Bereshit 12:6,7 (Lekh Lekha) – Avraham’s second blessing

After Avraham (Avram) went to the land of Israel, G-d told him a second blessing, which specifies that his descendants would inherit the land of Israel, 12:6,7. Only at this point did Avraham know that he was to recieve the land of Israel. Beforehand, he was merely continuing on his journey that Terah had started, 12:31.

Why was the blessing of 12:7 only to Avraham's descendants and not to Avraham, that Avraham would receive the land of Israel? My guess is that the blessing could not have been for Avraham at that time since Lot was also a potential recipient of the land of Israel, as he had also journeyed with Avraham to the land of Israel, 12:4,5. The promise that Avraham's descendants would receive the land did not rule out Lot since he was Avraham's nephew and could be considered his descendant.

This recognition that the promise here of land was to Avraham's descendants and not to Avraham can explain the puzzling phrase in 12:6 immediately prior to the blessing that "the Canaanites were then in the land." This phrase implies that the Canaanites were no longer living in the land of Israel when the Torah was written, but we know that they were living in Israel when Yehoshua led the people back to the land of Israel. Why was the information mentioned? The answer is that the phrase tells us that the Canaanites were the owners of the land of Israel at that time, which was because Avraham had not yet been promised the land of Israel. When the Torah was written at Mount Sinai, Avraham had already been promised the land of Israel, as recorded in 13:17, and hence the Canaanites were no longer the owners of the land even though they were still living in the land of Israel.

Bereshit 14:13-15 (Lekh Lekha) – Avraham's battle with the four kings: The warrior

14:8-12 records that four kings, who apparently came from Northern Syria and/ or Iraq, defeated five kings who lived around the Dead Sea. The four kings took the booty from the defeated kings, and this included Lot, Avraham's nephew. A refugee from the war escaped and told Avraham about Lot's plight, 14:13. Avraham then assembled an army of 318 men and chased the four kings until Dan, 14:14. There was a battle at Dan, and then Avraham's army chased the four kings until Hovah, which is left or north of Damascus, 14:15. At that point, Avraham freed Lot and the four kings apparently went back home, 14:16.

One question about this battle is where did it take place? Where was Dan? The usual identification of Dan is in the northern Galilee of Israel by the rivers (streams?) that feed into the Jordan River (or then the Hula Lake), as for example Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon explains Dan as the Banias, see also Megillah 6a. This would seem to tally with the idea that Avraham continued to pursue them until Hovav, which was near Damascus, and Damascus is north of the rivers. Furthermore, the tribe of Dan and hence the place Dan, is associated with the north, see Devarim 34:1.  With this identification, Avraham chased the four kings until Dan in the north.

The problem with this identification is that the book of Yehoshua (19:47) records that the tribe of Dan captured a city called Leshem which they renamed Dan. The book of Judges records a similar story but there it states (18:29) that the initial name of the place was Laish. The idea being that the tribe of Dan received land in the middle of Israel by the coast, but then some (all?) of the tribe moved north. How could the place in the north be called Dan in the time of Avraham if only centuries later it was called Dan? The Torah should have recorded that Avraham chased the four kings until Leshem or Laish.

One answer is that the name Dan was based on prophetic knowledge, see Kasher (1992, Torah Shelemah 14:72,73,75), Hizkuni (on 14:14) and Hertz (1960, p. 52). This prophetic knowledge could have been imparted to Avraham that he knew the place would eventually be called Dan or to Moshe when he wrote the Torah. See also Rashi and Radak on 14:7.

A second answer is that the place was called Dan in the time of Avraham unrelated to the future tribe. With this possibility, the question is why did the book of Yehoshua and the book of Judges state that the initial name of the place was Leshem or Laish. Asher Vizer (quoted by Keel, 1997, p. 382, footnote 54b) suggests that the initially the name was Dan, then Leshem or Laish and then Dan again, but the books of Yehoshua and Judges did not mention that really the original name was Dan.

A third answer (see Luzzatto on 14:14) is that the place Dan here is different than the place Dan from the one referred to in the book of Yehoshua and Judges. The Torah Temimah (on 14:14) even suggests that the last letter of the previous word, daled, should be joined with the word Dan, and then Avraham chased the four kings to a place called Dedan.

I wonder if the place Dan in 14:14 was in the north altogether. It is generally assumed that the battle with the five kings was in the southern part of the Dead Sea, and it is approximately 240 kilometers from the southern portion of the Dead Sea until the Northern Galilee. Avraham who was chasing the four kings started from Hebron (13:18 and 14:13) which is approximately 200 kilometers from the Northern Galilee. Hebron is approximately 60 kilometers northwest from the southern portion of the Dead Sea. Thus, it probably took the refugee two days to travel to Avraham after the battle, but it could have been less as 19:16 records that Avraham walked from his house in Hebron to an overlook of Sedom. Also, most likely the soldiers of the four kings needed to rest a day or two after the battle before starting to march again. In addition, the four kings would have been burdened down by the booty that they took, since much of it had to be carried and the people they took would not have been able to march as fast as the army Avraham assembled. Finally, it seems that it did not take Avraham a long time to assemble his men, as 14:1 records that he took his servants. Thus, Avraham would have caught up to the four kings way before they reached the north of Israel.

Also, the "proof" that Dan is in the north since the battle continued to Hovav which was near Damascus is weak. If Hovav was near Damascus, then it was 60 kilometers from the Northern Galilee, and if it was north of Damascus, then it was even further, see Sarna, 1989, p. 108. Thus, if Dan was in the Northern Galilee, Avraham still had to chase the four kings for at least another two days. How different is chasing another two days, five days or ten days?

