Hello. The goal of this blog is to enhance our understanding of the Torah and the practice of Judaism. The discussions in the blog are a portion of a more extensive commentary on the Torah, which I will be happy to send to you. You can contact me at ajayschein@gmail.com. Please feel free to send comments. Also, if you want to receive an email with a link to the new posts, send me a request, and I will add you to the email group. Best wishes, Andrew Schein
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Sukkot: The name of the holiday
Vayikra 23:34 refers to the holiday as Sukkot since this section records the law of living in the sukkah, Vayikra 23:42. On the other hand, Shemot 23:16, 34:22 refers to this same holiday as the holiday of the gathering of the crops. In Shemot the holiday could not have been referred to as Sukkot because the law of being in a sukkah was not yet recorded. However, in 23:34, the Torah uses the word Sukkot since it is about to mention the laws of Sukkot, 23:42,43. Once the holiday is designated as Sukkot, then this name is used in the remainder of the Torah, Devarim 16:13,16 and 31:10. Note, the holiday could not have been named after the other law of the holiday the taking of the four species, arba minim, since in the Torah that was only done for one day, 23:40.
Sukkot: Be happy
Shemot 23:16, 34:22, Vayikra 23:34-36, 39-43, Bemidbar 29:12-38 and Devarim 16:13,14 record that the Jewish people are to celebrate the holiday of Sukkot, but it is not obvious what is the reason for the holiday.
Vayikra 23:43 appears to provide a rationale for the holiday. The verse explains that the commandment to live in the sukkah is to remember that the Jewish people dwelled in booths when G-d took them out of Egypt. This commandment would seem to establish a historical basis for the holiday of Sukkot, but this connection raises several questions. One, once the holiday of Matzot is to remember the Exodus, why is there a need for a second holiday to remember the Exodus? Two, why is the holiday celebrated in the fall and not in the spring when the Exodus occurred? (See Ibn Ezra on Vayikra 23:43 for one answer.) Three, the Torah never ever referred to living in a sukkah with regard to the Exodus. Devarim 1:27, 5:27, and Bemidbar 11:10, 16:27 imply that the people lived in tents (ohel) and not booths (sukkot), though one could argue that in principle there is no difference between tents and booths, see Rashbam on Shemot 23:16. Four, what is so significant of the people's dwellings in the desert that warrants a holiday to remember them? Possibly to answer this question, one view (R. Eliezer in Sukkah 11b, though in the Sifra, Emor 17:11 it is Rabbi Akiva’s view, quoted by Rashi on Vayikra 23:43) explains that the reference to sukkot in the verse is to the clouds of glory that accompanied the people in the desert, which was certainly a miracle that is worthy of being remembered. However, this view is not the simple understanding of Vayikra 23:43, see Rashbam on Vayikra 23:43. Also, the Torah should have explicitly referred to the clouds of glory if that was the intent of the verse. Instead, maybe one could say that Vayikra 23:43 refers to the actual booths or tents that the people lived in the desert and they symbolize not the Exodus per se, but that the people survived in the desert through G-d’s help. Five, this understanding leaves unexplained the other commandment of the holiday of Sukkot, the taking of the four species, Vayikra 23:40. Possibly to answer this question it has been suggested (Sadducees?) that the sukkah is to be built by using the four species, but these items do not seem to be good building materials and the Torah only records that one is to take the four species but not that a person is to build with them.
A different approach to understanding the holiday of Sukkot is that it is an agricultural holiday to thank G-d for the crops that are harvested in the fall. Proof for this viewpoint is that the holiday is referred to as the holiday of the gathering of the crops in Shemot 23:16 and 34:22 (also see Devarim 16:13). Also, the four species taken on the holiday, the lulav, etrog, hadasim and aravot are agricultural items and even the roof of the sukkah, which is the most important part of the sukkah, has to be something that grows from the ground, Shulchen Arukh 629:1. Tigay (1996, p. 469) notes that modern scholars explain that the sukkot also relate to the agricultural theme since booths were used by workers when they harvested the field. Yet, the four species do not represent the main agricultural products of the land, grains, oil and grapes, and most of them are not even edible. Also, the Torah does not relate the sukkah to agriculture but to the exodus from Egypt.
Can the sukkah be connected with an agricultural theme? Hoffmann (1953, p. 207) explains that the people should remember that there was a time when they did not work but were openly provided for by G-d. The idea is that this reminder of the past should stop people from becoming conceited by their bountiful crops and forget G-d (see also Rashbam on Vayikra 23:43). The booths are connected with the exodus not due to their miraculous nature, but as a reminder of G-d’s goodness to the people during the desert, which should lead the people to thank G-d for their crops. With this approach, the primary reason for celebrating the holiday of Sukkot is to thank G-d for the harvest, and the connection with the exodus is to help one remember to thank G-d. With this rationale the holiday of Sukkot is another example of the law of the bikkurim.
We see that there are two aspects to the holiday of Sukkot, one historical, the exodus from Egypt, and two agricultural, the time of the harvest. Yet, there is a third possibility that both themes are expressions of a third distinct idea, which is the reason for celebrating the holiday.
The third possible reason for the observance of the holiday of Sukkot is the requirement to celebrate and be happy. There are three sources for this idea. One, Bemidbar 28,29 records the sacrifices of each holiday, and within the discussion of each holiday, there is a brief mention of the law that is the theme of the holiday. With regard to Sukkot, Bemidbar 29:12 just refers to celebrating a holiday. Two, within the discussion of the rituals of Sukkot, Vayikra 23:40,41 record that one is to be happy and celebrate for seven days on the festival of Sukkot. Three, Devarim 16:13-15 discusses the holiday of Sukkot, and twice mentions that one is to be happy on the holiday. This is unique as with the holiday of Passover, there is no mention to be happy and by the holiday of Shavuot, the Torah refers only once to being happy on the festival, Devarim 16:11. These three references (Bemidbar 29, Devarim 16, and Vayikra 23) suggest that the main idea of Sukkot is happiness and celebration. Furthermore, the theme of happiness is associated with the agricultural motif since usually the harvest time is a time of happiness, see our discussion on the verse, Devarim 16:11, "Happiness of the harvest" in our commentary on Devarim.
In addition, maybe the historical motif from Vayikra 23:43 also contributes to the theme of happiness if the verse is understood as referring literally to the exodus from Egypt because most likely the time of the exodus was most the happiest moment for the Jewish people in all of their stay in the desert. Interestingly, the very first place the people traveled to when they left Egypt was called Sukkot (Shemot 12:37), which strengthens the connection between the holiday of Sukkot and the happiness at the time of the exodus. This idea can explain why Vayikra 23:43 refers to booths and not tents. If the focus is on the moment of the exodus and not the 40 years in the desert, then it is possible that at that time the people only used booths, and only later when the people came to Mount Sinai did they make tents.
We see from the prayers that Chazal thought that happiness was the main motif of Sukkot. In the Shemoneh Esrei for each festival, a brief reference is made to the theme of the day; by Pesach it is freedom, by Shavuot it is the giving of the Torah and by Sukkot (and Shemini Atseret) it is happiness, “the time of our happiness.”
The theme of happiness also explains why on Sukkot there are different sacrifices for each day as opposed to the holiday of Matzot, where the same sacrifices are brought each day, Bemidbar 28:24, 29:12-34. The different number of sacrifices each day mark each day as being unique, which means that each day is another occasion to celebrate, for more on these sacrifices see our discussion on Bemidbar 29:13-32, “The seventy bulls of Sukkot.” Thus, we also say a full Hallel on each day of Sukkot. This idea of happiness is also found in Chazal. The Mishnah (Sukkah 5:1) discusses the joyful happenings that occurred on Sukkot, the simchat bet ha-sho`evah, and records “whoever do not see the celebration of the simchat bet ha-sho`evah, never saw happiness in his lifetime.”
Why should there be a holiday for the purpose of making people happy? Were people’s lives so depressing that they needed a stimulant? My guess is that the theme of happiness relates to the idea of thanking G-d and celebrating the covenantal relationship between G-d and the Jewish people, see our discussions on the book of Vayikra, Vayikra 23:24, 26, 34 “Two sets of mikrei kodesh” and our discussion on Vayikra 23:39-44, “The four species and the sukkah.”
Vayikra 23:43 appears to provide a rationale for the holiday. The verse explains that the commandment to live in the sukkah is to remember that the Jewish people dwelled in booths when G-d took them out of Egypt. This commandment would seem to establish a historical basis for the holiday of Sukkot, but this connection raises several questions. One, once the holiday of Matzot is to remember the Exodus, why is there a need for a second holiday to remember the Exodus? Two, why is the holiday celebrated in the fall and not in the spring when the Exodus occurred? (See Ibn Ezra on Vayikra 23:43 for one answer.) Three, the Torah never ever referred to living in a sukkah with regard to the Exodus. Devarim 1:27, 5:27, and Bemidbar 11:10, 16:27 imply that the people lived in tents (ohel) and not booths (sukkot), though one could argue that in principle there is no difference between tents and booths, see Rashbam on Shemot 23:16. Four, what is so significant of the people's dwellings in the desert that warrants a holiday to remember them? Possibly to answer this question, one view (R. Eliezer in Sukkah 11b, though in the Sifra, Emor 17:11 it is Rabbi Akiva’s view, quoted by Rashi on Vayikra 23:43) explains that the reference to sukkot in the verse is to the clouds of glory that accompanied the people in the desert, which was certainly a miracle that is worthy of being remembered. However, this view is not the simple understanding of Vayikra 23:43, see Rashbam on Vayikra 23:43. Also, the Torah should have explicitly referred to the clouds of glory if that was the intent of the verse. Instead, maybe one could say that Vayikra 23:43 refers to the actual booths or tents that the people lived in the desert and they symbolize not the Exodus per se, but that the people survived in the desert through G-d’s help. Five, this understanding leaves unexplained the other commandment of the holiday of Sukkot, the taking of the four species, Vayikra 23:40. Possibly to answer this question it has been suggested (Sadducees?) that the sukkah is to be built by using the four species, but these items do not seem to be good building materials and the Torah only records that one is to take the four species but not that a person is to build with them.
A different approach to understanding the holiday of Sukkot is that it is an agricultural holiday to thank G-d for the crops that are harvested in the fall. Proof for this viewpoint is that the holiday is referred to as the holiday of the gathering of the crops in Shemot 23:16 and 34:22 (also see Devarim 16:13). Also, the four species taken on the holiday, the lulav, etrog, hadasim and aravot are agricultural items and even the roof of the sukkah, which is the most important part of the sukkah, has to be something that grows from the ground, Shulchen Arukh 629:1. Tigay (1996, p. 469) notes that modern scholars explain that the sukkot also relate to the agricultural theme since booths were used by workers when they harvested the field. Yet, the four species do not represent the main agricultural products of the land, grains, oil and grapes, and most of them are not even edible. Also, the Torah does not relate the sukkah to agriculture but to the exodus from Egypt.
Can the sukkah be connected with an agricultural theme? Hoffmann (1953, p. 207) explains that the people should remember that there was a time when they did not work but were openly provided for by G-d. The idea is that this reminder of the past should stop people from becoming conceited by their bountiful crops and forget G-d (see also Rashbam on Vayikra 23:43). The booths are connected with the exodus not due to their miraculous nature, but as a reminder of G-d’s goodness to the people during the desert, which should lead the people to thank G-d for their crops. With this approach, the primary reason for celebrating the holiday of Sukkot is to thank G-d for the harvest, and the connection with the exodus is to help one remember to thank G-d. With this rationale the holiday of Sukkot is another example of the law of the bikkurim.
We see that there are two aspects to the holiday of Sukkot, one historical, the exodus from Egypt, and two agricultural, the time of the harvest. Yet, there is a third possibility that both themes are expressions of a third distinct idea, which is the reason for celebrating the holiday.
The third possible reason for the observance of the holiday of Sukkot is the requirement to celebrate and be happy. There are three sources for this idea. One, Bemidbar 28,29 records the sacrifices of each holiday, and within the discussion of each holiday, there is a brief mention of the law that is the theme of the holiday. With regard to Sukkot, Bemidbar 29:12 just refers to celebrating a holiday. Two, within the discussion of the rituals of Sukkot, Vayikra 23:40,41 record that one is to be happy and celebrate for seven days on the festival of Sukkot. Three, Devarim 16:13-15 discusses the holiday of Sukkot, and twice mentions that one is to be happy on the holiday. This is unique as with the holiday of Passover, there is no mention to be happy and by the holiday of Shavuot, the Torah refers only once to being happy on the festival, Devarim 16:11. These three references (Bemidbar 29, Devarim 16, and Vayikra 23) suggest that the main idea of Sukkot is happiness and celebration. Furthermore, the theme of happiness is associated with the agricultural motif since usually the harvest time is a time of happiness, see our discussion on the verse, Devarim 16:11, "Happiness of the harvest" in our commentary on Devarim.
In addition, maybe the historical motif from Vayikra 23:43 also contributes to the theme of happiness if the verse is understood as referring literally to the exodus from Egypt because most likely the time of the exodus was most the happiest moment for the Jewish people in all of their stay in the desert. Interestingly, the very first place the people traveled to when they left Egypt was called Sukkot (Shemot 12:37), which strengthens the connection between the holiday of Sukkot and the happiness at the time of the exodus. This idea can explain why Vayikra 23:43 refers to booths and not tents. If the focus is on the moment of the exodus and not the 40 years in the desert, then it is possible that at that time the people only used booths, and only later when the people came to Mount Sinai did they make tents.
We see from the prayers that Chazal thought that happiness was the main motif of Sukkot. In the Shemoneh Esrei for each festival, a brief reference is made to the theme of the day; by Pesach it is freedom, by Shavuot it is the giving of the Torah and by Sukkot (and Shemini Atseret) it is happiness, “the time of our happiness.”
