should have referred to the brothers hearing Yosef, but the verse refers to something that the brothers saw, Yosef’ mouth.

Ramban (on 45:12) suggests that Yosef wanted the brothers to tell Yaakov the great honors that they saw that Yosef had in Egypt, but 45:13 records that Yosef told the brothers both to tell Yaakov about the great honors and what they saw. This means that the seeing is separate from the great honors.

Rashi (on 45:4,12, based on Bereshit Rabbah 93:8) also suggests that the seeing referred to in 45:12 was that Yosef showed his brothers that he was circumcised. This is quite bizarre that the brothers really checked this and even if they did maybe other people also circumcised themselves. Also, this seeing would not be related to Yosef’s mouth.

A simple explanation of 45:12 is that once Yosef had removed the revid ha-zahav (as I believe occurred in 45:1), then the brothers could see Yosef’s mouth without his cheeks being covered up. Thus, Yosef was telling his brothers that they should tell Yaakov how they saw his mouth and could then verify that it was Yosef. Interestingly, 45:26,27 record that Yaakov did not believe his sons when they returned from Egypt, and it was only when he saw the wagons did Yaakov believe his sons about Yosef. These wagons were authorized by the mouth of Pharaoh, 45:21, and hence in the end it was the mouth of Pharaoh and not the mouth of Yosef which convinced Yaakov to go to Egypt.

(After speaking on this idea in my synagogue, Shmuel Klang noted that the Ramban in his comments on 46:29 suggests that when Yaakov met Yosef in Egypt, Yosef had some type of head covering, mitznefet, which initially delayed Yaakov’s recognition of Yosef in conjunction with the Ramban’s assumption that Yaakov’s vision was already deteriorating at that point. It seems that the Ramban was referring to a hat and not a mask since the Ramban writes that Yaakov’s recognition of Yosef was only momentarily delayed. Note in 46:29, there is no hint in the Torah that Yaakov’s recognition of Yosef was not immediate.)

Bibliography:

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.

Tuesday, November 25, 2025

Bereshit (Genesis) 31:20-55 – The last meeting between Yaakov and Lavan: On neutral ground

Bereshit (Genesis) 31:20 records that Yaakov “stole” Lavan’s heart since he fled from Lavan’s house in Haran without telling Lavan that he was leaving. The following verse, 31:21, then records that in this flight Yaakov crossed the river, which is commonly understood to mean the Euphrates. Why did Yaakov not inform Lavan that he was leaving? This seems to be acting in a sneaky manner. If Yaakov had really changed his character during his stay in Lavan, then he should not have been sneaky, but should have left in an open manner. Also, why do we need to know that Yaakov crossed the Euphrates?

Afterwards, 31:22 records that after three days Lavan learned that Yaakov had fled. Lavan then chased down Yaakov and caught up to Yaakov by the hills of Gilead, 31:23. This led to the final encounter between Lavan and Yaakov, 31:26-55, which began by Lavan questioning Yaakov, why had he fled without telling him, 31:26-28.

Yaakov’s answer to Lavan was that he was worried that had he informed Lavan that he was leaving, Lavan would have stolen his wives, i.e. forced Rahel and Lea, Lavan’s daughters, to remain in Haran, 31:31. We see later on that Lavan did claim “ownership” of Yaakov’s wives, 31:43, but why was Yaakov not worried that Lavan would steal his wives on the hills of Gilead? Did Yaakov think that Lavan would not have chased him down? Or, did Yaakov think that he could get to the land of Israel before Lavan chased him down? Was Yaakov surprised by the sight of Lavan?

Seforno (on 31:31) suggests that in Haran, Lavan had many supporters, and hence he could have forced Rahel and Lea to stay in Haran, but on the hills of Gilead, Lavan did have enough men to impose his will on Yaakov. This approach seems to be based on the idea that Yaakov was not sure that G-d would physically protect him from Lavan in Haran, which I doubt. Also, most likely, Lavan had taken enough men with him on the hills of Gilead to impose his will, just that he was stopped by G-d’s intervention, 31:24, as could have happened in Haran.