My guess is that Avraham traveled north from Hebron, since he knew the four kings had to travel north, and he would have caught up with them somewhere in the Jordan Valley. Avraham would have not have directly attacked the four kings since they were a stronger army, but began to harass then, especially at night. (Note 14:15 does not state that Avraham defeated the four kings at Dan just that they struck them.) The four kings continued their march northwards to go back home, and Avraham continued to harass them on their way. Eventually when the four kings reached Hovav, they left behind all the booty they had captured. Avraham stopped harassing them since he had accomplished his purpose in freeing Lot. With this scenario, Dan was somewhere in the Jordan Valley and had nothing at all to do with the place the tribe of Dan would capture many years later. (With this idea, maybe Devarim 34:1 is also referring to Dan in the Jordan Valley, which could seen more easily from Mount Nevo than a valley in the Northern Galilee.)

Another possibility is that the reference to Dan in 14:14 refers to the area that the tribe was supposed to receive along the coast. With this idea, after defeating the five kings, the four kings would have marched a north for a little bit along the Dead Sea, and then turned west towards the Mediterranean Sea. Avram caught up with them when they were hanging about by the sea, and then chased them until Hovah. 

A second question about this incident is, why did the Torah record this battle? Radak (on 14:1) writes that the point of this episode is to show that a person must risk their lives to save one's relatives. Ralbag (purposes 2 and 4 of chapter 14) says that from Avram's actions we see that one should not endanger one's self but that one should act to save one relatives, even when they do not act appropriately to you, as Lot had previously picked a fight with Avram. Emerton (1971) writes that the point of the story is to portray Avram as a hero.

Cassuto (1954, vol. 2, pp. 328,329) offers a more likely answer. First, he notes the congruence between the places the four kings marched through and Devarim (1:4, 2:10-12, 2:20), that later on the Jewish people with Moshe would walk to the same places in the opposite direction. Accordingly, when Avram defeated the four kings and chased them from the southern part of Israel to Syria, this shows that Avram attained the ownership to all of the land on both sides of the Jordan River that the four kings had attained. Thus, Avram's descendants have a historical claim to the land independent of G-d's promise of the land.

One could add to Cassuto's explanation, that his idea is the fulfillment of G-d statement to Avraham right before the battle with the four kings. 13:14-17 records that G-d gave the land of Israel to Avraham, and that Avraham was to walk through the land.  Thus, when Avraham chased the four kings, he fulfilled this command to walk through the land. This was apparently R. Eliezer’s and maybe R. Eleazar’s opinion, as quoted in the Talmud Baba Bathra 100a.

Yet, Avram only walked through the central and northern areas of the land of Israel in his battle with the four kings, how or when did he acquire the southern part of the land? The answer is that his treaty with Avimelekh with reference to Beer Sheva, 21:27-32, gave him ownership of the southern part of the land. Also, it is possible that Yitzhak was given the additional land of Gerar by the western coast of the land, 26:3,4,6.

Bibliography:

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1954, Bereshit, in Encyclopedia Biblica, edited by Cassuto, Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, vol. 2, pp. 323-335.

Emerton, J. A., 1971, The riddle of Genesis XIV, Vetus Testamentum, vol. 21, pp. 403-439.

Hertz, J. H. (1872-1946), 1960, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, second edition, London: Soncino Press.

Kasher, Menachem (1895-1983), 1992 (first volume appeared in 1927), Torah Shelemah: A talmudic-midrashic encyclopedia of the five books of Moses, Jerusalem: Beth Torah Shelemah, The Torah Shelemah Institute.

Keel, Yehuda, 1997, 2000 and 2003, Commentary on Bereshit: Da'at Mikra, Three volumes, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Bereshit 6:19-21 (Noah)– The big sleep

Many aspects of the flood can only be understood by invoking miracles, but still many commentators have attempted to understand the flood as naturally as possible. One example of this approach is the Ramban (on 6:19) who notes that the ark could not have contained all the animals, but still Noah built a large ark to minimize the miracle.

Ibn Ezra (on 6:20) provides another example of the difficulties in understanding the flood in a natural manner. He quotes the simpletons (?) who asked what did the carnivores eat in the ark? Ibn Ezra states that this is no question since he claims that carnivores could naturally eat vegetation if they had no meat. While this is physically impossible, one could claim that G-d miraculously temporarily changed all the animals to herbivores. (This was suggested by Augustine, see Young, 1995, p.24.) Avraham Korman (1998, p.66) varies this idea, and argues that until the flood there were no carnivores since he claims that G-d created carnivores only after the flood. This suggestion is even more dependent on miracles than the idea that G-d temporarily changed the nature of animals.

Ibn Ezra (in second commentary on Bereshit, 6:21) suggests a different answer for the survival of the carnivores in the ark. He quotes that some people have claimed that Noah brought meat on the ark. Yet, how could the meat have stayed fresh? One could again resort to the miraculous approach that G-d preserved the meat or argue that extra animals were taken in for food for the carnivores. For example, John Wilkins, (1614-1672, quoted in Young, 1995, p.59) a Bishop and a founder of the Royal Society of London, argued that Noah only had to take in 40 carnivores, but to feed these animals he also took in 1,825 sheep!

A simpler answer, though also miraculous, is that everybody on the ark hibernated during the flood. (Young, 1995, p.290, quotes from a John Jefferson Davis, 1975, Paradise to Prison, “that a combination of a lack of exercise and hibernation reduced the animals’ appetites.”) With this idea, not only did the carnivores not need to eat or exercise, but also Noah his family did not have take care of the animals. Also, if everybody was a sleep, then maybe nobody suffered from seasickness when the waters were raging. Furthermore since the ark was almost completely dark, the people had nothing to do, so it probably was best that they slept the whole time. In addition, this idea could explain why G-d had to close the door of the ark, 7:16, since Noah and his family had already fallen asleep. This idea accords with the fact that the flood lasted a solar year, as then when everybody woke up, they returned to the same point in the year as when they entered the ark.