The theme of happiness also explains why on Sukkot there are different sacrifices for each day as opposed to the holiday of Matzot, where the same sacrifices are brought each day, Bemidbar 28:24, 29:12-34. The different number of sacrifices each day mark each day as being unique, which means that each day is another occasion to celebrate, for more on these sacrifices see our discussion on Bemidbar 29:13-32, “The seventy bulls of Sukkot.” Thus, we also say a full Hallel on each day of Sukkot. This idea of happiness is also found in Chazal. The Mishnah (Sukkah 5:1) discusses the joyful happenings that occurred on Sukkot, the simchat bet ha-sho`evah, and records “whoever do not see the celebration of the simchat bet ha-sho`evah, never saw happiness in his lifetime.”
Why should there be a holiday for the purpose of making people happy? Were people’s lives so depressing that they needed a stimulant? My guess is that the theme of happiness relates to the idea of thanking G-d and celebrating the covenantal relationship between G-d and the Jewish people, see our discussions on the book of Vayikra, Vayikra 23:24, 26, 34 “Two sets of mikrei kodesh” and our discussion on Vayikra 23:39-44, “The four species and the sukkah.”
23:40-44 - The four species, the sukkah, pesach and matzot
Vayikra 23:40 records that on the first day of Sukkot, a person is to take four species, arba minin, which traditionally are the lulav, etrog, hadasim and aravot. The Torah does not record why a person should take these four species. For various answers see Rambam (Moreh, 3:43, 1963, pp. 572,573), Ramban (on Vayikra 23:40), Kli Yakar (on 23:40), and Abraham Chill (1979, pp. 226, 227).
An interesting geographic reason has recently been suggested by Prof. Ari Schaffer of the Volcani Institute for Agricultural Research in Beit Dagan, (quoted by Greenspan and Greenspan, 2005). Schaffer notes that the lulav, palm branches, are from the desert (Jordan Valley), the aravah, the willow, is from the river beds, the, hadas, the myrtle, from the mountains, and the etrog is grown on the plains. Yehuda Feliks (2002, on Vayikra 23:40, p. 173) suggests a similar reason based on the Talmud, Pesachim 53a.
Abravanel (2005, p. 274) writes that the taking of the four species is to thank G-d for the gathering in of the crops. This rationale connects the law with idea that the holiday is due to the harvest, see Shemot 23:16, 34:22, Vayikra 23:39 and Devarim 15:13. Yet, do the four species relate to the harvest? They are not the main products of the land, grains, olives and grapes, and they are not part of the seven species of the land (Devarim 8:8). Also, except for the etrog(?) they are not even produce. The lulav is from the date palm, but if the idea is to thank G-d for gathering the crops we should have taken dates themselves and not lulavim. Also, why are the four species not offered to G-d as a sacrifice opposed to being just taken?
23:42 then records that on the holiday of Sukkot, a person is to live in sukkot, tents, for seven days. 23:43 then records that the reason for living in sukkot is that the future generations will know that the people lived in tents when they left Egypt. This rationale is unclear since the Torah never ever referred to the people living in a sukkah with regard to the Exodus, thought the first place the people went to after leaving Egypt was called Sukkot, Shemot 12:37 and 13:20.
The Talmud (Sukkah 11b) quotes R. Eliezer that sukkah in 23:43 refers to the cloud(s) of glory that were on top of the people in the desert, while R. Akiva believes that they refer to actual sukkot that the people lived in when they were in the desert. The Sifra Emor 17:11 reverses the opinions, and my guess is that this is the correct attributions. It is possible that the basis for this argument is that the opinion that believes the reference is to clouds of glory is because there does not seem to be anything special about people living in tents, while the other opinion believes that the cloud(s) of glory is not considered as being a tentlike.
Is there a connection between the commandment to live in a sukkah and the taking of the four species? Mordechai Breuer (1993, pp. 570-581) argues that the commandment of living in the sukkah also relates to the agricultural theme of gathering the crops and the four species. His argument is based on the Rashbam’s explanation of 23:43 that by living in the sukkah the person is to remember that the crops comes from G-d. Devarim 8:17 records this fear that due to financial success people will forget G-d, but it is not connected there to the commandment of living in the sukkah. Breuer (p. 579) then argues that the sukkah of the people during the holiday of Sukkot in the land of Israel is a continuation of the sukkot that the people lived in in the desert, and living in the desert taught the people to realize that everything comes from G-d and this lesson was applicable to the people after they harvested their crop sin the land of Israel.
This idea is nice since it takes a natural agricultural holiday and imbues it with a religious theme. However, as mentioned above, I doubt that the four species are to show thanks for agricultural success, and I doubt that living in the sukkah will make a person realize that all of his/ her financial success is coming from G-d.
It could very well be that the main reason for celebrating the holiday of Sukkot is to thank G-d for the crops since this reason is the most oft-mentioned in the Torah, Furthermore, the law most mentioned in reference to Sukkot is to be happy on the holiday (Vayikra 23:40, and Devarim 16:14,15) which relates to the gathering of the crops, However, my guess is that the law of the four species and the sukkah are not directly related to gathering in the crops.
The taking of the four species (23:40) resembles the taking of the korban pesach in Egypt. First, the word take is used repeatedly by the korban pesach, see Shemot 12:3,4,5,21,22. In Egypt, the people could have been told to sacrifice the korban pesach on the 14th of the 1st month (Nisan), and there was no need to mention taking an animal, as of course an animal had to be taken to be sacrificed. Instead, the people were told to take an animal on the tenth of the first month and to hold the animal for four days. Two, the korban pesach was taken and held for four days, (the 10-14th, Shemot 12:3,6) while by the four species, four items are taken together once. Three, the taking of the four species is for one day, like the korban pesach that is offered on one day. Four, by the korban pesach, the people had to take some plants (azov, hyssop?) and dip them in blood, Shemot 12:22. By the four species, these plants have been transformed into agricultural motif. The lulav, aravot (willows) and hadasim (myrtles) are parallel to the bunch of hyssops by the korban pesach, while the pri etz hadar (today etrog), which is most likely some type of fruit that could be made into a liquid, could be an agricultural parallel to the blood which the hyssops were dipped into. (Ibn Ezra, on 23:40, in his polemic with the Karaites, notes that they also made a connection between the taking of the four species, and the taking of the animal for the korban pesach.)
Chazal also make this connection between the four species and the korban pesach. The Talmud (Sukkah 11b) quotes R. Yehuda who learns a law by the lulav that it needs to be joined together with the hadasim and aravot, egged, from the taking of the blood by the korban pesach, Shemot 12:22. Also, Vayikra Rabbah (30:1) quotes R. Abba b. Kahana who also makes this connection between the taking of the four species with the taking of the blood of the korban pesach to teach a different lesson.
Also, just like the korban pesach preceded the holiday of Matzot, so too, first the Torah refers to the law of the four species, 23:40, and then law of the sukkah, 23:42,43. The law of the sukkah parallels the holiday of Matzot which requires one to eat matzot for seven days, and people are to live in the sukkah for seven days, see Shemot 12:15, 13:6, 23:15, 34:18, Vayikra 23:6 and Bemidbar 28:17. Furthermore, both the holidays of Sukkot and Matzot are on the 15th of their respective months, the first and seventh months, six months apart, and both are to remember the exodus.
We now have a double parallel between the two ritual laws of Sukkot and the holidays of Pesach and Matzot. The law of the four species parallels the holiday of Pesach, and the law of being in the sukkah for seven days is parallel to the law of eating matzot which is also for seven days. Chazal (see Shulchan Arukh, Orah Chayyim, 639:3) also learn that one has to eat an olive size amount of food in the sukkah on the night on the first night of Sukkot, just like one has to eat an olive size of matzah on the first night of what we today call Pesach.
What are to learn from this parallelism? Maybe it is just part of the goal of transforming the natural agricultural holiday to a holiday of thanking G-d. Yet, the korban pesach was part of the process of exodus from Egypt, how does the taking of the four species prepare or lead to the sitting in the sukkah?
The holidays of Pesach and Matzot are part of the historical process that led to the first covenant at Mount Sinai, and then maybe the holiday of Sukkot is celebrated to remember the second covenant the people made on the plains of Moav, Devarim, 28:69. By this covenant, Moshe told the people that they only acquired the intellectual ability to join this covenant after living forty years in the desert, Devarim 29:4. The living in the sukkah is to recall the people living in the desert, and this living was let led up to the people being able to join this second covenant. Also, the holidays of Pesach and Matzot are celebrated in the beginning of the year, which correspond to the first covenant which was established in the beginning of the people’s stay in the desert, while the holiday of Sukkot is celebrated towards the end of the year (Shemot 23:16) not just since it is the time of harvesting, but also this timing corresponds to the covenant that the people made at the end of the forty years in the desert.
How can this recollection of being in the desert from the commandment to live in the sukkah relate to the four species? The answer is that when the people were living in the desert, for most of the time they were not travelling and they had a static existence, just gathering the mahn. This was similar to the existence of Adam and Havva in the Garden of Eden, where they had some minor work and they were to live without any knowledge. Devarim 1:39 records that Moshe said that the people referred to their children, who would grow up in the desert during the forty years, as not knowing tov and ra, just like the Adam and Havva were before they ate of the tree of knowledge, Bereshit 2:9,17.
The four species can also be related to the Garden of Eden. The most obvious is the pri etz hadar, which recalls, the fruit of the tree of knowledge which was a delight to the eyes, Bereshit 3:6. The lulav, hadasim and aravot can also evoke the idea of a garden in that all are green and plants. Or one could claim that these three items are to re-call the azov that was used for sprinkling of the blood by the korban pesach in Egypt, and only the etrog is to recall the fruit of the Garden of Eden. Either way, now we can understand the significance of the taking of the four species, as by the fruit of the tree of knowledge, while Havva said that it was forbidden to be touched, Bereshit 3:3, really it was only forbidden to be eaten. The taking of the four species, but not eating them (the etrog), shows that people are now following G-d’s command. Accordingly, both the sukkah and the four species relate to the Garden of Eden, and by just taking the four species, we show that we are following G-d’s command which is the lesson that the people learned in the desert, which enabled them to establish the second covenant with G-d.
Maybe this idea can explain why the laws of the holiday of Sukkot are recorded after the concluding sentence of 23:37,38. For two other suggestions see our discussion above on 23:1-42, “The structure of chapter 23” and our discussion in the Introduction to the book of Vayikra, “The structure of the book of Vayikra.”
Our suggestion here is that the laws recorded in the section after the concluding sentence are to make the holiday of Sukkot a holiday of the second covenant that the people did on the plains of Moav, but this second covenant had not yet occurred when chapter 23 was told to the people. By the Torah separating these laws of the holiday of Sukkot from the other laws of the festivals, this was showing that these laws had a different basis than the other laws of the festivals, the second covenant and not the first covenant that was established at Mount Sinai. Note that prior to the concluding sentences of 23:37,38, there are the laws of the sacrifices on Sukkot and these could relate to the celebration of the first covenant (see our discussion above on 23:24, 26, 34 “Two sets of mikrei kodesh”), but the laws of Sukkot that related to the second covenant had to be separated in order to indicate their different rationale. Also, it was also intended that there was to be a second covenant, but initially it was supposed to be in the land of Israel. However, once Moshe was unable to enter the land of Israel, it was done on the plains of Moav by the border with the land of Israel.
Bibliography:
Breuer, Mordechai (1921-2007), 1993, Pirkei Moadot, (Hebrew), Jerusalem: Horev.
Chill, Abraham, 1979, The Minhagim, New York: Sepher-Hermon Press.
Feliks, Yehuda, 2002, The four species, in Vayikra: The World of the Bible, edited by Baruch Levine, Tel Aviv: Yediot Achronot, Sifire Hemed, pp. 173,174.
Greenspan, Ari and Ari Z. Zivotofsky, 2005, “The extraordinary history of the etrog,” The Jerusalem Post, 16 October.
An interesting geographic reason has recently been suggested by Prof. Ari Schaffer of the Volcani Institute for Agricultural Research in Beit Dagan, (quoted by Greenspan and Greenspan, 2005). Schaffer notes that the lulav, palm branches, are from the desert (Jordan Valley), the aravah, the willow, is from the river beds, the, hadas, the myrtle, from the mountains, and the etrog is grown on the plains. Yehuda Feliks (2002, on Vayikra 23:40, p. 173) suggests a similar reason based on the Talmud, Pesachim 53a.
Abravanel (2005, p. 274) writes that the taking of the four species is to thank G-d for the gathering in of the crops. This rationale connects the law with idea that the holiday is due to the harvest, see Shemot 23:16, 34:22, Vayikra 23:39 and Devarim 15:13. Yet, do the four species relate to the harvest? They are not the main products of the land, grains, olives and grapes, and they are not part of the seven species of the land (Devarim 8:8). Also, except for the etrog(?) they are not even produce. The lulav is from the date palm, but if the idea is to thank G-d for gathering the crops we should have taken dates themselves and not lulavim. Also, why are the four species not offered to G-d as a sacrifice opposed to being just taken?
23:42 then records that on the holiday of Sukkot, a person is to live in sukkot, tents, for seven days. 23:43 then records that the reason for living in sukkot is that the future generations will know that the people lived in tents when they left Egypt. This rationale is unclear since the Torah never ever referred to the people living in a sukkah with regard to the Exodus, thought the first place the people went to after leaving Egypt was called Sukkot, Shemot 12:37 and 13:20.