My guess is that Yaakov was pretty sure that Lavan would chase him down, because the Torah records, from the perspective of the narrator, that Yaakov had stolen Lavan’s heart by running away, 31:19, and there is no reason to believe that Yaakov was unaware of this reaction. If this is true, then Yaakov could not really have hidden from Lavan. Even had he gotten to the land of Canaan, Lavan would still have tracked his down. It is even possible that Yaakov waited for Lavan on the hills of Gilead. The logic would be that Yaakov was not worried about Lavan since G-d had already assured him that He would be with him, 31:3, and for Yaakov it was better to finish with Lavan before having to deal with Esav. How then did Yaakov gain by meeting Lavan on the hills of Gilead instead of being in Haran?

My thought is that had Yaakov stayed in Haran he would have been subject to the laws of Haran, and then legally Lavan would have been able to keep Rahel and Lea in Haran. We see the importance of the local jurisdiction of Haran after Lavan switched Rahel and Lea on the marriage night, 29:23. It was clear that Yaakov had been working for Rahel, but still Lavan said the law in this place (Haran) was that Yaakov had to marry Lea first, 29:26. Even on the hills of Gilead, Lavan claimed that everything that Yaakov had, including Yaakov’s wives, really belonged to him, 31:43.  Lavan was making this claim since he was applying the laws of Haran despite the fact that he was outside of Haran. Thus, Yaakov wanted to leave Haran’s jurisdiction, which is the importance of 31:21 that he passed over the Euphrates, which meant leaving Haran’s jurisdiction, and then Rahel and Lea would legally stay with their husband, Yaakov, instead of their father, Lavan.

Tuesday, October 28, 2025

Bereshit (Genesis)18:24-32, 19:4 – Avraham’s request to save the city of Sodom (Sedom): The numbers: 50, 45, 40, 30, 20 and 10

Bereshit (Genesis) 18:20,21 records that G-d told Avraham that the people of Sodom (Sedom) and Gomorrah (Amora) were evil, and G-d implied that he was going to destroy the cities. 18:22 then records that the “people” who had been with Avraham, went to the Sodom, and then 18:23 records that Avraham began to plead with G-d not to kill the righteous/ innocent with the guilty.

18:24-32 record the details of Avraham’s request from G-d. 18:24,25 begin that Avraham requested for G-d to spare the city (Sodom) if there were fifty righteous people living in the city. God agreed to this request, 18:26. However, Avraham continued pleading, and he asked G-d to spare Sodom, if there were fewer righteous people, 45 people, 18:27,28. G-d again agreed to Avraham’s second request, 18:28. Yet, Avraham continued pleading with G-d, lowering the needed righteous people to 40, 30, 20 and finally 10. G-d agreed to all of Avraham's requests, but then Avraham stopped whittling down the numbers, 18:27:32.

Why did Avraham start his request with fifty righteous/ innocent people and why did he stop at ten people? Why did he not ask for G-d to spare Sodom if there was one righteous/ innocent person in the area?

Rashi (on 18:24,28,29,32) suggests that the basic principle was that ten righteous people could save an area, and the number fifty was based on ten righteous people saving five different places. The number forty-five was based on the idea of nine people in each place and adding G-d to the number in each place. The number forty was for ten righteous people in four cities to save four cities, and then the declining numbers would correspond to saving fewer and fewer areas. Finally, Rashi suggests that Avraham did not request less than ten righteous/ innocent people since he had learned from his request of 45, i.e., nine for each city, that nine righteous/ innocent people were insufficient to save a city.

Ramban (on 18:24) questions Rashi's logic. If ten righteous people were sufficient to save a place, then the Ramban wonders, why on each occasion that Avraham reduced the number of righteous people, Avraham began his request by asking for G-d's mercy. If the reduction in the number of righteous people matched the reduction in the number of places, then the request did not involve any more mercy on G-d's part since it was the same ratio as the first request of fifty righteous people. Also, the Ramban does not understand, why Avraham should not have requested for nine people for one place since this was not the same as requesting for G-d to spare five places for 45 people since maybe in one place there were nine righteous people but not nine righteous people in five different places? The Ramban concludes that he cannot understand how Rashi came to his explanation and he thinks that Avraham was always praying for five cities. Yet, the Ramban leaves the numbers of people unexplained.

Firstly, it seems that Avraham was only praying for the people of Sodom either because he knew them from chapter 14 (he saved them) or because of Lot, as in the conversation between G-d and Avraham, the Torah only refers to one city and the entire focus of the story is on Sodom. However, why the different numbers?