A proof for this idea of hibernation is that the Torah records that Noah was 600 years old before the flood, 7:6, that he lived 350 years after the flood, 9:28, and that in total he was 950 years old when he died, 9:29. However, since the flood lasted one year, then he should have been 951 years old when he died. The answer is that during the flood he was hibernating so the year did not count. Noah (also the raven and the dove) would have woken up a little earlier then everybody else when he opened the window to send out the raven, 8:6. (This answer’s the Or ha-Chayyim’s question, how did Noah know to open the window, as he opened it when he woke up.)

If everybody slept, what was the reason for collecting food? The answer could be that the food was needed for after the flood, though again the question would be how did the carnivores survive after the flood?

There are at least three ways to understand the survival of the carnivores after the flood. One, if G-d changed the carnivores into herbivores prior to the flood, then maybe the animals only reverted back to being carnivores when there was enough sources of available food for them. Two, maybe the carnivores ate the animals that died in the flood, but then G-d would have had to ensure that this food was still edible after the waters receded. A third possibility is that the flood was only local, and then other animals entered the area of the flood after the water subsided.

Creation of mankind and the Garden of Eden (Bereshit)

Bereshit 1:26-28 records the creation of mankind, and 2:7,21,22 record the creation of Adam and Havva. What is the relationship between these acts of creation? Is chapter two just describing in more detail the creation recorded in chapter 1 (Rashi on 2:8,27)?

My understanding is that chapter one and chapter two record two distinct creation processes, and the creation of mankind as recorded in chapter one transpired before the creation recorded in chapter two. Chapter one records the creation of the world, including mankind, and chapter two (and three) records the further development of mankind. Mankind was created at the end of the “sixth” day of creation and at a later point in time, G-d created Adam and then Havva.

This understanding can explain how Kayin married, 4:17. The descendants of the people created on the "sixth" day existed and lived outside of the Garden of Eden. When Adam and Havva left the Garden of Eden, there were other people around, and it was from these people that Kayin found a wife. Also, the fact that Kayin worried that other people might kill him, 4:14, demonstrates that other people existed besides Adam and his family, and these are the people whose creation was recorded in chapter one.

2:7,8 record that G-d created man and then placed him in the Garden of Eden. Radak (on 2:15) asks the interesting question, why did G-d not create Adam in the Garden of Eden instead of creating him outside and then having to bring him into the garden? He answers that this two stage process was in order to make Adam appreciate the Garden of Eden since it would be new to him. My guess is that the creation of man outside the garden is another indication that there were other people living outside the Garden of Eden. Adam, the representative of mankind, was taken from amongst these people and put in the garden.

Once there were two acts of creation of mankind then there is no contradiction as to whether men and women were created contemporaneously or not. In the creation of mankind as recorded in chapter one, men and women were created simultaneously, while afterwards in chapter two G-d created Adam before Havva. These were different acts of creation, and they did not have to occur in the same manner. In chapter two, Havva was not created concurrently with Adam in order to show the incompatibility between mankind and animals that Adam was not satisfied with just living with animals, see below on 2:19, "A biblical zoo."

(The creation processes are joined together in 5:2,3. 5:1,2 records the creation of mankind as recorded in chapter one, as 5:2 refers to the blessings that G-d gave mankind which were in chapter one. 5:2 refers to the name Adam, but this was not to the Adam the individual created in chapter two since 5:2 states that Adam was “their name” using the plural, which means that Adam in 1:26,27 and 5:2 means mankind, and not a specific person. 5:3 then refers to the Adam, the individual who was created in chapter two since the verses refers to a particular individual who had a son named Shet. The name Adam switches from referring to mankind to referring to a particular individual, and this links the two creation processes.)

Why were there two creation processes for mankind? Why did G-d create mankind in chapter one, and then afterwards create Adam and Havva? This raises the question, what happened to mankind due to the eating of the fruits of the tree of knowledge, which was the crucial event that occurred in the Garden of Eden? What knowledge did Adam and Havva gain from the fruits?

Rambam (Guide 1:2) argues that before eating the fruits from the tree of knowledge Adam and Havva had a higher level of intellect, and while the eating of the fruits gave them some intellectual ability this lowered their overall level of intellect. This is difficult since Adam and Havva increased their intellectual abilities by eating the fruits. The snake told Havva that if she ate the fruits her eyes would be opened, which signified mental discernment, and she would be like G-d knowing good and evil, 3:5. When Adam and Havva ate the fruit, their eyes were opened up, 3:7, and 3:22 records that they had become like G-d knowing good and evil. The snake was correct, Adam and Havva became more G-d like, which surely shows an increase in their mental abilities.

This increase in Adam and Havva's mental capacities indicates that it was good that they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge, as argued by Luzzatto (on 3:24). As pointed out to me by my 11th grade English teacher Alfred Shapiro, when we were studying Paradise Lost, if G-d did not want them to have eaten from the fruits, then G-d would not have put the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden. If the point of the tree was to test their ability to listen to G-d, then there were innumerable ways to test them without making them like G-d. For instance, G-d could have put a rock in the garden and told them not to sit on the rock or there could have been tree whose fruit has no powers. Thus, it was good that they ate from the fruit, but what was the change in their mental abilities?