The Talmud (Sukkah 11b) quotes R. Eliezer that sukkah in 23:43 refers to the cloud(s) of glory that were on top of the people in the desert, while R. Akiva believes that they refer to actual sukkot that the people lived in when they were in the desert. The Sifra Emor 17:11 reverses the opinions, and my guess is that this is the correct attributions. It is possible that the basis for this argument is that the opinion that believes the reference is to clouds of glory is because there does not seem to be anything special about people living in tents, while the other opinion believes that the cloud(s) of glory is not considered as being a tentlike.
Is there a connection between the commandment to live in a sukkah and the taking of the four species? Mordechai Breuer (1993, pp. 570-581) argues that the commandment of living in the sukkah also relates to the agricultural theme of gathering the crops and the four species. His argument is based on the Rashbam’s explanation of 23:43 that by living in the sukkah the person is to remember that the crops comes from G-d. Devarim 8:17 records this fear that due to financial success people will forget G-d, but it is not connected there to the commandment of living in the sukkah. Breuer (p. 579) then argues that the sukkah of the people during the holiday of Sukkot in the land of Israel is a continuation of the sukkot that the people lived in in the desert, and living in the desert taught the people to realize that everything comes from G-d and this lesson was applicable to the people after they harvested their crop sin the land of Israel.
This idea is nice since it takes a natural agricultural holiday and imbues it with a religious theme. However, as mentioned above, I doubt that the four species are to show thanks for agricultural success, and I doubt that living in the sukkah will make a person realize that all of his/ her financial success is coming from G-d.
It could very well be that the main reason for celebrating the holiday of Sukkot is to thank G-d for the crops since this reason is the most oft-mentioned in the Torah, Furthermore, the law most mentioned in reference to Sukkot is to be happy on the holiday (Vayikra 23:40, and Devarim 16:14,15) which relates to the gathering of the crops, However, my guess is that the law of the four species and the sukkah are not directly related to gathering in the crops.
The taking of the four species (23:40) resembles the taking of the korban pesach in Egypt. First, the word take is used repeatedly by the korban pesach, see Shemot 12:3,4,5,21,22. In Egypt, the people could have been told to sacrifice the korban pesach on the 14th of the 1st month (Nisan), and there was no need to mention taking an animal, as of course an animal had to be taken to be sacrificed. Instead, the people were told to take an animal on the tenth of the first month and to hold the animal for four days. Two, the korban pesach was taken and held for four days, (the 10-14th, Shemot 12:3,6) while by the four species, four items are taken together once. Three, the taking of the four species is for one day, like the korban pesach that is offered on one day. Four, by the korban pesach, the people had to take some plants (azov, hyssop?) and dip them in blood, Shemot 12:22. By the four species, these plants have been transformed into agricultural motif. The lulav, aravot (willows) and hadasim (myrtles) are parallel to the bunch of hyssops by the korban pesach, while the pri etz hadar (today etrog), which is most likely some type of fruit that could be made into a liquid, could be an agricultural parallel to the blood which the hyssops were dipped into. (Ibn Ezra, on 23:40, in his polemic with the Karaites, notes that they also made a connection between the taking of the four species, and the taking of the animal for the korban pesach.)
Chazal also make this connection between the four species and the korban pesach. The Talmud (Sukkah 11b) quotes R. Yehuda who learns a law by the lulav that it needs to be joined together with the hadasim and aravot, egged, from the taking of the blood by the korban pesach, Shemot 12:22. Also, Vayikra Rabbah (30:1) quotes R. Abba b. Kahana who also makes this connection between the taking of the four species with the taking of the blood of the korban pesach to teach a different lesson.
Also, just like the korban pesach preceded the holiday of Matzot, so too, first the Torah refers to the law of the four species, 23:40, and then law of the sukkah, 23:42,43. The law of the sukkah parallels the holiday of Matzot which requires one to eat matzot for seven days, and people are to live in the sukkah for seven days, see Shemot 12:15, 13:6, 23:15, 34:18, Vayikra 23:6 and Bemidbar 28:17. Furthermore, both the holidays of Sukkot and Matzot are on the 15th of their respective months, the first and seventh months, six months apart, and both are to remember the exodus.
We now have a double parallel between the two ritual laws of Sukkot and the holidays of Pesach and Matzot. The law of the four species parallels the holiday of Pesach, and the law of being in the sukkah for seven days is parallel to the law of eating matzot which is also for seven days. Chazal (see Shulchan Arukh, Orah Chayyim, 639:3) also learn that one has to eat an olive size amount of food in the sukkah on the night on the first night of Sukkot, just like one has to eat an olive size of matzah on the first night of what we today call Pesach.
What are to learn from this parallelism? Maybe it is just part of the goal of transforming the natural agricultural holiday to a holiday of thanking G-d. Yet, the korban pesach was part of the process of exodus from Egypt, how does the taking of the four species prepare or lead to the sitting in the sukkah?
The holidays of Pesach and Matzot are part of the historical process that led to the first covenant at Mount Sinai, and then maybe the holiday of Sukkot is celebrated to remember the second covenant the people made on the plains of Moav, Devarim, 28:69. By this covenant, Moshe told the people that they only acquired the intellectual ability to join this covenant after living forty years in the desert, Devarim 29:4. The living in the sukkah is to recall the people living in the desert, and this living was let led up to the people being able to join this second covenant. Also, the holidays of Pesach and Matzot are celebrated in the beginning of the year, which correspond to the first covenant which was established in the beginning of the people’s stay in the desert, while the holiday of Sukkot is celebrated towards the end of the year (Shemot 23:16) not just since it is the time of harvesting, but also this timing corresponds to the covenant that the people made at the end of the forty years in the desert.
How can this recollection of being in the desert from the commandment to live in the sukkah relate to the four species? The answer is that when the people were living in the desert, for most of the time they were not travelling and they had a static existence, just gathering the mahn. This was similar to the existence of Adam and Havva in the Garden of Eden, where they had some minor work and they were to live without any knowledge. Devarim 1:39 records that Moshe said that the people referred to their children, who would grow up in the desert during the forty years, as not knowing tov and ra, just like the Adam and Havva were before they ate of the tree of knowledge, Bereshit 2:9,17.
The four species can also be related to the Garden of Eden. The most obvious is the pri etz hadar, which recalls, the fruit of the tree of knowledge which was a delight to the eyes, Bereshit 3:6. The lulav, hadasim and aravot can also evoke the idea of a garden in that all are green and plants. Or one could claim that these three items are to re-call the azov that was used for sprinkling of the blood by the korban pesach in Egypt, and only the etrog is to recall the fruit of the Garden of Eden. Either way, now we can understand the significance of the taking of the four species, as by the fruit of the tree of knowledge, while Havva said that it was forbidden to be touched, Bereshit 3:3, really it was only forbidden to be eaten. The taking of the four species, but not eating them (the etrog), shows that people are now following G-d’s command. Accordingly, both the sukkah and the four species relate to the Garden of Eden, and by just taking the four species, we show that we are following G-d’s command which is the lesson that the people learned in the desert, which enabled them to establish the second covenant with G-d.
Maybe this idea can explain why the laws of the holiday of Sukkot are recorded after the concluding sentence of 23:37,38. For two other suggestions see our discussion above on 23:1-42, “The structure of chapter 23” and our discussion in the Introduction to the book of Vayikra, “The structure of the book of Vayikra.”
Our suggestion here is that the laws recorded in the section after the concluding sentence are to make the holiday of Sukkot a holiday of the second covenant that the people did on the plains of Moav, but this second covenant had not yet occurred when chapter 23 was told to the people. By the Torah separating these laws of the holiday of Sukkot from the other laws of the festivals, this was showing that these laws had a different basis than the other laws of the festivals, the second covenant and not the first covenant that was established at Mount Sinai. Note that prior to the concluding sentences of 23:37,38, there are the laws of the sacrifices on Sukkot and these could relate to the celebration of the first covenant (see our discussion above on 23:24, 26, 34 “Two sets of mikrei kodesh”), but the laws of Sukkot that related to the second covenant had to be separated in order to indicate their different rationale. Also, it was also intended that there was to be a second covenant, but initially it was supposed to be in the land of Israel. However, once Moshe was unable to enter the land of Israel, it was done on the plains of Moav by the border with the land of Israel.
Bibliography:
Breuer, Mordechai (1921-2007), 1993, Pirkei Moadot, (Hebrew), Jerusalem: Horev.
Chill, Abraham, 1979, The Minhagim, New York: Sepher-Hermon Press.
Feliks, Yehuda, 2002, The four species, in Vayikra: The World of the Bible, edited by Baruch Levine, Tel Aviv: Yediot Achronot, Sifire Hemed, pp. 173,174.
Greenspan, Ari and Ari Z. Zivotofsky, 2005, “The extraordinary history of the etrog,” The Jerusalem Post, 16 October.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Yonah
We read the story of Yonah at minhah on Yom Kippur. What is the message of this fascinating story, and why do read it on Yom Kippur?
Ehud Ben Zvi (2004, pp. 1198-99) notes that many themes have been suggested to the book of Yonah, but he argues that none are definitive since the “book of Yonah cannot be reduced to one main theme.” This is probably correct, but we will review some of the suggested themes and suggest our own.
One very popular idea is that the theme of Yonah is repentance, as the people of Ninveh repent very quickly after Yonah told them that Ninveh was going to be flipped (destroyed), 3:4-10. This unbelievable response is surely another miracle of the story, which has numerous miracles. Their repentance is noted in the Mishnah, Ta’anit 2:1, and this theme would accord with our reading of the book on Yom Kippur. However, the verse quoted in the Mishnah is the last verse of chapter three, 3:10, and this suggests that if the point of the story was to teach about repentance, then both the book of Yonah and the reading of Yonah on Yom Kippur should have ended with chapter three, but the book of Yonah has a fourth chapter, which we read on Yom Kippur. A possible answer for this approach is that chapter four is to explain why G-d accepts repentance, that G-d cares about people, the last verse of chapter 4, 4:11. Yet, still I find this approach not satisfactory since the repentance of the people of Ninveh seems too quick to be realistic, and also it includes repentance of the animals, which also seems unrealistic.
A second idea is from Herman Melville in the great novel Moby-Dick that the point of the book of Yonah is obedience to G-d. Yonah eventually went to Ninveh, but not willingly, and hence the point of chapter four is to obey G-d. According to this idea, we read Yonah in the afternoon since after praying a full day, all that is left for us to do is say that we will follow G-d. A small proof for this idea is that the last prayers of the day are not to ask for forgiveness but to say shema yisrael, which is our acceptance of G-d. After speaking about this in my synagogue, a congregant pointed out that this idea of Yonah also accords with beginning of the Torah reading at Minhah, as Vayikra 18:4,5 records that one must follow G-d’s laws because G-d commands them.
Aviva Zornberg (2008) makes some fascinating points about the story of Yonah, and she suggests that the theme of the book is Yonah’s relationship with G-d. The book begins with Yonah attempting to flee G-d which shows his poor relationship with G-d. Zornberg notes that the name Yonah signifies flight. Yonah cannot fly but instead he went down. He went down to Yaffa, 1:3, he went down to the ship, 1:3, and he went down to the bottom of the ship, 1:5. Zornberg quotes from the Mechilta that Yonah went to the sea to die, and later he stated that that he wanted to die, 4:3,9. He did not want to commit suicide but he was hoping to die at sea.
Yonah wanted no relationship with G-d, and even during the storm, Yonah did not call out to G-d, while the sailors cried out to their gods 1:5. Yonah told the sailors that he feared G-d, 1:9, which meant that he worshiped G-d, but this seems to be a false statement because he was running away from G-d. Yonah also offered to be thrown overboard, 1:12. This is not a heroic request but as Zornberg notes (p. 281) just a manifestation of his desire to die. The sailors were afraid to do this, and they cried out to G-d, 1:14. 1:16 records that they were fearers of G-d and this was a true fear as opposed to Yonah's false fear.
Yonah wanted to die but unfortunately for him, bad luck, G-d arraigned for him to be swallowed by the big fish, which became a type of prison for him, see Uriel Simon, 2000. Yonah was trapped, he could not die and he could not leave the fish. He waited three days, and then he realized that the only way to get out of the fish was to pray, 2:1,2. Yonah offered a weird prayer where he seems to be praying about the past instead of asking to be saved. Yet, he ends the prayer by pledging to fulfill his vows, 2:10, and vows are the quintessential prayer in Tanakh. G-d responded to Yonah's prayer, and the fish brought Yonah to dry land, 2:11. It would appear that the experience with the big fish taught Yonah that he needed to have a relationship with G-d.
G-d then called out to Yonah a second time, and Yonah now fulfilled G-d's command, 3:1-4. However, after the people of Ninveh were saved, 4:1 records that Yonah was angry that G-d saved Ninveh, which demonstrated that Yonah's relationship with G-d was still deficient. Yonah then partially quoted the 13 attributes of G-d, and explains why he ran away, 4:2, which indicates that Yonah had moved forward in his relationship with G-d since now he expressed his reason for running away. Yet, instead, of seeing G-d as good and giving life, he wanted G-d to be harsh and cruel, and he wanted G-d to kill him, 4:3. As has been noted by many (see Zornberg, p. 294), Yonah’s second name refers to emet, truth, 1:1, and he leaves this attribute of G-d out in 4:2. Yonah is disappointed with G-d since he thought that G-d was not running the world based on truth.
G-d asked Yonah whether he was angry and Yonah did not respond, 4:4. Instead, Yonah left Ninveh and camped outside the city to see what would happen, 4:5. What was he expecting to happen? Goldman (1948, p. 148) and Henshke (1998a, p. 81) suggest that Yonah thought that the people of Ninveh would revert to their evil ways that their repentance was false. Yet, I wonder whether he could see this from outside the city. Also, surely Yonah must have known that if all the people repented so quickly then their repentance was an act of G-d. My guess is that Yonah went outside the city of Ninveh to see whether G-d would listen to him and overturn the city.