My guess is that basis for the numbers of people that Avraham suggested was because Sodom was a small city, more like a village than a city. Accordingly, the first number of fifty might have been because fifty people were a small majority of the number of families. For example, there might have been 90 families living in Sodom, and then fifty righteous people would be a majority per family. The next number 45, the only non-zero ending number, might have been since that was very close to being half the population. Afterwards, Avraham reduced the number since he was basing himself on having a meaningful minority which could save the city.

It could also be that initially Avraham might have thought that G-d would respond to his first request by agreeing to a higher number, say 150 people, and then they would have compromised at 100. However, G-d surprised Avraham by agreeing to 50 righteous/ innocent people as being enough to save Sodom, which indicated to Avraham that there did not have to be a large majority of righteous people to save the city. This might have prompted Avraham to continue even with having a meaningful minority of people.

Why did Avraham stop at ten? Wenham (1994) notes that, "the tone of G-d's replies conveys the feeling that He cannot be pushed much further." Or, maybe Avraham was very confident that there were ten righteous/ innocent people in Sodom. Or, maybe Avraham thought that less than ten righteous people were too small a minority to save Sodom.

A possible proof that Sodom was not very large is from the battle between Avraham and the four kings in chapter 14. 14:14 records that Avraham attacked the four kings with 318 men, which implies that the force of the four kings was around the same size or smaller since he would not have attacked a much large force. Furthermore, if the army of the four kings was around 300-500 soldiers, then this indicates that Sodom and his allies were not able to gather a much larger force since the four kings would surely have taken enough soldiers from Mesopotamia for them to be confident of winning in all of their battles against the five “cities,” 14:8,9. Finally, in olden time, when there was a war, every adult able-bodied man went out to fight, which implies that Sodom (and each of its allies) would have an army and a male adult population of around 80-100 men or less.

Note, after Lot leaves Sodom, he pleads to go to Tzo’ar, and he bases his request on the fact that it was a tiny place, 19:20. This means that Tzo’ar was even smaller than Sodom.

After discussing this idea in my synagogue, a friend, Oded Walk, suggested another proof that Sodom was a small place. 19:4 records that the whole population, old and young, surrounded Lot's house, but how can there have been enough room if the population was very large? Due to this problem, Rashi (on 19:4, see Siftei Chachamim on Rashi's comments) suggested that 19:4 does not mean literally that the entire population of the city surrounded the house, but that no one in Sodom protested the people’s treatment of Lot. It is much simpler to understand 19:4 that the population of Sodom was small, and then everybody or a majority of people (50 people?) could have surrounded Lot’s house.

The idea that Sodom was a dinky place might answer the archeological question that no cities have been unearthed that accord with the period of Avraham's approximate lifetime, 1800 BCE. A friend, Aaron Israel, suggested to me that due to the great upheaval that occurred after the conversation between G-d and Avraham, one would not expect to find any archeological remains, but people have searched. The sites that have been suggested, Bab edh-Dhra and Numeria (on the southeastern present-day Jordanian side of the Dead Sea), seemed to have been destroyed around 2300 BCE, see Rast 1987. Closer to Avraham’s likely time is that Harris and Beardow (1995) suggest that the cities were situated on the peninsula (El Lisan) which divides the two basins of the Dead Sea and the destruction occurred around 1900 BCE. On the other hand, if Sodom was just a dinky village, then one would not expect to find any remnants of large buildings that would have indicated a city in ancient times. Who knows?

Bibliography:

Rast, Walter, E., 1987, Bronze Age cities along the Dead Sea, Archaeology, 40:1, pp. 42-49.

Harris, G. M. and A. P. Beardow, 1995, The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah: a geotechnical perspective, Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 28:4, pp. 349–362.

Wenham, Gordan J., 1994, Genesis, Waco: Word Books.

Thursday, September 25, 2025

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 31:10 – Hakhel, shemitta, and Sukkot

   דברים לא:י - ויצו משה אותם לאמר מקץ שבע שנים במעד שנת השמיטה בחג הסוכות.