Luzzatto (on 3:5) writes that the knowledge of "good and evil" was the tselem elokim, the divine image. When Adam and Havva ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge they acquired tselem elokim, and this is why 3:22 (also 3:5) states that mankind had become like G-d. Yet, what does it mean tselem elokim and did not mankind acquire it before in 1:27 when he was created?

Luzzatto (on 1:26) explains that the divine image is to be a being of full capacities but I think tselem elokim refers to the creative ability of mankind. By the creation of the world, the Torah constantly refers to it as being good, 1:4,10,12,18,21,25,31, which shows the connection between the term good and the act of creation. After eating of the fruits, Adam and Havva made clothing for themselves, which was an act of creation. Similarly, Devarim 1:39 refers to the children who grew up in the desert as not knowing good or evil because they did not have to be creative or productive in the desert since all their material needs were provided for in the desert. (This would not be true of the first generation who had lived in Egypt and had built the mishkan in the desert.)

Regardless of how the term tselem elokim is defined, the increase in Adam and Havva's mental abilities from the fruits of the tree of knowledge raised them above the level of animals. When mankind was created in chapter one, he was blessed that he was created with the tselem elokim, which signified that he had great potential. However, he had not yet actualized this potential and instead he was told that he could eat of the plants just like the animals, 1:29,30. Mankind was then comparable to the animals, albeit he was a "higher" animal with more potential. Therefore, before Adam and Havva ate from the fruit of the tree of knowledge, she conversed with the snake, 3:1-5, and the animals were potential companions for Adam, 2:18,19. Afterwards, when they ate the fruit of tree of knowledge, they "activated" their tselem elokim and this made them distinct from the animals. Thus, they were embarrassed by being naked and they attempted to change their environment by creating clothing, 3:7.

Furthermore, G-d's statements after Adam and Havva ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge also show this distinction between people and animals. First, G-d cursed the snake, the representative of the animal, that mankind would rule over him, 3:15. Also, while Adam and Havva spoke to G-d, the snake did not speak after Havva ate the fruits from the tree of knowledge. Secondly, G-d's statement to Havva emphasized a difference between humans and animals. She was told that childbearing would be painful, and as noted by Sarna (1989) "intense pain in childbearing is unique to the human species and generally unknown to other animals." Thirdly, G-d's statement to the Adam also showed the difference between mankind and animals, that mankind would have to work the land.

This development of mankind's creative ability which separated him from the animals is the purpose of the episode of the Garden of Eden, and the story is a continuation of the creation of mankind in chapter two. Chapter one records the creation of mankind with the potential to become a creator, but he was still more like the animals than a person, while chapters two and three record the actualization of this creative ability of mankind which transpired at a later period. The jump from potential to actualization was so significant that it merited a separate act of creation, and hence chapters two and three record a second creation process of mankind.

Bereshit 2:9 (Bereshit) – Two special trees in the Garden of Eden

Bereshit 2:9 records that G-d planted in the Garden of Eden, all types of trees, including the tree of knowledge and the tree of life. Later, 2:16,17 records that Adam could eat the fruit of all of the trees except for the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Did this permission include the fruit of the tree of life? Afterwards, 3:22 records that Adam and Havva had to leave the Garden of Eden lest they eat the fruit of the tree of life, but it was never mentioned that it was forbidden for them to eat the fruit of this tree.

The two trees would have given Adam the two elements needed to become like G-d, divine knowledge and eternity. He was never able to eat from both the fruit of both trees since he could never become like G-d. In theory, he could have eaten from either of the two trees. He could have had either eternal life or divine knowledge but not both. Thus, once he ate from the tree of knowledge, then he could no longer live forever, and he had to be banished from the Garden of Eden. Yet, I doubt Adam really could have chosen eternal life and not divine knowledge.

My guess is that initially Adam was not physically able to eat from the tree of life since it was inaccessible to him, too high. Thus, he did not have to be told not to eat from the tree. However, once he and Havva attained the divine knowledge, they could have figured out how to get to the fruit from the tree of life, but this could not be allowed, so they were banished from the garden.

Bereshit 2:15 – Work and leisure in the Garden of Eden

Bereshit 2:15 records that G-d took Adam, and placed him in the Garden of Eden to work it and to watch it. Sarna (1989, p. 20) notes that the beginning of 2:15 repeats the end of 2:8, which is the literary technique of resumptive repetition. The idea is that after the digression on the four rivers, the Torah returns to the main focus of the narrative, Adam, by repeating that he had been placed in the Garden of Eden.

The end of 2:15 records a new thought that Adam was placed in the garden to work and watch it. This information is quite surprising, as Or Hachayyim (on 2:15) asks what work was needed in the garden? Also, we generally assume that Adam was only condemned to work since he ate from the fruit of the tree of knowledge, but from 2:15 it seems that he was always supposed to work. Finally, why did Adam need to watch the garden? Was there a fear that other people could enter the Garden of Eden?

One approach is that the verse refers to actual work. R. Shimon B. Elazar (Avot de Rabbi Natan, 11:1, quoted by Hertz, 1960, p. 8) noted that Adam man was not able to taste anything until he had done some work. This quote is quoted amongst other statement extolling work, and hence the point of 2:15 is to show the importance of working. The question amongst the commentators who follow this approach is what work was needed.

Ibn Ezra (on 2:15, also see Radak on 2:15) suggests that the work in the garden was to water the trees, and the watching was to stop other animals from entering the garden. Hoffmann and Luzzatto (on 2:15, also see Bekhor Shor on 2:15) both suggest that the work was to be light work in taking care of the trees, which would differ from the punishment of Adam that refers to difficult work, "the sweat of your brow." The watching refers to stopping animals that lived in the garden from eating the fruit on the trees, though I am not sure what else the animals had to eat.  Also, if animals needed to be watched, then this was not light work. However, maybe according to R. Shimon b. Elazar the point was for Adam to do something even if it was not necessary.