It is clear that the lesson of the big fish was insufficient, so G-d devised another lesson with the gourd (some type of tree) and the worm, 4:6-8. (Note, the same word, va-yiman, appears by the two lessons, by the big fish, 2:1, and by the gourd/ tree three times, 4:6-8.) In this case, Yonah had built a sukkah, 4:5, but apparently it did not give great shade, so he was happy when G-d had a tree grow above the sukkah, 4:6. G-d then had a worm devour the tree in one night, which was another miracle, and then sent a strong wind, which seemed to have destroyed the sukkah, 4:7,8.
After Yonah was depressed again due to the withering sun, 4:8, G-d repeated the previous question are you angry (4:9, 4:4)? Finally, Yonah responded that he was angry, 4:9, which shows some relationship with G-d, but his understanding of G-d and hence his relationship with G-d was still wanting. G-d attempted to explain His ways to Yonah. G-d asked Yonah that if he cared about the tree, then surely G-d cared about the people and animals of Ninveh, 4:10,11.
For the reader maybe the point of the story is that G-d is good and cares about people and animals, his creations, and hence man is supposed to cry out and establish a relationship with G-d, as did the sailors, the people of Ninveh and possibly Yonah. This message of establishing a relationship with G-d is appropriate to Yom Kippur. On Yom Kippur, man prays to G-d and separates from the world, which should lead him to establish a relationship with G-d. (Is repentance the way to establish a relationship with G-d or after one has a relationship with G-d then one repents?) Furthermore, we repeatedly state as part of the selihot that G-d is good and does not wish evil on us, exactly the opposite of Yonah's claim. Thus, maybe we read Yonah at minhah, towards the end of Yom Kippur, to encourage us to pray fervently, in the fleeting moments of the day, to G-d, who is good and who will listen to our prayers.
While this is a nice reading of Yonah, we do not know Yonah's response to G-d’s statement in 4:11. Did he get it? Did he understand that G-d is good or did he continue in his beliefs about truth and being exacting? Was he able to establish a relationship with G-d?
The numerous animal elements in the story offer another or different perspective on the story of Yonah. First, there is the great fish that swallows Yonah, and then the worm, one of the smallest creatures, eats the tree in one night. Secondly, when the people of Ninveh repent, also the animals fast and wear sackcloth, 3:7,8. Thirdly, the book ends by recording that G-d cares about many animals in the city of Ninveh, 4:11. Fourthly, the name Yonah, is a name of a bird. What is the point of these references to animals?
Significantly, when the sailors ask Yonah to explain himself, he says he fears G-d who created the sea and the land, 1:8,9. While it is hard to take Yonah’s fear of G-d seriously, still his statement that G-d created the sea and the land could be the main or a theme of the book. The story shows how G-d controls the wind, 1:4, 4:8, G-d controls the vegetation, 4:6, G-d controls the seas, 1:4,15, and G-d controls the animals. Also, the people of Ninveh believed that G-d had the power to flip and destroy their city. Thus, the book shows G-d’s control of the world. This could also be an appropriate message for Yom Kippur as in many of the prayers, we refer to G-d as the ruler of the world, and a recognition that G-d controls the world, should cause people to repent and worship G-d.
Ehud Ben Zvi (2004, pp. 1198-99) notes that many themes have been suggested to the book of Yonah, but he argues that none are definitive since the “book of Yonah cannot be reduced to one main theme.” This is probably correct, but we will review some of the suggested themes and suggest our own.
One very popular idea is that the theme of Yonah is repentance, as the people of Ninveh repent very quickly after Yonah told them that Ninveh was going to be flipped (destroyed), 3:4-10. This unbelievable response is surely another miracle of the story, which has numerous miracles. Their repentance is noted in the Mishnah, Ta’anit 2:1, and this theme would accord with our reading of the book on Yom Kippur. However, the verse quoted in the Mishnah is the last verse of chapter three, 3:10, and this suggests that if the point of the story was to teach about repentance, then both the book of Yonah and the reading of Yonah on Yom Kippur should have ended with chapter three, but the book of Yonah has a fourth chapter, which we read on Yom Kippur. A possible answer for this approach is that chapter four is to explain why G-d accepts repentance, that G-d cares about people, the last verse of chapter 4, 4:11. Yet, still I find this approach not satisfactory since the repentance of the people of Ninveh seems too quick to be realistic, and also it includes repentance of the animals, which also seems unrealistic.
A second idea is from Herman Melville in the great novel Moby-Dick that the point of the book of Yonah is obedience to G-d. Yonah eventually went to Ninveh, but not willingly, and hence the point of chapter four is to obey G-d. According to this idea, we read Yonah in the afternoon since after praying a full day, all that is left for us to do is say that we will follow G-d. A small proof for this idea is that the last prayers of the day are not to ask for forgiveness but to say shema yisrael, which is our acceptance of G-d. After speaking about this in my synagogue, a congregant pointed out that this idea of Yonah also accords with beginning of the Torah reading at Minhah, as Vayikra 18:4,5 records that one must follow G-d’s laws because G-d commands them.
Aviva Zornberg (2008) makes some fascinating points about the story of Yonah, and she suggests that the theme of the book is Yonah’s relationship with G-d. The book begins with Yonah attempting to flee G-d which shows his poor relationship with G-d. Zornberg notes that the name Yonah signifies flight. Yonah cannot fly but instead he went down. He went down to Yaffa, 1:3, he went down to the ship, 1:3, and he went down to the bottom of the ship, 1:5. Zornberg quotes from the Mechilta that Yonah went to the sea to die, and later he stated that that he wanted to die, 4:3,9. He did not want to commit suicide but he was hoping to die at sea.
Yonah wanted no relationship with G-d, and even during the storm, Yonah did not call out to G-d, while the sailors cried out to their gods 1:5. Yonah told the sailors that he feared G-d, 1:9, which meant that he worshiped G-d, but this seems to be a false statement because he was running away from G-d. Yonah also offered to be thrown overboard, 1:12. This is not a heroic request but as Zornberg notes (p. 281) just a manifestation of his desire to die. The sailors were afraid to do this, and they cried out to G-d, 1:14. 1:16 records that they were fearers of G-d and this was a true fear as opposed to Yonah's false fear.
Yonah wanted to die but unfortunately for him, bad luck, G-d arraigned for him to be swallowed by the big fish, which became a type of prison for him, see Uriel Simon, 2000. Yonah was trapped, he could not die and he could not leave the fish. He waited three days, and then he realized that the only way to get out of the fish was to pray, 2:1,2. Yonah offered a weird prayer where he seems to be praying about the past instead of asking to be saved. Yet, he ends the prayer by pledging to fulfill his vows, 2:10, and vows are the quintessential prayer in Tanakh. G-d responded to Yonah's prayer, and the fish brought Yonah to dry land, 2:11. It would appear that the experience with the big fish taught Yonah that he needed to have a relationship with G-d.
G-d then called out to Yonah a second time, and Yonah now fulfilled G-d's command, 3:1-4. However, after the people of Ninveh were saved, 4:1 records that Yonah was angry that G-d saved Ninveh, which demonstrated that Yonah's relationship with G-d was still deficient. Yonah then partially quoted the 13 attributes of G-d, and explains why he ran away, 4:2, which indicates that Yonah had moved forward in his relationship with G-d since now he expressed his reason for running away. Yet, instead, of seeing G-d as good and giving life, he wanted G-d to be harsh and cruel, and he wanted G-d to kill him, 4:3. As has been noted by many (see Zornberg, p. 294), Yonah’s second name refers to emet, truth, 1:1, and he leaves this attribute of G-d out in 4:2. Yonah is disappointed with G-d since he thought that G-d was not running the world based on truth.
G-d asked Yonah whether he was angry and Yonah did not respond, 4:4. Instead, Yonah left Ninveh and camped outside the city to see what would happen, 4:5. What was he expecting to happen? Goldman (1948, p. 148) and Henshke (1998a, p. 81) suggest that Yonah thought that the people of Ninveh would revert to their evil ways that their repentance was false. Yet, I wonder whether he could see this from outside the city. Also, surely Yonah must have known that if all the people repented so quickly then their repentance was an act of G-d. My guess is that Yonah went outside the city of Ninveh to see whether G-d would listen to him and overturn the city.
It is clear that the lesson of the big fish was insufficient, so G-d devised another lesson with the gourd (some type of tree) and the worm, 4:6-8. (Note, the same word, va-yiman, appears by the two lessons, by the big fish, 2:1, and by the gourd/ tree three times, 4:6-8.) In this case, Yonah had built a sukkah, 4:5, but apparently it did not give great shade, so he was happy when G-d had a tree grow above the sukkah, 4:6. G-d then had a worm devour the tree in one night, which was another miracle, and then sent a strong wind, which seemed to have destroyed the sukkah, 4:7,8.
After Yonah was depressed again due to the withering sun, 4:8, G-d repeated the previous question are you angry (4:9, 4:4)? Finally, Yonah responded that he was angry, 4:9, which shows some relationship with G-d, but his understanding of G-d and hence his relationship with G-d was still wanting. G-d attempted to explain His ways to Yonah. G-d asked Yonah that if he cared about the tree, then surely G-d cared about the people and animals of Ninveh, 4:10,11.
For the reader maybe the point of the story is that G-d is good and cares about people and animals, his creations, and hence man is supposed to cry out and establish a relationship with G-d, as did the sailors, the people of Ninveh and possibly Yonah. This message of establishing a relationship with G-d is appropriate to Yom Kippur. On Yom Kippur, man prays to G-d and separates from the world, which should lead him to establish a relationship with G-d. (Is repentance the way to establish a relationship with G-d or after one has a relationship with G-d then one repents?) Furthermore, we repeatedly state as part of the selihot that G-d is good and does not wish evil on us, exactly the opposite of Yonah's claim. Thus, maybe we read Yonah at minhah, towards the end of Yom Kippur, to encourage us to pray fervently, in the fleeting moments of the day, to G-d, who is good and who will listen to our prayers.
While this is a nice reading of Yonah, we do not know Yonah's response to G-d’s statement in 4:11. Did he get it? Did he understand that G-d is good or did he continue in his beliefs about truth and being exacting? Was he able to establish a relationship with G-d?
The numerous animal elements in the story offer another or different perspective on the story of Yonah. First, there is the great fish that swallows Yonah, and then the worm, one of the smallest creatures, eats the tree in one night. Secondly, when the people of Ninveh repent, also the animals fast and wear sackcloth, 3:7,8. Thirdly, the book ends by recording that G-d cares about many animals in the city of Ninveh, 4:11. Fourthly, the name Yonah, is a name of a bird. What is the point of these references to animals?
Significantly, when the sailors ask Yonah to explain himself, he says he fears G-d who created the sea and the land, 1:8,9. While it is hard to take Yonah’s fear of G-d seriously, still his statement that G-d created the sea and the land could be the main or a theme of the book. The story shows how G-d controls the wind, 1:4, 4:8, G-d controls the vegetation, 4:6, G-d controls the seas, 1:4,15, and G-d controls the animals. Also, the people of Ninveh believed that G-d had the power to flip and destroy their city. Thus, the book shows G-d’s control of the world. This could also be an appropriate message for Yom Kippur as in many of the prayers, we refer to G-d as the ruler of the world, and a recognition that G-d controls the world, should cause people to repent and worship G-d.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Devarim 32:49-52, 34:1-4 (Ha'azinu, Ve-zot Ha-berakha) - A good view
Devarim 32:49-52 records that Moshe was to ascend Mount Nevo to see the land of Israel. Moshe fulfilled this command in 34:1-4. Also see Bemidbar, 27:12,13, and Devarim 3:25. Could Moshe really have seen all of the land of Israel from Mount Nevo?
Bibliography:
Tigay, Jeffrey H. 1996, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society
The people were camped on the plains of Moav, Bemidbar 33:49, which was on the present day Jordanian side of the Jordan River, north of the Dead Sea. Mount Nevo was in the Avarim range, Devarim 32:49, which were the mountains that surrounded the plains of Moav from the east and south. Tigay (1996, pp. 336, 421) writes that Mount Nevo is assumed to be one of two peaks in the northeastern corner of the Jordanian side of the Dead Sea that are 3,935 and 3,586 feet above the Dead Sea.
Tigay notes that while these peaks offer good views of Israel, still some of the places mentioned in 34:1-4 could probably not be seen from these peaks. For example, 34:2 records that Moshe saw “the last sea,” which presumably is the Mediterranean Sea, but this would have been blocked by the mountains on the Israeli side of the Dead Sea. It would seem that Moshe could only have clearly seen the Jordan Valley, and the hills on the western side of the valley. If this is true, then why was it important for Moshe to go up on Mount Nevo?
Rashi (comments of 34:1-3) explains that really Moshe was granted a vision of the future before he died. For example, he quotes from the Sifra that the phrase “the last sea” in 34:2 means the last days, that Moshe was shown everything that was going to happen in the future until the time of the resurrection of the dead. This would have been quite a vision for Moshe before he died, and with this approach it is not important what Moshe could physically see since the vision was miraculous. Yet, if everything was miraculous, why did Moshe have to go up on Mount Nevo? G-d could have shown Moshe everything when Moshe was in his private tent. A possible answer is that the seeing was not the crucial element by Moshe going up the mountains, but rather Moshe had to go up the mountain because that was where he died, 32:50, 34:5.