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 31:10,11 record that Moshe commanded the people meketz seven years, be-moed (time of) the shemitta year in the holiday of Sukkot, to hear the Torah being read in the chosen place. This law is called hakhel and the reference to the chosen place connects this law to the laws of chapter 12, which begin the large section of laws of the book of Devarim with laws relating to the chosen place.

There is much confusion about the timing of hakhel. The word meketz means the end (see Rashi on Bereshit 41:1), which means that hakhel should be at the end of seven years, but Sukkot is in the beginning of the year. One answer is the Ibn Ezra's opinion (on 31:9, 15:1 and 9:11) that the word meketz really means the beginning of a time period, and then, according to this idea, hakhel is to be done in the beginning of the shemitta year. A second answer is that Chazal (see Rambam, Laws of Chagiga 3:3) understand that meketz means the end of a time period, its usual meaning, but that hakhel is to be observed in the Sukkot of the eighth year of the shemitta cycle or the first year of the new cycle, when it is no longer shemitta. Rashi (on Devarim 31:10) follows this idea and explains that 31:10 refers to this year as being the time (moed) of shemitta since some laws of shemitta still applied. This approach is difficult since the eighth year is not the shemitta year even if some of the laws of shemitta are still relevant.

A third possibility is that really the year begins in Nisan (Shemot 12:2 and Rabbi Yehoshua, Bavli, Rosh Hashanah 11a, see our discussion, “When is the Jewish New Year?”), and then the holiday of Sukkot in the shemitta year, while not at the end of year, can be considered the end of the seven-year cycle, the language of 31:10, since there are just six months to go in the seven-year or eighty four month cycle.

Why should the hakhel ceremony take place during the festival of Sukkot? Sukkot is a pilgrimage festival, but why is hakhel not on Shavuot or chag ha-Matzot? Abarbanel (1999, pp. 492,493) suggests two reasons why Sukkot is the most propitious time for the hakhel ceremony. One (see also Tigay, 1996, p. 291), is that as Sukkot occurs after the harvest, the people could relax and concentrate on hearing the Torah being read. Abarbanel’s second rationale is that since on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur people re-dedicate themselves to G-d, then people will be more likely take to heart the Torah reading that they would hear during the hakhel ceremony.

A third question is what is the connection between shemitta and hakhel? Maybe there is no connection between hakhel and shemitta, but the shemitta year was a way for the people to mark which year hakhel was to be observed.

Also, why does hakhel only take place once every seven years? A possible answer is that had the ceremony occurred every year it would lose its effect of increasing the people's fear of G-d, 31:12,13 (diminishing marginal utility).

Menachem Kasdan (1969) suggests an appealing reason both for why hakhel is related to Sukkot and to the shemitta year. He notes, as do many (see our discussion on 31:7-23, "Passing the baton from Moshe to Yehoshua"), that based on the Rambam (Laws of Chagiga 3:6) that hakhel is a re-enactment of the giving of the Torah. In addition, he points out that the shemitta year corresponds to the conditions of the people in the desert who received the Torah at Mount Sinai. He writes (p. 79), “Only a nation whose faith permits it to dwell in the unhospitable desert or observe shemitta is worthy of receiving the Torah.” Furthermore, he notes, following the timing of hakhel according to Chazel, that by the holiday of Sukkot in the eighth year of the shemitta cycle after the shemitta year, there were no celebrations of crops being harvested. Thus, he suggests that in Sukkot of that year, the people were again showing their trust in G-d, and this made them worthy of re-receiving the Torah by the law of hakhel.

Kasdan’s idea is interesting and can be slightly varied. Maybe celebrating hakhel during Sukkot of the shemitta year was to have the people be as close as possible to the conditions of the generation that actually heard the Decalogue. The obligation to live in sukkot during the festival of Sukkot is an approximate re-creation of the conditions of the people who lived in the desert, see Vayikra 23:43, and in the shemitta year the people were living off the produce of the land that grew naturally somewhat similar to the mahn that the people lived on during their time in the desert.

Bibliography:

Abravanel (Abarbanel), Yitzhak (1437-1508), 1999, Commentary on Devarim, Jerusalem: Horev Publishing.

Kasdan, Menachem, 1969, Hakhel, Gesher, 4:1, pp. 70-80.

Tigay, Jeffrey H., 1996, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

 


Friday, August 29, 2025

Devarim 20:10 -15 – Are optional wars permitted in the Torah?