Or, in 3:23 and 4:2, the word work, la-avod, appears seemingly is reference to gathering wild fruits, berries and wild grains. This suggests that maybe in 2:15 the work was to gather fruits in the garden. 

The second approach to understanding 2:15 is that the working and watching refer to spiritual work. Bereshit Rabbah (16:5) first quotes that the verse is referring to keeping the Shabbat that first one works and then one rests. This working is real work which follows the first approach. However, the Midrash continues and suggests that the working and watching refer to offering sacrifices. The Midrash notes that the words work, la-avod, and watch, le-shmor, are used in reference to sacrifices, Shemot 3:12 and Bemidbar 28:2. Cassuto (p.122,123) follows this approach and argues that the terms working and watching should be understood as infinitives, which means they are a general command and do not refer specifically to working and watching the garden.

The Netziv (Harchav Davar on 2:15) also follows this approach though he notes that the Midrash cannot literally mean sacrifices since sacrifices can only be brought in the land of Israel. He quotes (also quoted by Radak) a Sifrei on Ekev, that the word work means study and the word watch means to keep the laws. Or Hachayyim (on 2:15) quotes from the Zohar, a variation of this idea that to work is to follow the laws, while to watch is not to violate the laws.

I also prefer this spiritual approach, but doubt that Adam was supposed to literally offer sacrifices. At the time of this commandment, there were only fruits in the garden, but sacrifices never consist of fruit. Also, while soon afterwards there would be animals in the Garden of Eden, still these animals were supposed to be Adam's friend and not his sacrifices. Finally, the idea that Adam was to slaughter and sacrifice animals seems incongruent with a person who even after eating from the tree of knowledge could barely make clothing for himself, 3:7,21.

My guess is that the word work should be understood as serving G-d in a general way, as in Devarim 11:13, to serve G-d with all your heart and soul. (Is this what Seforno, on 2:15, means when he writes that the work refers to man's soul?) The word watch, shamor, should be interpreted as to remember, as in 37:11 and Devarim 5:12, see Ibn Ezra in his introduction to the Decalogue on Shemot and our discussion https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2023/08/the-definition-of-word-shamor-in-torah.html.

Adam's task was not to work physically, but to serve G-d and always remember G-d. Adam was commanded to always be cognizant of G-d, and these words are an introduction to the next verses, 2:16,17, in which G-d commanded Adam to eat of the fruit of the trees and to not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge. When Adam and Havva ate from the fruit of the tree of knowledge, then they demonstrated that they were not cognizant of G-d.

According to this idea, the end of 2:15 is the prime directive to mankind. Adam was placed in the Garden of Eden where he did not have to work and worry about food, but he did have to always be mindful of G-d. This would have been his task forever had he never eaten from the fruit of the tree of knowledge and it remains mankind's task even after Adam and Havva left the Garden of Eden. Maybe, the covenant and all the laws are designed to fulfill this directive, to make a person constantly aware of G-d.

Bibliography:

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1961, A commentary on the book of Genesis, part one: From Adam to Noah, Jerusalem: Magnes Press.

Hertz, J. H. (1872-1946), 1960, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, second edition, London: Soncino Press.  

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Bereshit 3:1-6 (Bereshit) – A shifty snake in the Garden of Eden

Bereshit 3:1-6 records that there was a smart snake in the Garden of Eden who convinced Havva to eat from the fruit of the tree of knowledge.   The Abravanel explains that the snake was the smartest animal since he had eaten from the fruit of the tree of knowledge. This is how the snake knew that Havva would not die immediately from eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge and that eating the fruit would make one like a G-d.  Yet, why did Havva listen to him?

Rashi (on 3:3,4) writes that Havva added a prohibition, not to even touch the fruit, and then the snake pushed her until she touched the fruit. This idea shows the danger of baal tosef (Devarim 4:2), that one cannot add to the laws since they can cause one to sin. 

In addition, 3:6 records that the fruit was very tempting, which implies that really it was Havva's desire for the fruit that caused her to eat it. Maybe, the problem was that she was bored in the garden. Adam had been bored (2:20), but once Havva came then he was happy. However, Havva always had Adam, and hence Adam was not enough to relive her of her boredom.

Bereshit 3:14 – Do snakes eat dirt?

Bereshit 3:14 records that because the snake induced Havva to eat from the fruit of the tree of knowledge, the snake was cursed to eat dirt (dust?), but today snakes do not eat dirt. 

Hoffmann (1969, p. 85, see also Drazin, 2014, p. 7) suggests that the curse was only that the snakes would crawl on the dirt, which repeats in a different manner the previous phrase in the verse and the repetition would be to add that the snake’s face would also be in the dirt, or that the curse was that when snakes would eat, they would be on the ground, which could add dirt to their food.

Hirsch (1989, p. 82) suggests that either the idea is figurative or that snakes lack of a sense of taste. 

Korman (1998, p. 49) suggests that their food tastes to them like dirt, but this is difficult to prove. 

Sarna (1989, p. 27) writes that a snake’s “flickering tongue appears to lick the dust.” 

My guess is that the curse to eat dirt and crawl on the ground was specific to this particular snake since only he was able to talk and stand up. Note the curse did not refer to the snake losing the ability to speak, but after he died then that ability was gone. 

Bibliography:

Drazin, Israel, 2014, Unusual Bible interpretations, Jerusalem: Gefen Publishing House.

