Vayikra 26:1,2, the first two verses in chapter 26 are the last two verses of parashat Behar, while the remainder of chapter 26 is part of parashat Behukkotai. While the division of chapters in the Torah was done by Archbishop Stephen Langton in the 13th century, are 26:1,2 more connected with parashat Behar or parashat Be-hukkotai? The underlying difficulty is that verses 26:1,2, which refers to improper worship (idolatry), the Shabbat and fear of the mikdash, do not seem to relate to the previous laws of Behar or to the following section in Be-hukkotai.
Most Jewish commentators follow the parasha division and connect 26:1,2 with Behar. For example, Rashi and Ramban (on 26:1) quote from the Sifra that the laws of 26:1,2 are connected to the slavery section since if a person is sold to a non-Jewish owner he might be tempted to adopt the practices of his owner. Hence the Torah reminds him that he must follow the Torah even if he is a slave to a non-Jew. Ibn Ezra (on 26:1) varies this idea slightly that the non-Jewish owner must know that he buys Jewish slaves on the condition that they cannot work on Shabbat or work with idolatry. Zev Whitman (1987) questions these views since if the intent of the Torah was to tell us that a slave had to keep the laws then the Torah should have stated so explicitly. Furthermore, why are only these three laws mentioned if the slave has to keep all the laws?
Hoffmann (1953) writes that the laws of 26:1,2 are the foundation for the covenant and hence he understands 26:1,2 to be related to Be-hukkotai and not Behar. Whitman develops this idea as he notes that the three laws mentioned in 26:1,2 are referred to in the section of punishments that these were laws the people violated, 26:34,35 – shemitta (Shabbat of the land), 26:30 – idolatry, and 26:31 – the mikdash. Furthermore, as 26:2 refers to the Shabbat, it can mean the regular Shabbat or the shemitta year (see Ibn Ezra on 26:2). Thus, Whitman adds the law of the regular Shabbat to the group of three laws, and claims that these are the four basic laws of the covenant that had to be mentioned prior to the rewards and punishments of chapter 26. He further argues that 26:14 which records “that if one did not observe these laws,” refers to the four laws.
While this argument is appealing, Whitman notes (in footnote 5), that the lack of reference even by hint to the non-observance of the regular Shabbat in the punishments of chapter 26 is problematic. If Shabbat was such a basic law its non-observance should have been mentioned as the non-observance of his other basic laws are mentioned. To resolve this difficulty, he concedes that one could drop the regular Sabbath from the list. Also, notwithstanding his defense of these four laws as being the basis of the covenant, this seems like an unlikely group, as for example, what happened to the prohibition of murder? In addition, 26:14 seems to refer to all the laws as it parallels 26:3, which also seems to refer to all the laws and not just this group of four. According to his explanation, 26:3 should have stated “if you keep these laws.”
I would vary his idea. In chapter 26 there is a parallelism through contrast between the rewards and punishment for upholding or disobeying the laws. For example, 26:7 records that one of the rewards is that the people shall chase their enemies, while 26:17 records that one of the punishments is that the people shall flee even though nobody pursues them. This parallelism should also exist by the laws that are mentioned as examples of non-observance in the section of punishments of chapter 26. If within the section of punishments, the violations of shemitta, idolatry and proper use of the mishkan are mentioned, then these laws had to be recorded within the reward section as well. Accordingly these three laws are mentioned in 26:1,2, and they are related to the following section in Be-hukkotai and not Behar.
The structure of chapter 25 and 26 also support the idea that 26:1,2 relate to Be-hukkotai and not Behar. In our discussion on the structure of Vayikra chapter 25 and 26 and on Shemot 6:5-8, "The four words of redemption," we pointed out that chapters 25 and 26 of Vayikra can be divided into four sections, and each section has a concluding verse, which are 25:38, 25:55, 26:13 and 26:45. Once 25:55 is a concluding sentence then the following verses, 26:1,2, relate to other verses in the third section 26:3-13 (Be-hukkotai) and not to chapter 25.
Note even if 26:1,2 are thematically related to Be-hukkotai this does not imply that these verses should have been included in parashat Be-hukkotai. Occasionally, the narrative is interrupted with a division of the parashot because there is a desire to start a new parasha with a dramatic opening, as for example by Mikketz and Va-yigash. Thus, as 26:3 is a more dramatic opening than 26:1, it is more appropriate verse to begin a new parasha.
Bibliography:
Hoffmann, David (1843-1921), 1953, Leviticus, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.
Whitman, Zev, 1987, Shemitta and the Mikdash, Megadim, vol. 3, pp. 9-20.
No comments:
Post a Comment