Ramban suggests that Moshe went up the mountain to see the goodness of the land of Israel. The idea is that if Moshe could not enter the land, then at least he could see the land. Ramban claims that Moshe was able to see almost all of the places mentioned in 34:1-4, except for Jericho since it was in the valley, but G-d showed Moshe Jericho miraculously. This comment by Jericho is surprising. This was probably the easiest place for Moshe to see since Jericho is in the Jordan Valley, and 34:1 records that Mount Nebo was opposite Jericho, but the principle that G-d helped Moshe to see remains. Yet, if G-d had to help Moshe to see, then again why did Moshe go up on the mountain? A possible answer is that the Ramban’s approach is that humans should attempt to limit the need for miracles. For example, by the building of the ark, Ramban (on Bereshit 6:19) asked what was the point of Noah building such a large ark since G-d still had to perform a miracle to have all the animals fit in the ark, and he answers that man must do as much as he can to minimize the need for miracles. Here too, according to the Ramban, Moshe went up on the mountain to see what he could, and G-d helped him to see miraculously what he could not see on his own.
Luzzatto (on Bemidbar 27:13) writes that Moshe went up on the mountain to see how close the Jewish people were to entering the land of Israel. Moshe was given the knowledge with his own eyes that the people would succeed in entering the land of Israel. Thus, before he died he knew that he had succeeded in leading the people out of Egypt into the land of Israel. With this approach, the crucial point was for Moshe to clearly see the Jordan Valley, for which G-d did not have to perform any miracles to help him see. Luzzatto does not comments on verses 34:1-3, but maybe he understands the verses as meaning that Moshe looked towards these places.
Tigay, Jeffrey H. 1996, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Malkhuyot, zikhronot and shofarot
Excluding the shofar, perhaps the most unique aspect of Rosh Hashanah is the three special blessings of musaf, malkhuyot, zikhronot and shofarot. (They are also said on Yom Kippur of the Yovel year when the shofar is also blown, see Rambam, Laws of shofar 3:8 and Laws of shemitta and yovel 10:10,11) Each of these three blessings consists of an introduction, 10 verses from Tanakh, and a conclusion that ends with a blessing. Of the 10 verses, the first three are from the Torah, four through six are from the Ketuvim (writings), actually only Tehillim, seven through nine are from Neviim (prophets), and the last verse is from the Torah. (The one exception is by shofarot, which has 11 verses, but it seems that the fourth verse in the section from Ketuvim is a later addition as it is much longer than the other verses. Shulchan Arukh 591:4 writes that it is permissible to add more verses.)
The order of the verses differs from the usual order of Torah, Neviim and Ketuvim, as here we recite verses from Ketuvim prior to the verses from Neviim. Tosfot (Rosh Hashanah 32a, Mathil) explains that some of Ketuvim is written before Neviim. This explanation is particularly logical since, as mentioned above, all the verses quoted by Ketuvim are from Tehillim, which was written prior to the verses quoted from Neviim.
With these blessings there are nine blessings in the musaf of Rosh Hashanah, and only this prayer (Shemoneh Esrei) has 9 blessings. The first source that refers to these blessings is the Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah 4:5. The Mishnah asks, what is the order of the blessings of Shemoneh Esrei? R. Yochanon ben Nuri states that the one adds the blessing of malkhuyot within the third blessing of Shemoneh Esrei, but one does not blow the shofar after reciting this blessing, instead, one blows the shofar after reciting the blessing for the day (blessing four), the zikhronot (blessing five) and shofarot (blessing six). R. Akiva rejects this order since he asks if one does not blow the shofar by malkhuyot then why is it said? Instead his order is that the blessing of malkhuyot is combined with the blessing for the day (the fourth blessing) and then one blows shofar when reciting this blessing.
This argument is somewhat surprising. Why is there a need to combine the malkhuyot blessing with another blessing? On every Shabbat and festival, we have seven blessings in the Shemoneh Esrei, the three standard introductory blessings, the middle blessing referring to the day, and the three standard concluding blessings. If on Rosh Hashanah we have three extra blessings, then there should be ten blessings, seven plus three. Why not just have a separate blessing of malkhuyot, and then have ten blessings instead of nine?
Rav Soloveitchik (1989, pp.13,14, also see Arukh Hashulchan, Orah Chayyim 591:1) notes that the Talmud (Berakhot 28b, 29a) found sources for having 7, 9, 18, 19 and 24 blessings in the amidah. He explains that when Chazal established the blessings in the Shemoneh Esrei they could only do so if they found some hint for the prayers in Tanakh. They only found a hint for 7, 9, 18, 19 or 24 blessings, which means that there could not be 10 blessings. Yet, the Talmud quotes an opinion that the 18 blessings are based on the number of vertebrata in the spine, which means that the blessings do not need a Biblical source. The fact that a connection is made between a somewhat obscure component of people’s physical anatomy and the blessings suggests that initially there were a set number of blessings and then sources were found for these particular numbers.
Yosef Heineman (1981, p.54) makes the interesting suggestion that the structure of nine blessings matches the basic requirement of nine shofar blows (Rambam, Laws of shofar 3:1). The requirement of nine shofar blows is derived from the need to hear three truot with each being accompanied by a tekiah before the truah and a tekiah after the truah. Thus, the Mishnah (4:9) states that the order of the tekiot is three sets of three, and even the length of the shofar blasts follows this 3X3 pattern, as it records that the length of a tekiah is three truot and a truah is three cries. Thus, the musaf Shemoneh Esrei on Rosh Hashanah also follows this pattern of three sets of three blessings, and a tenth blessing would have broken the pattern.
Furthermore, Machzor Vitry (R. Simhah of Vitry, d. 1005, France, quoted by see Jacobson, 1989, vol. 5, p.135) writes that within the ten verses of each blessing, the first nine are because of the nine shofar blasts, and the tenth verse is a separate verse. (See also Rav Soloveitchik, 1989, pp.14-16, who notes that the 10 verses should be divided into two groups of 9 and 1, as the tenth verse is cited separately from the other nine verses except by malkhuyot, see below.) In addition, the group of nine verses can be further sub-divided into three groups of three, as we recite three verses from each book in Tanakh, and this again follows the 3X3 structure by the shofar blasts. Also, while the Mishnah (4:6) states that one should recite 10 verses, R. Yochanon b. Nuri adds that it is enough if one says just three verses in each blessing, which again gives the 3X3 pattern. Finally, each of the three blessings has an introduction, the verses, and a conclusion, which again follows the 3X3 structure.
A third possible reason for the need to have exactly nine blessings is that there are many opinions (see Jacobson, 1989, vol. 5, p.128, Tabory, 1996, and L. Finkelstein, 1925) that initially only zikhronot and shofarot were part of the initial prayers on Rosh Hashanah, and malkhuyot was added later. Leon J. Liebreich (1963, p.138) explains that from the Torah there are two aspects to Rosh Hashanah, zichron truah, Vayikra 23:24 and yom truah, Bemidbar 29:1, and these aspects correspond to the zikhronot and shofarot. Also, it is claimed that the argument between R. Akiva and R. Yochanon ben Nuri was because the blessing of malkhuyot was new in their time (1st century), and thus it had not yet been clarified where it should be said.
If this theory that malkhuyot was a later addition is correct, then it is understandable why we only have 9 blessings and not 10. The original nine were the three introductory blessings, the blessing for the day, zikhronot and shofarot, and the concluding three blessings. Once this was the accepted practice, then malkhuyot could be added but it could not be added as a separate blessing, as Liebreich argues that “an independent benediction for malkhuyot was inconceivable.” (Note that even according to this opinion the initial Shemoneh Esrei had the 3X3 structure just that the fourth blessing was only the blessing of the day.)
The fourth blessing not only combines the malkhuyot with the blessing of the day, but also the blessing is not uniqe since this blessing is the fourth blessing in all of the shemoneh esrei on Rosh Hashanah. This difference between the blessing by the malkhuyot and by zichronot and shofarot might explain another anomaly of the three blessings. By zikhronot and shofarot, the 10th verse is adjacent to the blessing, but by malkhuyot the 10th verse is with the other nine verses separate from the blessing. Maybe it was thought that had the 10th verse from the malkhuyot been adjacent to the fourth blessing this would have “forced” the blessing to only refer to malkhuyot, but this was not possible.
What is the basis for the argument between R. Akiva and R. Yochanon ben Nuri? From R. Akiva’s question, we see that he believed that the blessing of malkhuyot was intrinsically related to blowing the shofar. If the shofar blowing could not be in the first three blessings, so malkhuyot had to be combined with the fourth blessing. On the other hand, apparently R. Yochanon ben Nuri believes that there is no intrinsic connection between the shofar blowing and the blessings. Thus, in theory the malkhuyot could have been added to any of the other blessings in the Shemoneh Esrei, but the third blessing, the holiness of G-d, was considered the most appropriate. However, if R. Yochanon ben Nuri, does not believe that there is a connection between the blessings and the shofar blowing, why does he state that one blows the shofar after the zikhronot and the shofarot? A possible answer is that he thinks that these blessings relate to the nature of the day, which is source of the obligation to blow shofar. The fourth blessing is the blessing of the day so one blows the shofar after this blessing. Also, zikhronot and shofarot relate to the nature of the day due to the phrases, zichron truah, Vayikra 23:24, and yom truah, Bemidbar 29:1.
The Rambam follows R. Akiva and accepts this connection between the shofar blowing and the blessings as he writes (Laws of shofar 3:7) that one must hear the shofar blasts based on the blessings. This idea explains why we blow the shofar during musaf even though we already fulfilled the obligation to hear shofar blowing with the first thirty blows that we hear before musaf. The first thirty were not connected with the blessings, and hence we blow another thirty when we say the three blessings, malkhuyot, zikhronot and shofarot.
Yet, there seems to be some disconnect between the shofar blowing and the blessings since according to the Ashkenazi custom that the shofar is not blown during the congregation’s recitation of the musaf. On the other hand, the Sefardi custom (Shulchan Arukh, Orah Chayyim 592:1) follows R. Akiva’s ruling as they blow shofar during the congregation’s recitation of musaf. Why is the Ashkenazi custom not to blow during the congregation’s recitation of the musaf? The Mishnah Brurah (592:1) writes that it is confusing to blow the shofar in the middle of the congregation’s recitation of the Shemoneh Esrei, which is true, but R. Akiva’s position would seem to require blowing the shofar whenever the three blessings are said.
A possible answer is that the Rosh (almost the end of comments on Rosh Hashanah, see also Tur, Orah Chayyim, 591, and Elbogen, p.109) quotes R. Yitzhak Ibn Gias (Spain, 1020-1089) that during the time of the Gaonim, the tradition was for the congregation to say seven blessing on Musaf, skipping the malkhuyot, zikhronot and shofarot, and only the chazzan would recite nine blessings. However, R. ibn Gias says that he had a different tradition that the congregation was supposed to recite nine blessings, as we do today, see Shulchan Arukh, 591:1. (The rationale for the custom that the congregation only said seven blessings was because it was too difficult for everybody to know the malkhuyot, zichronot and shofarot by heart.) In any event, this custom meant that the shofar was not blown during the silent recitation of the musaf since the malkhuyot, shoforot and zichronot blessings were not recited. This custom could be the basis for the Ashkenazi custom not to blow shofar during the congregation’s recitation of the musaf, as even when the custom of only saying seven blessings was abrogated still the shofar blowing was not instituted.
How many times are the three blessings to be recited on Rosh Hashanah? Meiri (on Berakhot 29, also see Ba’al Maor (comments end of Tractate Rosh Hashanah) writes that the Rabbis of Gerona say that on all the prayers of Rosh Hashanah one should say the nine blessings. (Elbogen, 1972, p.107) writes that this is the simple reading of the Mishnah.) However, Meiri writes that the elders countered that it was too much of burden to say all nine blessings at each prayer. Meiri concludes that at a minimum the three blessings were said at shacharit since initially the shofar blowing was at shacharit, and the three blessings would have been said in conjunction with blowing the shofar.
Maybe this question of when to say the three blessings depends on whether one accepts the opinion of Rabbi Akiva or Rabbi Yochanon ben Nuri. According to R. Akiva, the three blessings would only be said once when the shofar was blown since we do not blow the shofar by every prayer. However, for R. Yochanon ben Nuri, once there is no connection between the shofar and the blessings, then the blessings could be said in every Shemoneh Esrei on Rosh Hashanah.
The Yerushalmi (Rosh Hashanah 4:6) writes that in Galilee, the people followed R. Yochanon ben Nuri, while in Judah (central Israel) the people followed R. Akiva. Furthermore, from the fact that the Mishnah records that R. Akiva questioned R. Yochanon ben Nuri’s position, and R. Yochanon ben Nuri did not respond, it would seem that the Mishnah is written from the perspective that his opinion was the accepted one, in the Galilee, and there they would have said all the blessings at each Shemoneh Esrei on Rosh Hashanah. This could then be the source for the Rabbis of Gerona’s position to say the three blessings in each Shemoneh Esrei of Rosh Hashanah.
In addition, it has been claimed (see Elbogen p. 107) that really today we also follow Rabbi Yochanon ben Nuri's opinion, as the prayer, uvechen ten pachdecha, that we add by the third blessing is a remnant from Rabbi Yochanon Ben Nuri's malkhuyot. Furthermore, we say this addition by every Shemoneh Esrei on Rosh Hashanah, since for Rabbi Yochanon ben Nuri there is no connection between the malkhuyot and the shofar blowing. (This addition is also said on Yom Kippur, and the Tur, 552, writes that he thinks it should be said all the days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.)
What is the message of the three blessings? Rav Soloveitchik (1998, p.18-25, also 1989, p.15) explains that the shofar blows are a form of prayer, a cry to G-d. The blessings and the shofar blows are two types of prayers: the three blessings are well formulated verbal prayer while the shofar blows are an instinctive nonverbal prayer. This idea is also expressed in the prayer, areshet sifatenu, which we say after each shofar blowing. The three blessings are then complementary to the shofar blows since they add content to the prayer aspect of the shofar, but what is the content?