Hirsch, S. R. (1808-1888), 1989, The Pentateuch, rendered into English by Isaac Levy, second edition, Gateshead: Judaica Press.

Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1969, Commentary on Genesis, Bnei Brak: Nezach.

Korman, Abraham (1917-2002), 1998, The parsha for her generations, Hebrew, Tel Aviv.




Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Bereshit 3:14-19 (Bereshit) – G-d’s statements to the snake, Adam and Havva after Adam and Havva ate from the tree of knowledge and G-d’s statement to humankind on the sixth day of creation

Bereshit 3:14-19 records G-d's statements to the snake, Havva and Adam after Adam and Havva ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge. I believe that most people think that these statements were curses, but the Torah only uses the word curse, arur, in reference to the statement to the snake, 3:14, and that the land was cursed, 3:17. This indicates that only the snake and the land were cursed, but not people. This would be because Adam and Havva were supposed to eat from the tree of knowledge, and these statements in 3:14-19 correspond to the blessings that G-d told humankind on the sixth "day" of creation in 1:28, that people were blessed to be fruitful and multiply, to conquer the earth and to rule the animals.

The first statement, 3:14,15, is addressed to the snake, and has two parts. One, 3:14, is directed towards this specific snake that this snake is cursed that it will walk on its belly. My understanding is that this particular snake had a unique status in the Garden of Eden and the punishment of 3:14 is that it returned to being a typical snake, see our discussion on 3:14 "Eating dirt?"

The second part of the statement to the snake, 3:15, was directed towards all the animals. In the Garden of Eden the snake was the representative of the animals, and the idea of 3:15 is that animals will be subservient to humans since humans will strike at the head of the animals, while the snakes and all animals will only be able to strike at people's heels. This separation is a consequence of Adam and Havva eating from the tree of knowledge that their mental capacities were developed and became qualitatively different than animals. This verse is a blessing to humankind and corresponds to the blessing to people on the sixth day of creation in 1:28 that humankind would rule over the animals.

The next statement by G-d, 3:16, is addressed to Havva, and also has two parts.  The first half of the verse records that women will be in pain and distress in some ways relating to having children.  Why are women destined to suffer pain and distress when having children? The standard explanation is that women suffer because Havva ate from the fruit of the tree of knowledge, but should all women should suffer because of one person? Instead, the pain should be understood as a consequence of the increase in mental capacities of Havva since she ate from the tree of knowledge. As noted by Sarna (1989, p. 28) "intense pain in childbearing is unique to the human species and generally unknown to other animals," and this difficulty is due to "the enlarged brain at birth, the neocortex, which is associated with human intelligence."  Accordingly, women's pain at birth is a consequence of Havva and Adam's increase in the size of their brains from eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. While the pain is bad, the increase in mental capacities is good for humans.  A different possibility to understanding the first half of 3:16, without invoking changes in babies' physiology, is that with the increase in intelligence from eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, women will have a greater understanding of what it means to be pregnant and to give birth, and this knowledge of what is about to happen increases their sense of pain from the pregnancy and the birth.

The second half of 3:16 consists of two phrases. The first phrase is that women will desire their husbands. How does this relate to the eating from the tree of knowledge? The Bekhor Shor, Ramban, Radak (all on 3:16) explain that this desire for the husband is to counteract the pain relating to childbirth referred to in the first half of the verse.  With the increase in intelligence from eating the tree of knowledge, women will understand that if they change their behavior, then they will not get pregnant, and then there had to be added a special desire for their husband to offset the knowledge of the pain of childbirth.

The second phrase in the second half of 3:16 records that "he will rule over you." Following the popular idea that Havva is being cursed, this is understood to mean that the husband will rule over the wife as a punishment for Havva having eaten from the tree of knowledge. For most of history, this understanding accorded with the status of women, but today this explanation is difficult both empirically and morally. Instead the end of 3:16 can be understood in two ways. One, this dominance by the husband is only for the period when the women is pregnant and giving birth as then she is particularly dependent on her husband. Or, maybe the idea is that “the ruling by the man” is that the women’s desire to be with her husband will overcome her other impulse not to become pregnant due to the pains mentioned in the first half of 3:16.  With this explanation, the word he in the phrase is referring to the women’s desire to be with her husband, and not to her husband, and both phrases of the second half of 3:16 relate to the same idea.  

Accordingly, 3:16 is not a punishment to Havva and women and in fact, it is a blessing that even with the new mental capacities, women will still have children. This verse corresponds to the blessing to be fruitful and multiplying in 1:28, that even though childbearing will be difficult, painful and sometimes dangerous, the world will be populated.  

Finally the last statement by G-d is addressed to Adam, 3:17-19, that Adam was told that he would have to work the difficult land and would only eat "by the sweat of his brow." While this statement shows the difficulty of work, in the end man would succeed in growing food which shows that he would be able to conquer the world, as humankind was blessed in 1:28.

Bibliography:

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

The structure of the book of Bereshit

The key to understanding the structure of the book of Bereshit is the phrase elleh toledot, which appears ten times in the book of Bereshit, and forms ten units in the book of Bereshit. The phrase elleh toledot appears in:

A: 2:4- Elleh toledot ha-shamayim and the earth when G-d made them

B: 6:9 – Elleh toledot Noah

C: 10:1 - Elleh toledot the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham and Yefet

D: 11:10 – Elleh toledot Shem

E: 11:27 – Elleh toledot Terah

F: 25:12 – Elleh toledot Yishmael

G: 25:19 – Elleh toledot Yitzhak

H: 36:1 – Elleh toledot Esav

I: 36:9 – Elleh toledot Esav

J: 37:2 – Elleh toledot Yaakov

(A similar phrase occurs in 5:1, “This is the book of toledot of Adam.” The phrase also appears in Bemidbar 3:1, see our discussion on Bemidbar 3:1,2, "A true legacy" and in Ruth 4:18.)