The Rambam (Mishnah Torah, Laws of kings, 5:1) writes that there are two types of wars in Jewish law, a war that fulfills a mitzvah, milchmet mitzvah, and an optional war, milchmet reshut. The Rambam gives three examples of a war that is a mitzvah to fight: To fight the seven nations who lived in the land of Canaan, to fight Amalek and to defend the Jewish people from enemies who attack the Jewish people. There is support for each of these examples from the Torah. For example, Devarim 7:1,2 refers to fighting the seven nations, Devarim 25:17-19 refers to fighting Amalek and Bemidbar 10:9 refers to fighting a nation that attacks the Jewish people. Note, the wars with Arad (Bemidbar 21:1-3), Og (Bemidbar 21:33-35) and the war with Midyan (Bemidbar 25:17,18; 31:1-8, see our discussion on Bemidbar 25:14-18, “The battle with Midyan: Kozbi”) also were wars to stop these nations from attacking the Jewish people. Also, Avraham’s war with the four kings to save Lot (Bereshit 14) would fall into this category of being a war that is a mitzvah. On the other hand, the war with Sihon (Bemidbar 21:21-31) was under the category of a war with the seven nations, the Amori, but since the war was fought outside the land of Israel, Moshe was able to offer Sihon peace, which he refused, see Nachshoni 1987, pp. 657, 659.

The Rambam then gives two examples of an optional war, to increase the boundaries of the nation and to add prestige to the king. These wars do not seem to have any source in the Torah.

The Mishnah (Sotah 8:7, Talmud Sotah 44b) takes it as a given that there is a concept of an optional war, and in the discussion about the types of war, the Talmud quotes Rava that for sure an optional war was the wars fought by David to expand the borders of his kingdom. (Shmuel Rubinstein, 1975, p. 374, in his notes on Rambam 5:1, explains that the wars by David was when he fought with Aram Tzova, which I think is the reference to the wars recorded in Shmuel II chapter 10. Could it also refer to the war mentioned in Shmuel II 7:3-5 or is this the same war as in chapter 10? Other optional wars by David could be his war with Moav, Shmuel II 7:2, and/ or his wars before he was a king, Shmuel I 27:8,9.)

One possible source in the Torah for an optional war is the laws of warfare recorded in 20:10-15, as Rashi (on 20:10) writes that the laws in these verses are applicable to optional wars. Yet, as noted by Luzzatto (on 20:11), the Torah does not give any explanation for the source of the war referred to in 20:10-15. Luzzatto suggests that the context of the war in 20:10-15 can be known from the beginning of chapter 20, 20:1, which refers to the people going to fight an enemy, and Luzzatto argues that an enemy is a nation that harmed the Jewish people either by trying to conquer the land of the people to take possessions of the people. Accordingly, Luzzatto argues that the war referred to in 20:10-15 was not an optional war, but one to defend the people, the third example of the Rambam’s example of obligatory wars.  One could add to his argument by noting that the last law in the section on wars, the law of the captive women, also begins with the phrase when you fight your enemy, 21:10. Thus, both the beginning and the ending of the section on war refer to fighting an enemy and not some peaceful nation, and then all the laws within the section, which includes 20:10-15, are also referring to fighting an enemy. Note Shimon and Levi’s massacre of the people of Shekhem (Bereshit 34) was a case where they were “fighting” a war with a peaceful “nation” since the people of Shekhem made a deal with the family of Yaakov and this can explain why Yaakov was so furious with them, see our discussion on Bereshit 34:25-35:5, “The brothers of Dina go amok.”

If there is no source for an optional war, then participating in such a war should be forbidden since a person is killing other people for money or prestige. This “right” to fight such a war was the common understanding until the 20th century, but should people be allowed to kill for material gain or glory? My guess is that this concept in Judaism either derives from the culture and mind set of ancient times or to defend the actions of King David, as occurs in his actions with Uriah and Bat Sheva (see Shabbat 56a), but has no basis in the Torah.

Bibliography

Nachshoni, Yehuda, 1987, Notes on the parashot of the Torah, Tel Aviv: Sifrati.

Rubinstein, Shmuel, 1975, Commentary on Rambam’s Mishnah Torah, Rambam La’am, Vol. 17, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.