Joseph Albo’s (15th century) suggests that the three blessings teach the fundamentals of the Judaism (Sefer Ikkarim 1:4). These fundamentals according to Albo are the existence of G-d (malkhuyot), doctrines of divine providence and reward and punishment (zikhronot) and that the Torah is from G-d (shofarot). Albo’s explanation is very popular, but it is not clear to me. The zikhronot blessing is before the shofarot blessing but in terms of dogma the belief in Torah precedes the belief in reward and punishment, as for example by the 13 principles of the Rambam. Also, the blessing by shofarot is asking G-d to listen to the cry of shofar and have mercy on the people, and this has no connection with the Torah or revelation of G-d to mankind. Finally, this idea does not accord with the idea that the malkhuyot were added after the zichronot and the shofarot since if the blessings were composed at different times, then this suggests that there is no grand unifying theme to the blessings.
A second explanation is that the message of the blessings is to pray for the final redemption. Liebreich (1963, p.139) claims that due to this reason the last set of verses in each blessing are from the Prophets, since their verses relate more directly to the call for the redemption. Heineman (1981, p. 59) notes that the end of the zikhronot blessing does not specifically refer to the redemption, but such a reference appears in R. Saadiah Gaon’s version of zikhronot.
The end of each blessing suggests a third possibility as to the message of the blessings. The malkhuyot blessing ends by stating that G-d is the King of the world. While this might be a reference to the future redemption, more likely it is referring to the present, and Jacobson (above) quotes Yosef Heineman (1977, pp. 61, 62) who writes that it is likely that the malkhuyot blessing was added as a protest against the worship of the Roman Caesars, that we stress that G-d is our King and is King of the world. This theme also accords with the tenth verse of blessing, the shema, where we accept G-d as our G-d.
The zikhronot blessing ends by stating that we pray to G-d to remember the covenant, and the question is which covenant? Based on the tenth verse, the covenant is G-d’s covenant with the patriarchs, which suggests that the blessing is a plea to G-d to take account of the zechut avot, the righteousness of the patriarchs when deciding our fate.
The shofarot blessing ends by stating that we ask G-d to hear the prayer of the shofar with mercy. With this understanding both the shofarot and zikhronot blessings are pleas for mercy that G-d should judge us mercifully, which is both appropriate for Rosh Hashanah and shows their joint theme.
The order of the verses differs from the usual order of Torah, Neviim and Ketuvim, as here we recite verses from Ketuvim prior to the verses from Neviim. Tosfot (Rosh Hashanah 32a, Mathil) explains that some of Ketuvim is written before Neviim. This explanation is particularly logical since, as mentioned above, all the verses quoted by Ketuvim are from Tehillim, which was written prior to the verses quoted from Neviim.
With these blessings there are nine blessings in the musaf of Rosh Hashanah, and only this prayer (Shemoneh Esrei) has 9 blessings. The first source that refers to these blessings is the Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah 4:5. The Mishnah asks, what is the order of the blessings of Shemoneh Esrei? R. Yochanon ben Nuri states that the one adds the blessing of malkhuyot within the third blessing of Shemoneh Esrei, but one does not blow the shofar after reciting this blessing, instead, one blows the shofar after reciting the blessing for the day (blessing four), the zikhronot (blessing five) and shofarot (blessing six). R. Akiva rejects this order since he asks if one does not blow the shofar by malkhuyot then why is it said? Instead his order is that the blessing of malkhuyot is combined with the blessing for the day (the fourth blessing) and then one blows shofar when reciting this blessing.
This argument is somewhat surprising. Why is there a need to combine the malkhuyot blessing with another blessing? On every Shabbat and festival, we have seven blessings in the Shemoneh Esrei, the three standard introductory blessings, the middle blessing referring to the day, and the three standard concluding blessings. If on Rosh Hashanah we have three extra blessings, then there should be ten blessings, seven plus three. Why not just have a separate blessing of malkhuyot, and then have ten blessings instead of nine?
Rav Soloveitchik (1989, pp.13,14, also see Arukh Hashulchan, Orah Chayyim 591:1) notes that the Talmud (Berakhot 28b, 29a) found sources for having 7, 9, 18, 19 and 24 blessings in the amidah. He explains that when Chazal established the blessings in the Shemoneh Esrei they could only do so if they found some hint for the prayers in Tanakh. They only found a hint for 7, 9, 18, 19 or 24 blessings, which means that there could not be 10 blessings. Yet, the Talmud quotes an opinion that the 18 blessings are based on the number of vertebrata in the spine, which means that the blessings do not need a Biblical source. The fact that a connection is made between a somewhat obscure component of people’s physical anatomy and the blessings suggests that initially there were a set number of blessings and then sources were found for these particular numbers.
Yosef Heineman (1981, p.54) makes the interesting suggestion that the structure of nine blessings matches the basic requirement of nine shofar blows (Rambam, Laws of shofar 3:1). The requirement of nine shofar blows is derived from the need to hear three truot with each being accompanied by a tekiah before the truah and a tekiah after the truah. Thus, the Mishnah (4:9) states that the order of the tekiot is three sets of three, and even the length of the shofar blasts follows this 3X3 pattern, as it records that the length of a tekiah is three truot and a truah is three cries. Thus, the musaf Shemoneh Esrei on Rosh Hashanah also follows this pattern of three sets of three blessings, and a tenth blessing would have broken the pattern.
Furthermore, Machzor Vitry (R. Simhah of Vitry, d. 1005, France, quoted by see Jacobson, 1989, vol. 5, p.135) writes that within the ten verses of each blessing, the first nine are because of the nine shofar blasts, and the tenth verse is a separate verse. (See also Rav Soloveitchik, 1989, pp.14-16, who notes that the 10 verses should be divided into two groups of 9 and 1, as the tenth verse is cited separately from the other nine verses except by malkhuyot, see below.) In addition, the group of nine verses can be further sub-divided into three groups of three, as we recite three verses from each book in Tanakh, and this again follows the 3X3 structure by the shofar blasts. Also, while the Mishnah (4:6) states that one should recite 10 verses, R. Yochanon b. Nuri adds that it is enough if one says just three verses in each blessing, which again gives the 3X3 pattern. Finally, each of the three blessings has an introduction, the verses, and a conclusion, which again follows the 3X3 structure.
A third possible reason for the need to have exactly nine blessings is that there are many opinions (see Jacobson, 1989, vol. 5, p.128, Tabory, 1996, and L. Finkelstein, 1925) that initially only zikhronot and shofarot were part of the initial prayers on Rosh Hashanah, and malkhuyot was added later. Leon J. Liebreich (1963, p.138) explains that from the Torah there are two aspects to Rosh Hashanah, zichron truah, Vayikra 23:24 and yom truah, Bemidbar 29:1, and these aspects correspond to the zikhronot and shofarot. Also, it is claimed that the argument between R. Akiva and R. Yochanon ben Nuri was because the blessing of malkhuyot was new in their time (1st century), and thus it had not yet been clarified where it should be said.
If this theory that malkhuyot was a later addition is correct, then it is understandable why we only have 9 blessings and not 10. The original nine were the three introductory blessings, the blessing for the day, zikhronot and shofarot, and the concluding three blessings. Once this was the accepted practice, then malkhuyot could be added but it could not be added as a separate blessing, as Liebreich argues that “an independent benediction for malkhuyot was inconceivable.” (Note that even according to this opinion the initial Shemoneh Esrei had the 3X3 structure just that the fourth blessing was only the blessing of the day.)
The fourth blessing not only combines the malkhuyot with the blessing of the day, but also the blessing is not uniqe since this blessing is the fourth blessing in all of the shemoneh esrei on Rosh Hashanah. This difference between the blessing by the malkhuyot and by zichronot and shofarot might explain another anomaly of the three blessings. By zikhronot and shofarot, the 10th verse is adjacent to the blessing, but by malkhuyot the 10th verse is with the other nine verses separate from the blessing. Maybe it was thought that had the 10th verse from the malkhuyot been adjacent to the fourth blessing this would have “forced” the blessing to only refer to malkhuyot, but this was not possible.
What is the basis for the argument between R. Akiva and R. Yochanon ben Nuri? From R. Akiva’s question, we see that he believed that the blessing of malkhuyot was intrinsically related to blowing the shofar. If the shofar blowing could not be in the first three blessings, so malkhuyot had to be combined with the fourth blessing. On the other hand, apparently R. Yochanon ben Nuri believes that there is no intrinsic connection between the shofar blowing and the blessings. Thus, in theory the malkhuyot could have been added to any of the other blessings in the Shemoneh Esrei, but the third blessing, the holiness of G-d, was considered the most appropriate. However, if R. Yochanon ben Nuri, does not believe that there is a connection between the blessings and the shofar blowing, why does he state that one blows the shofar after the zikhronot and the shofarot? A possible answer is that he thinks that these blessings relate to the nature of the day, which is source of the obligation to blow shofar. The fourth blessing is the blessing of the day so one blows the shofar after this blessing. Also, zikhronot and shofarot relate to the nature of the day due to the phrases, zichron truah, Vayikra 23:24, and yom truah, Bemidbar 29:1.
The Rambam follows R. Akiva and accepts this connection between the shofar blowing and the blessings as he writes (Laws of shofar 3:7) that one must hear the shofar blasts based on the blessings. This idea explains why we blow the shofar during musaf even though we already fulfilled the obligation to hear shofar blowing with the first thirty blows that we hear before musaf. The first thirty were not connected with the blessings, and hence we blow another thirty when we say the three blessings, malkhuyot, zikhronot and shofarot.
Yet, there seems to be some disconnect between the shofar blowing and the blessings since according to the Ashkenazi custom that the shofar is not blown during the congregation’s recitation of the musaf. On the other hand, the Sefardi custom (Shulchan Arukh, Orah Chayyim 592:1) follows R. Akiva’s ruling as they blow shofar during the congregation’s recitation of musaf. Why is the Ashkenazi custom not to blow during the congregation’s recitation of the musaf? The Mishnah Brurah (592:1) writes that it is confusing to blow the shofar in the middle of the congregation’s recitation of the Shemoneh Esrei, which is true, but R. Akiva’s position would seem to require blowing the shofar whenever the three blessings are said.
A possible answer is that the Rosh (almost the end of comments on Rosh Hashanah, see also Tur, Orah Chayyim, 591, and Elbogen, p.109) quotes R. Yitzhak Ibn Gias (Spain, 1020-1089) that during the time of the Gaonim, the tradition was for the congregation to say seven blessing on Musaf, skipping the malkhuyot, zikhronot and shofarot, and only the chazzan would recite nine blessings. However, R. ibn Gias says that he had a different tradition that the congregation was supposed to recite nine blessings, as we do today, see Shulchan Arukh, 591:1. (The rationale for the custom that the congregation only said seven blessings was because it was too difficult for everybody to know the malkhuyot, zichronot and shofarot by heart.) In any event, this custom meant that the shofar was not blown during the silent recitation of the musaf since the malkhuyot, shoforot and zichronot blessings were not recited. This custom could be the basis for the Ashkenazi custom not to blow shofar during the congregation’s recitation of the musaf, as even when the custom of only saying seven blessings was abrogated still the shofar blowing was not instituted.
How many times are the three blessings to be recited on Rosh Hashanah? Meiri (on Berakhot 29, also see Ba’al Maor (comments end of Tractate Rosh Hashanah) writes that the Rabbis of Gerona say that on all the prayers of Rosh Hashanah one should say the nine blessings. (Elbogen, 1972, p.107) writes that this is the simple reading of the Mishnah.) However, Meiri writes that the elders countered that it was too much of burden to say all nine blessings at each prayer. Meiri concludes that at a minimum the three blessings were said at shacharit since initially the shofar blowing was at shacharit, and the three blessings would have been said in conjunction with blowing the shofar.
Maybe this question of when to say the three blessings depends on whether one accepts the opinion of Rabbi Akiva or Rabbi Yochanon ben Nuri. According to R. Akiva, the three blessings would only be said once when the shofar was blown since we do not blow the shofar by every prayer. However, for R. Yochanon ben Nuri, once there is no connection between the shofar and the blessings, then the blessings could be said in every Shemoneh Esrei on Rosh Hashanah.
The Yerushalmi (Rosh Hashanah 4:6) writes that in Galilee, the people followed R. Yochanon ben Nuri, while in Judah (central Israel) the people followed R. Akiva. Furthermore, from the fact that the Mishnah records that R. Akiva questioned R. Yochanon ben Nuri’s position, and R. Yochanon ben Nuri did not respond, it would seem that the Mishnah is written from the perspective that his opinion was the accepted one, in the Galilee, and there they would have said all the blessings at each Shemoneh Esrei on Rosh Hashanah. This could then be the source for the Rabbis of Gerona’s position to say the three blessings in each Shemoneh Esrei of Rosh Hashanah.
In addition, it has been claimed (see Elbogen p. 107) that really today we also follow Rabbi Yochanon ben Nuri's opinion, as the prayer, uvechen ten pachdecha, that we add by the third blessing is a remnant from Rabbi Yochanon Ben Nuri's malkhuyot. Furthermore, we say this addition by every Shemoneh Esrei on Rosh Hashanah, since for Rabbi Yochanon ben Nuri there is no connection between the malkhuyot and the shofar blowing. (This addition is also said on Yom Kippur, and the Tur, 552, writes that he thinks it should be said all the days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.)
What is the message of the three blessings? Rav Soloveitchik (1998, p.18-25, also 1989, p.15) explains that the shofar blows are a form of prayer, a cry to G-d. The blessings and the shofar blows are two types of prayers: the three blessings are well formulated verbal prayer while the shofar blows are an instinctive nonverbal prayer. This idea is also expressed in the prayer, areshet sifatenu, which we say after each shofar blowing. The three blessings are then complementary to the shofar blows since they add content to the prayer aspect of the shofar, but what is the content?