In each unit, there is a genealogy, though with some differences. In units C, D, F, H and I, the genealogy is almost the entire unit as the units have very limited or no narrative, while units A, B, E, G, and J, have large narrative sections and the genealogy is a small portion of the unit. In addition, in units B and C the genealogy is recorded in the beginning of the unit, and in units A, E, G and J the genealogy is recorded toward the end of the unit.

A common denominator of the five large narrative units is that towards the end of each unit, the Torah records the death of the main figure of the narrative of the unit who descended from the person in the heading elleh toledot. The one exception is by unit B, elleh toledot Noah, which we explain below. By the sections that do end with a death, they are mostly genealogical sections and the end of the sections signal the end of an era.

What does the phrase "elleh toledot" mean? Many commentators discuss the meaning of this term in reference to 37:2, which records “Elleh toledot Yaakov, Yosef was 17 years old.” A question about this verse is, why does the verse only refer to Yosef and not to all of Yaakov’s children?

Rashi (on 37:2, also see Ibn Ezra, Radak and Seforno on 37:2) writes that elleh toledot means these are the accounts of the generations of Yaakov until they reached their permanent settlement (in the land of Israel) and the cause of their travels was the fight between the Yosef and his brothers.

Ramban (on 37:2) disagrees since he claims that the word toledot refers to descendants, which seems to be closer to the literal interpretation of the word, and he argues that while 37:2 just refers to Yosef the intention is to include all of the sons of Yaakov. Yet, why then were the other sons not mentioned?

Ramban offers a second possibility (also see Rashbam on 37:2) that the phrase elleh toledot in 37:1 refers to Yaakov's grandchildren which are mentioned in the genealogical list in 46:8-27. However, Yaakov’s grandchildren are not mentioned until chapter 46, and their births and lives are not related to the main story of the unit, the fight between Yosef and his brothers.

My view is that the phrase elleh toledot should be understood as a combination of both approaches that it refers to both the accounts of the person and the genealogy of the person. How can this be? The phrase should be understood as the legacy of X. According to Webster's dictionary legacy is "something transmitted by or received from an ancestor or predecessor from the past." In the book of Bereshit, the legacy of a person can be one's descendants, that one received life from an ancestor, or it could be that the ancestor's actions impacted on the future generations. This legacy for each unit can be discerned by examining each unit.

The first unit of the book of Bereshit is elleh toledot of the ha-shamayim and the earth (unit A), and this begins after the introduction to the book of Bereshit, 1:1-2:23.  One oddity about the heading of the first elleh toledot unit, 1:24, is that this is the only heading where no person is mentioned in the heading. Instead, the heading refers to physical entities, ha-shamayim and the earth. However, Adam, and hence humankind, was the descendant of ha-shamayim and the earth, as 2:8 records that G-d created Adam from the ground, and G-d blew into him air (ha-shamayim).

Unit A records the legacy of the creation of heavens and earth, humankind. Thus, the story of the Garden of Eden left a legacy, I think for good, for humankind, see our discussion on 2:7,8,21,22, “Two creations of humans.”  Also, chapter 4 records the accomplishments of ancient people, 4:20-22.  Furthermore, Noah can also be viewed as the legacy of humankind since he would continue humankind’s existence as his name states, 5:29. The unit ends, 6:7,8 with G-d declaring that He would kill all people except for Noah. This follows the typical pattern that the descendant of the person in the opening heading (here physical entities) dies at the end of the unit. In addition, this decision by G-d to have the flood marks the end of an era.

The second unit of the book of Bereshit is elleh toledot of Noah, 6:9, unit B. This section begins by referring to Noah in the heading, and the unit concludes with his death, 9:29. The unit does not conclude with the deaths of one of his children, as occurs in all the other long elleh toledot units, and this unit has the most minimal genealogy of all the units, just a brief reference to the sons of Noah, 6:10. This minimal genealogy also occurs by the elleh toledot unit of Moshe and Aharon in the book of Bemidbar,  Bemidbar 3:1,2. 

A reason why unit B does not end with the death of a descendant of Noah, is because the words after the phrase of elleh toledot, is not Noah’s children, which is the usual sequence after the phrase of elleh toledot X, but Noah’s righteousness, 6:9. Instead, Noah’s righteousness could be questioned due to the strange incident at the end of the unit when Noah gets drunk, 9:20-27.  Thus, it could be that the minimal genealogy in the section is because the deaths of Noah’s children do not end the unit. In any event, the death of Noah marks the end of the era of the flood, as afterwards his sons start to spread out throughout the world.

Unit B is the legacy of Noah, which is the survival of the world. This survival was not just Noah's survival in the flood but also the covenant after the flood, which meant that the world would not be destroyed again by a flood, 9:8-17. Even with this universal legacy, still the section ends with a brief narrative of his children, and Noah’s blessing to two of his children, 9:20-27, which maintains the literal idea of Noah’s genealogy being his legacy.

The third unit of the book of Bereshit is elleh toledot the children of Noah, Shem, Ham and Yefet 10:1, unit C, and the legacy of this unit is that the sons of Shem, Ham and Yefet spread throughout the world. This is recorded both in conjunction with the births of their children and through the story of the tower of Bavel, 10:32 and 11:9. Furthermore, this section ends with G-d dispersing the people by the tower of Bavel, 11:9, which signals the end of the era in the Torah where the Torah records G-d focus on the entire world.