Joseph Albo’s (15th century) suggests that the three blessings teach the fundamentals of the Judaism (Sefer Ikkarim 1:4). These fundamentals according to Albo are the existence of G-d (malkhuyot), doctrines of divine providence and reward and punishment (zikhronot) and that the Torah is from G-d (shofarot). Albo’s explanation is very popular, but it is not clear to me. The zikhronot blessing is before the shofarot blessing but in terms of dogma the belief in Torah precedes the belief in reward and punishment, as for example by the 13 principles of the Rambam. Also, the blessing by shofarot is asking G-d to listen to the cry of shofar and have mercy on the people, and this has no connection with the Torah or revelation of G-d to mankind. Finally, this idea does not accord with the idea that the malkhuyot were added after the zichronot and the shofarot since if the blessings were composed at different times, then this suggests that there is no grand unifying theme to the blessings.
A second explanation is that the message of the blessings is to pray for the final redemption. Liebreich (1963, p.139) claims that due to this reason the last set of verses in each blessing are from the Prophets, since their verses relate more directly to the call for the redemption. Heineman (1981, p. 59) notes that the end of the zikhronot blessing does not specifically refer to the redemption, but such a reference appears in R. Saadiah Gaon’s version of zikhronot.
The end of each blessing suggests a third possibility as to the message of the blessings. The malkhuyot blessing ends by stating that G-d is the King of the world. While this might be a reference to the future redemption, more likely it is referring to the present, and Jacobson (above) quotes Yosef Heineman (1977, pp. 61, 62) who writes that it is likely that the malkhuyot blessing was added as a protest against the worship of the Roman Caesars, that we stress that G-d is our King and is King of the world. This theme also accords with the tenth verse of blessing, the shema, where we accept G-d as our G-d.
The zikhronot blessing ends by stating that we pray to G-d to remember the covenant, and the question is which covenant? Based on the tenth verse, the covenant is G-d’s covenant with the patriarchs, which suggests that the blessing is a plea to G-d to take account of the zechut avot, the righteousness of the patriarchs when deciding our fate.
The shofarot blessing ends by stating that we ask G-d to hear the prayer of the shofar with mercy. With this understanding both the shofarot and zikhronot blessings are pleas for mercy that G-d should judge us mercifully, which is both appropriate for Rosh Hashanah and shows their joint theme.
The custom of reciting Selihot and fasting
There is a custom amongst Ashkenazim to recite selihot, prayers to ask G-d for forgiveness, at least four days prior to Rosh Hashanah and continuing through most of the ten days of repentance, excluding Rosh Hashanah and Shabbat. Sefaridm begin reciting selihot even earlier, from Rosh Chodesh Elul. What is the source of this custom?
It seems that in the time of Geonim, some people fasted all ten days, some fasted for part of the ten days of repentance, while others did not fast at all during the ten days of repentance, (excluding Yom Kippur and Tzom Gedaliah). The custom of saying selihot developed amongst those people who fasted. What is the connection between fasting and saying selihot?
The Mishnah (Ta’anit 2:1-4) records that six extra blessings were added to the Shemoneh Esrei when there was a public fast for rain. Prior to the conclusion of each blessing, there was a statement that just as G-d had answered the prayers of people in the past (Avraham, by the crossing of Yam Suf, Yehoshua, Shmuel, Eliyahu and Yonah) so too G-d should answer the prayers for rain. These six statements would later develop into the section of anenu towards the end of the selihot, and they show that special prayers are added to all fast days. Accordingly, once there developed the custom of fasting on the days of repentance, then extra prayers were also added, and these extra prayers are the selihot.
Gartner (1974) argues that the connection between the selihot and fasting can also explain the third stage in the development of the custom of saying selihot, that of saying selihot prior to Rosh Hashanah. The customs of the land of Israel influenced Medieval Ashkenazi Jewry, which meant that they should have fasted all the ten days, of repentance, but they were also aware of the opposition from the Geonim of fasting on Rosh Hashanah and Shabbat. In addition, the Talmud (Berakhot 8b) quotes a drasha that eating on erev Yom Kippur is equivalent to fasting, and thus one would also not fast on the erev Yom Kippur. (Gartner, 1974, p. 76, writes that this drasha was not accepted in Israel.) Accordingly, the ten day fast during the ten days of repentance was shortened to six days, as Rosh Hashanah, Shabbat and erev Yom Kippur were excluded, and then to make up the missing four days, one would fast four days prior to Rosh Hashanah, see Rama Orah Chayyim 581:2. Of these fasts days, the most important was to fast on erev Rosh Hashanah, which was viewed as replacing the fast on Rosh Hashanah (see Tur and Shulchan Arukh Orah Chayyim 581). With the extension of the fasting to four days prior to Rosh Hashanah, then selihot also began to be recited on these fast days prior to Rosh Hashanah.
This idea only explains the saying of selihot four days prior to Rosh Hashanah, how did the custom develop both by the Ashkenazim and the Sefardim to add more days of selihot? With regard to the Ashkenazim, the Levush, (R. Mordechai Jaffe, 1535-1612, quoted by Gartner) explains that really the there was a need only to add four days of selihot, and then when Rosh Hashanah is on Thursday, one starts saying selihot on Sunday, but as not to confuse people, when Rosh Hashanah falls on other days we still always start selihot on Sunday even if this means saying selihot on days when there is no custom to fast. (The Mishnah Berurah, 581:15, turn of the 20th century, writes that the popular custom in his time is to fast on the first day of the saying of selihot.) This development of always starting selihot on Sunday breaks the connection between fasting and selihot, and to the best of my knowledge the custom of fasting for the ten days of repentance has been lost while the custom of saying selihot remains. Also, I think this is the only custom in Judaism which is based on the first day of the week, i.e., Sunday.
The custom of the Sefardim to recite selihot from the beginning of month of Elul appears to be based on a Persian custom. Rav Hai Geon (939-1038, quoted in Gartner, 1974, p. 75) refers to a Persian custom to say special prayers from the beginning of the month of Elul since this is when Moshe went up to get the second luhot. This would seem to indicate a separate source for selihot, but Agnon (1976, p. 19) and Goldschmidt (1965 p. 6) quote that there was also a custom to fast from the beginning of Elul until Yom Kippur, though it is unclear to me when this custom of fasting began.
The connection between selihot and fasting can explain an anomaly in the selihot. By far the longest selihot are on erev Rosh Hashanah, while the shortest selihot are on erev Yom Kippur. Why should the selihot on these days be so different than all the other days, and if there was to be a difference, one would have thought that the selihot on erev Yom Kippur would be longer than the selihot on erev Rosh Hashanah? Possibly the answer is that, as stated above, erev Rosh Hashanah became the most important fast day of the period leading up to Yom Kippur, and hence more selihot were added to the day. On the other hand, on erev Yom Kippur due the drasha mentioned above that eating is like fasting, it was considered a commandment to eat on erev Yom Kippur (Shulchan Arukh, Orah Chayyim, 604:1), which clearly counters the idea of fasting and hence the selihot are shortened.
Bibliography
Agnon, Shmuel Yosef (1888-1970), 1965, Days of Awe, New York: Schocken Books.
Gartner, Yaakov, 1972, Fasting on Rosh Hashanah: The origin of this custom and its development, (Hebrew) Hadarom, pp. 125-162.
-----, 1974, Fasting and selihot before Rosh Hashanah, Hadarom, pp. 69-77.
Goldschmidt, Daniel (1895-1972), 1965, The order of Selihot, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.
Zevin, Shlomo Yosef (1890-1978), 1944, first edition, 1956, seventh edition, Ha-Mo'adim ba- Halakhah, Jerusalem.
Zevin, Shlomo Yosef (1890-1978), 1944, first edition, 1956, seventh edition, Ha-Mo'adim ba- Halakhah, Jerusalem.
Four stages in the history of selihot
Daniel Goldschmidt (1965, pp.5,6) outlines four different stages in the development of the custom of saying selihot. The first stage was that there existed a custom called maamad to say certain prayers before sunrise during the ten days of repentance. The main prayer in the maamad was the 13 middot “characteristics” of G-d (Shemot 34:6,7), which was based on the passage in Rosh Hashanah 17B that records that Rav Yochanon explained that the words vaya’avor hashem al paniv (Shemot 34:6) mean that G-d wrapped Himself like a chazzan and demonstrated the prayer service of saying the 13 “characteristics” of G-d to Moshe. Rav Yochanon also said that G-d told Moshe that when the people would sin in the future, they should say this prayer, and G-d would forgive them, and the Talmud quotes R. Yehuda that G-d even made a covenant that the prayer would be efficacious. Accordingly, there developed the concept of reciting the 13 “characteristics” of G-d in order to gain forgiveness, and initially, the term selihot just referred to the 13 “characteristics” of G-d, though relatively quickly the word selihot began to refer to the complete set of prayers. The maamad service is quoted in the Siddur of Rav Amram Gaon (9th century), and the service involved saying, ashrei, other verses from Tanakh, the 13 “characteristics,” vedui, anenu and tachnun.
The second stage, which started in the 9th century (possibly almost contemporaneous with the first stage), was that piyyutim were added in the middle of the Biblical verses, and these piyyutim even replaced some of the verses. In this stage, each chazzan would choose which piyyutim to recite.
In the third stage, selihot were also said prior to Rosh Hashanah. Machor Vitry (11th century, quoted by Jacobson, 1989, p.30) refers to saying selihot from the Saturday night before Rosh Hashanah. However, this might have been just been the custom amongst Ashkenazim, as the Rambam writes ((1135-1204, Laws of repentance, 3:4) that everybody’s custom was to say the penitential prayers during the ten days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, and he does not mention reciting selihot before Rosh Hashanah. For sure by the time of the Rosh (1250-1327, comments end of Rosh Hashanah) the custom of reciting selihot prior to Rosh Hashanah was accepted by the Sefardim since he refers to the custom of saying selihot starting from Rosh Chodesh Elul, which is the Sefardi custom. (Goldschmidt mentions a custom in Spain of starting on the 25th of Elul and Jacobson, 1989, vol. 3, p. 29 quotes R. David Abudraham, 14th century, that there also existed a custom of starting on the 15th of Elul.)
The Rosh’s son, the Tur (1275-1340, Orah Chayyim 581) quotes his father and then adds that the custom of Ashkenazim is that if Rosh Hashanah is on Thursday or Shabbat, then one starts saying selihot in the beginning of the week (Saturday night/ Sunday), while if Rosh Hashanah is on Monday or Tuesday, then one starts saying selihot the beginning of the previous week. The Tur also presents this prayer service as a three part structure. He combines the verses from Tanakh, the 13 “characteristics,” vedui, anenu into one category of penitential prayers, and as noted by the Levush (R. Mordechai Jaffe, 1535-1612, quoted by Jacobson, 1989, Vol. 5, p.30, also see Rav Soloveitchik, 1994, p.108) this structure follows the basic structure of tefillah. The opening prayer is ashrei, songs of praise, then shemoneh esrei, which are replaced here by the 13 middot, and tachanun concludes the prayer service. (Note in the time of the Geonim, Alenu was not part of the weekday prayer, as it was included in the 14th century to the weekday prayers, see Elbogen, Dvir, 1988, p.63.)
The fourth stage began in the 15th century that amongst the Ashkenazim there began to be set piyyutim for each day. This led to distinct customs amongst different groups as different communities chose different piyyutim.
The second stage, which started in the 9th century (possibly almost contemporaneous with the first stage), was that piyyutim were added in the middle of the Biblical verses, and these piyyutim even replaced some of the verses. In this stage, each chazzan would choose which piyyutim to recite.
In the third stage, selihot were also said prior to Rosh Hashanah. Machor Vitry (11th century, quoted by Jacobson, 1989, p.30) refers to saying selihot from the Saturday night before Rosh Hashanah. However, this might have been just been the custom amongst Ashkenazim, as the Rambam writes ((1135-1204, Laws of repentance, 3:4) that everybody’s custom was to say the penitential prayers during the ten days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, and he does not mention reciting selihot before Rosh Hashanah. For sure by the time of the Rosh (1250-1327, comments end of Rosh Hashanah) the custom of reciting selihot prior to Rosh Hashanah was accepted by the Sefardim since he refers to the custom of saying selihot starting from Rosh Chodesh Elul, which is the Sefardi custom. (Goldschmidt mentions a custom in Spain of starting on the 25th of Elul and Jacobson, 1989, vol. 3, p. 29 quotes R. David Abudraham, 14th century, that there also existed a custom of starting on the 15th of Elul.)
The Rosh’s son, the Tur (1275-1340, Orah Chayyim 581) quotes his father and then adds that the custom of Ashkenazim is that if Rosh Hashanah is on Thursday or Shabbat, then one starts saying selihot in the beginning of the week (Saturday night/ Sunday), while if Rosh Hashanah is on Monday or Tuesday, then one starts saying selihot the beginning of the previous week. The Tur also presents this prayer service as a three part structure. He combines the verses from Tanakh, the 13 “characteristics,” vedui, anenu into one category of penitential prayers, and as noted by the Levush (R. Mordechai Jaffe, 1535-1612, quoted by Jacobson, 1989, Vol. 5, p.30, also see Rav Soloveitchik, 1994, p.108) this structure follows the basic structure of tefillah. The opening prayer is ashrei, songs of praise, then shemoneh esrei, which are replaced here by the 13 middot, and tachanun concludes the prayer service. (Note in the time of the Geonim, Alenu was not part of the weekday prayer, as it was included in the 14th century to the weekday prayers, see Elbogen, Dvir, 1988, p.63.)
The fourth stage began in the 15th century that amongst the Ashkenazim there began to be set piyyutim for each day. This led to distinct customs amongst different groups as different communities chose different piyyutim.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Devarim Chapter 30 (Nitsavim) – Hope
30:1-10
records the section on tsuvah, repentance. Commentators have understood
this section in two different ways.
The Rambam (Laws of Repentance, 7:5 and Laws of Kings 11:1) explains this section as being a prophecy of the future that in the future the people will repent and be redeemed from exile. On the other hand, the Ramban (31:11) understands that not only is the section a prophecy but it is also teaching the commandment to repent. (The Rambam also agrees that there exists a commandment to repent, but he believes that this obligation derives from Bemidbar 5:6,7.)
This disagreement also relates how to understand the word commandment in 30:11. Ramban (on 30:11, see also Abravanel, Horev edition, p. 480) writes that the word commandment refers to the commandment to repent, which he believes is the subject of 30:1-10. Thus, according to the Ramban, in 30:11,12, Moshe was telling the people that it was not impossible for them to repent. However, according to the Rambam, the reference in 31:11 to “this commandment” is to all the laws, and N. Leibowitz (1980, p.323) writes that this is the view of most of commentators.
A proof for this latter approach is that the complete phrase in 31:11 is “this commandment that I commanded you today,” and the reference to today is not just to the previous verses, but to the covenant, whose basis are all the laws, that was established on that day, see 27:9. In addition, in the book of Devarim the phrase "this commandment" appears several times (6:1, 7:11, 17:20, also Shemot 24:12), and it seems that in these cases, the word is referring to all the laws, even though it is written in the singular.
The Rambam (Laws of Repentance, 7:5 and Laws of Kings 11:1) explains this section as being a prophecy of the future that in the future the people will repent and be redeemed from exile. On the other hand, the Ramban (31:11) understands that not only is the section a prophecy but it is also teaching the commandment to repent. (The Rambam also agrees that there exists a commandment to repent, but he believes that this obligation derives from Bemidbar 5:6,7.)
This disagreement also relates how to understand the word commandment in 30:11. Ramban (on 30:11, see also Abravanel, Horev edition, p. 480) writes that the word commandment refers to the commandment to repent, which he believes is the subject of 30:1-10. Thus, according to the Ramban, in 30:11,12, Moshe was telling the people that it was not impossible for them to repent. However, according to the Rambam, the reference in 31:11 to “this commandment” is to all the laws, and N. Leibowitz (1980, p.323) writes that this is the view of most of commentators.
A proof for this latter approach is that the complete phrase in 31:11 is “this commandment that I commanded you today,” and the reference to today is not just to the previous verses, but to the covenant, whose basis are all the laws, that was established on that day, see 27:9. In addition, in the book of Devarim the phrase "this commandment" appears several times (6:1, 7:11, 17:20, also Shemot 24:12), and it seems that in these cases, the word is referring to all the laws, even though it is written in the singular.
These two approaches also give different perspectives as to the relationship between chapter 30 and the previous chapters. The point of 30:1-10 seems to be to console the people after hearing the curses in chapters 28 and 29, but Tigay (1996, p.432) argues that “the promise of forgiveness could weaken the effectiveness of the warning. Conceivably, Moshe reasoned that no generation would dismiss the warning of disaster because of the promise that it could be followed by restoration. However, in 30:1-10 the promises of prosperity after restoration are so glorious that they practically overshadow the threats.”
Tigay’s question does not apply to the Ramban’s approach since if 30:1-10 refer to the commandment to repent, then the “glorious restoration” would be to reward the people for repenting. However, following the Rambam’s approach, why does Moshe tell the people of the future “restoration” immediately after his warnings to the people to keep the covenant?
Maybe the answer is that the last section in chapter 29, 29:21-27, is particularly depressing since the threats are not couched as a warning if the people sin, but could be understood as a future prophecy. This could give the people the idea that they are doomed to sin and the land to be destroyed.
In response, the following section, 30:1-10, is a prophecy that the people will return to G-d. The message of the section is that the people are not doomed to sin, some generations may sin, but others will follow G-d. This section is not just to console the people that the future will be good, but to give them hope to follow the covenant. They should not and they cannot think that they are doomed to sin. Therefore, Moshe told the people that G-d would help them return, 30:3,6,9. Also, afterwards, in 30:11-4, Moshe avowed that it was possible for the people to fulfill the laws, and in 30:15-20, Moshe stated that since the people have free will they are not doomed to sin and they have the ability to fulfill the covenant.
Accordingly, in chapter 30, Moshe was trying to make clear that the threats and warnings in chapters 28 and 29, and particularly 29:21-27, were not so overpowering that the people should feel that they were doomed to sin and could never uphold the covenant. Moshe told the people that in the future some people would keep the covenant, and hence it was, and still is, up to each individual to choose to follow the covenant.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Devarim 27: 11-26 (Ki Tavo) – Curses, blessings and curses in chapters 27 and 28 in the book of Devarim
דברים כז:יד - וענו הלוים ואמרו אל כל איש ישראל קול רם.
Devarim 27:11-13 record that Moshe told the people that when they would come into the land of Israel, six tribes, including the tribe of Levi, should go up on Mount Gerizim to bless the people and six tribes should go up on Mount Eval to curse the people. 27:14 then records, ve-anu ha-Leviim… “And all the Levites are to speak up and say to every man of Israel, (with) voice raised," Fox, 1995, p. 973, translation.
This translation (and all that I saw) is based on the idea that the first word of 27:14, ve-anu, is to be understood as being a future (imperfect) verb that the Levites will speak or respond in the future, as opposed to meaning the Levites responded at that time. The apparent basis for this understanding is that a vav before a verb can reverse the tenses of a verb from the past to future when there is a vav with a past verb which comes after a future verb to which the verbs are connected either logically or temporally (a vav ha-hippukh, vav consecutive or vav conversive). This is similar to the usage of the same word in 21:7 and 26:5.
The flipping of the tenses of the word ve-anu to being a future verb makes 27:14 incomprehensible. Why are the Levites being singled out in 27:14, as in 27:11-13 Moshe had told all the people to go up on the mountains? Also, if the Levites are to call out to all the people, then presumably they would be in the middle of the people, but in 27:12, Moshe had said that the Levites were to be on Mount Gerizim and not in the middle of the people. Furthermore, 27:15-26 record that the Levites proclaimed curses, while according to 27:11, they were to bless the people.
The Talmud addresses the problems of 27:14 in two discussions. The Mishnah Sotah 7:5 (quoted by Rashi on 27:14) explains that really the Levites proclaimed both curses and blessings to the people, rather than just curses as recorded in the Torah. According to the Mishnah, for each curse recorded in the Torah, the Levites converted it to a blessing for one who did not violate the prohibition. For example, if 27:15 records “cursed be the one who makes an idol” than the Levites said this curse facing Mount Eval, and they also said “blessed be the person who did not make an idol” facing Mount Gerizim.
The Talmud also endeavors to ascertain where the Levites were located during the ceremony. Talmud Bavli (Sotah 37a) records three possibilities: either all the Levites were below between the mountains, only the elders of the Levites were below and the remainder of the tribe was on Mount Gerizim, or only those Levites who worked in the mishkan/ ohel moed were between the mountains, while the remainder of the tribe was on Mount Gerizim. The Yerushalmi (Sotah 7:4) adds a fourth opinion that all the Levites were on Mount Gerizim, and only the priests were below between the people.
All of these explanations to 27:14 are problematic. The Torah does not mention that the Levites said a corresponding blessing to each curse recorded in 27:15-26. If they really said such a blessing, why did the Torah not record it? Why should the Torah only write the curses and not the blessings? Furthermore, some of the blessings would not make sense. For instance, 27:21 records “cursed be the person who commits bestiality,” so then the corresponding blessing would be blessed be the person who does not commit bestiality. Why should a person who abstains from such an abominable practice be blessed? In addition, the suggestions in the Talmud Bavli with regard to the location of the Levites lack textual support.
Ibn Ezra (on 27:15) suggests a different approach to understanding Moshe’s instructions in 27:11-13. He writes that the simple understanding of 27:11-13 is that Moshe's instructions concerning the blessings and curses that were to be said by the twelve tribes on Mount Gerizim and Mount Eval are the blessings and curses recorded in 28:3-6,16-19. When then did the Levites pronounce the curses recorded in 27:15-26?
David Tzvi Hoffmann (1961, pp. 501-506) notes that the verse in the book of Yehoshua (8:34) which mentions the blessings and curses of the ceremony at Mount Gerizim and Mount Eval refers to the blessings and curses of chapter 28 and not to the curses of 27:15-26. Hoffmann follows the Ibn Ezra that 28:3-6 and 28:16-19 are the blessings and curses referred to 27:11-13, and he maintains that 27:12 refers to the tribe of Levi while 27:14 refers just to the priests, as mentioned in the Yerushalmi (Sotah 7:4). He suggests that after the blessings and curses of chapter 28 were said, the Levites descended from the mountain and said the curses recorded in 27:15-26.
Luzzatto (on 27:15) seems to suggest the opposite order, that the curses of 27:15-26 were said prior to the blessings and curses that were said on Mount Gerizim and Mount Eval. With this idea, initially the Levites would have been between the two mountains to call out to the people, and then after saying the curses in 27:15-26, they climbed up Mount Gerizim to join the other five tribes who were already on the mountains.
I am not convinced by these explanations. Why should there be a set of blessings and curses and then one set just of curses? It seems odd that for one set of blessings and curses the tribe of Levi should be similar to all the tribes and on the mountain, while for the other set of curses, which occurred almost simultaneously, the tribe should be separate from the other tribes between the mountains. Furthermore, according to Hoffmann and Luzzatto, the Torah should have spelled out the order of the blessings/curses and curses, and explained that the Levites were to go up or down between the blessings/ curses and curses.
To understand 27:14, we have to understand the meaning of the word ve-anu in the beginning of the verse. Is the vav in the word ve-anu a vav consecutive to make the verb anu, respond, change from being a past verb to a future verb? While the rule of vav consecutive exists in numerous cases, it cannot apply in 27:14 due to all the difficulties mentioned above. There is no literary connection either logically or temporally between 27:12,13 and 27:14, and hence 27:14 is an independent verse. This means that the vav of 27:14 does not flip the tenses, and word ve-anu should be understood as a past verb, the Levites responded. This would not be a unique case. For example, on Bereshit 26:10, Siftei Chachamim explains that the vav in the beginning of the word, ve-heveti means a vav that connects words and should be understood in the past tense, as Rashi explains, and not as a vav consecutive. See also Sokolow, 2008, pp. 103, 104 for a brief discussion of this issue in reference to Shemot 18:22,26, where he notes that the same word, ve-shaftu, can refer either to the future or to the present depending on the context.
All translations of 27:14 that I saw are problematic. The JPS translation (in Tigay, 1996, p. 253) skips the word ve-anu. Hertz (1960, p. 864), Fox (above), Silbermann and Rosenbaum (1934, p. 130), create a repetition in the verse by translating the word anu to mean speaking that, “the Levites shall speak and say.” Hirsch (1989, p. 553) translates it “And the Levites shall lift up their voices and say,” which is how Rashi translates the word anu on 26:5 but that does not seem to be the simple sense of the word anu, see our discussion on 26:4,10, “Logistics of the bikkurim ceremony.”
27:14 does not mean that the Levites will respond in the future, but that the Levites responded at that particular time to Moshe's speech. 27:14 means that the “Levites responded (to Moshe) and said to all the people in a raised voice.” This understanding removes any repetition in the verse. The Levites were responding to Moshe's instructions to the tribes to go up on Mount Gerizim and Mount Eval when they would come to the land of Israel.
Why would the Levites interrupt Moshe's speech? The answer is that the ceremony on Mount Eval and Mount Gerizim that Moshe was informing the people about was to establish the covenant that was to be sealed with the blessings and curses, 28:69. When the tribes would say the blessings and curses, they would be showing their acceptance of the covenant. This acceptance of the covenant was to occur when the people would enter the land of Israel, a few months later, but the Levites did not want to wait to accept the covenant. Thus, at the moment that Moshe was speaking about how the Jewish people would accept the covenant in the future, the Levites spontaneously shouted out curses, 27:14-26. The Levites could not shout out blessings because only G-d has the power to authorize blessings. In addition, as has been noted by the Ibn Ezra and the Rashbam (both on 27:15), the curses stated by the Levites refer to secret acts because the people were accepting upon themselves not to do even things that ostensibly they could get away with.
27:14 is then recording that the tribe of Levi interrupted Moshe's instructions (27:11-13, chapter 28) about the future ceremony in the land of Israel. The Levites interrupted Moshe by stating twelve curses, 27:15-26, when the people were still on the plains of Moav, and the Levites were in the middle of the people since their encampment was in the middle of the camp. A few months later, the ceremony on Mount Eval and Mount Gerizim would consist of the entire nation including the tribe of the Levites going up on the two mountains. (According to book of Yehoshua, 8:33, only the priests stayed with the aron in between the two mountains, see Yerushalmi Sotah 7:4.) The curses shouted out by the Levites (27:15-26) when Moshe was speaking were not repeated by the ceremony at Mount Eval and Mount Gerizim because these curses were never part of that ceremony.
Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.
Luzzatto, Shmuel David (Italy, 1800-1865), 1871 (first edition), 1965, Commentary to the Pentateuch, edited by P. Schlesinger, Jerusalem: Horev.
Silbermann, A. M. and M. Rosenbaum, 1985, initial publication 1934, Chumash with Rashi’s commentary, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, Ltd, successors to Shapiro Valentine & Co.
Sokolow, Moshe, 2008, Studies in the weekly parashah based on the lessons of Nehama Leibowitz, Jerusalem: Urim Publications.
Tigay, Jeffrey H. 1996, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)