The fourth unit of the book of Bereshit is elleh toledot Shem, 11:10, unit D. This unit is the legacy of Shem that his descendant was Avraham (Avram), and Avraham's birth is recorded in the last verse of the section, 10:26. The second to last verse of the unit records the death of Nachor, Terah’s father, 11:25, and this unit ends with the births of the three sons of Terah, 11:26. Their births signal the start of a new history, the Jewish people, as all three sons will be ancestors of the Jewish people. This section marks the end of the Torah’s record of the many families who descended from Shem, as the focus of the Torah will now be just of one family who descended from Shem.

The fifth unit of the book of Beheshti, is elleh toledot of Terah, 11:27, unit E. The main figure in this unit is Avraham the son of Terah (the person in the heading) and the unit ends with Avraham’s death, 25:8-11. His death marks the end of his era. The legacy of Terah is Avraham and Yitzhak. The main issue in this section is who would continue Avraham's covenant with G-d. Yitzhak is Avraham's successor and almost at the end of the section Yitzhak marries Rivka which shows the covenant would continue through Yitzhak and Rivka. Afterwards we are told some more genealogical information about Avraham, Avraham's death and the final verse of the section is that G-d blessed Yitzhak, Avraham’s son, 25:1-25:11. 

The sixth unit of the book of Bereshit, is elleh toledot of Yishmael, 25:12, unit F. Yishmael’s death is recorded in the second to last verse of this short section, 25:17, but the section ends with an enigmatic verse, 25:18. The last word of the verse is nafal, fall, which marks the end of the era of Yishmael’s children. 

The seventh unit of the book of Bereshit is elleh toledot of Yitzhak, 25:19, unit G, and in this unit, the main figure is Yaakov. In this case, the unit ends not with the death of Yaakov but with Yitzhak, 35:28,29, see our discussion on 25:19, “The elleh toledot unit of Yitzhak.” Yitzhak’s death marks the end of the era of Yitzhak. 

The legacy of Yitzhak is Yaakov and Yaakov's children, 35:22-27. The main issue in this section is which son, Yaakov or Esav, would be the successor to Yitzhak in continuing the covenant with G-d, and in the end of the unit Yaakov was blessed by G-d to be Yitzhak's successor, 35:10-15. Afterwards there is the genealogy of Yaakov and his children, that Yaakov lived with Yitzhak, which shows that he was Yitzhak's successor, 35:16-29.

The eighth unit of the book of Bereshit is the first elleh toledot of Esav, 36:1, unit H. This unit ends with Esav leaving the land of Israel, 36:8, which signals the end of an era, his claim to the land of Israel. One legacy of Esav is that he willingly left the land of Canaan and instead he and his descendants received the land of Seir, 36:6-8.

The ninth unit of the book of Bereshit is the second elleh toledot of Esav, 36:9, unit I. Esav’s second legacy is his numerous descendants that lived in the land of Seir. This section does not with a death, but the last verses refers to Esav’s descendants that they were chiefs as opposed to being kings, 36:40-43, which signals the fall of his descendants and the end of their era, see our discussion on Chapter 36, “The rise and fall of Esav.”

The tenth and last unit of the book of Bereshit is elleh toledot Yaakov, 37:2, unit J. There are three possible conclusions to this unit. One, 46:30 and 47:9, when Yaakov refers to his impending death, two, 49:33 when Yaakov actually dies and three, 50:26, the last verse of the book of Bereshit, when Yosef dies. The true end of the unit is the death of Yosef, which marks the end of his era. This ending follows the pattern that a unit ends with of the death of the person who descends from the person in the heading elleh toledot, and Yosef is mentioned immediately after the elleh toledot phrase in 37:2. Also, maybe, since Yosef’s death occurs a while after the genealogy of 46:8-27, there is a “mini-end” with Yaakov referring to his impending death in 46:30 and 47:9. In addition, the genealogy of Yaakov’s family marks the end of the era of Yaakov and his family living in the land of Israel for quite some time.

The legacy of Yaakov is that his whole family stayed together and would become a nation. The main (only?) issue of the unit is the fight between the brothers. The beginning of the fight is recorded immediately after the phrase of elleh toledot in 37:2, and almost led the family to separate. However, the family joined together in Egypt, as 46:8-27 records the list of Yaakov's family that both Yosef and his brothers were going to Egypt. The pattern of this list is followed in Bemidbar 26:1-51, which shows that the family did develop into a nation.

37:2 refers to Yosef after the phrase elleh toledot Yaakov and not the other children of Yaakov since of all of Yaakov’s sons, Yosef was the one to fulfill the prophecy that Avram’s fourth generation would return to the land of Israel (15:16) and the unit ends with Yosef’s brothers swearing that they would take Yosef’s bones back to the land of Israel to fulfill this prophecy, see our discussion on 15:16, "Who is the fourth generation?" Thus, Yosef was the most important son of Yaakov’s legacy.

Shemini Atzeret: A separate holiday from Sukkot?

The holiday of Shemini Atzeret is mentioned twice in the Torah, in Vayikra 23:36,39, and in Bemidbar 29:35-39, and on both occasions, it is referred to as the eighth day of the Sukkot holiday. This numeric reference implies that Shemini Atzeret is not a separate holiday but is part of the holiday of Sukkot, as it is the eighth day starting from the first day of Sukkot. If the holiday is independent of Sukkot, then the Torah should have stated that the holiday was on the 22nd of the month. Furthermore, there is no name for this holiday in the Torah, which again suggests that the day is subsumed under the holiday of Sukkot. The only description of the holiday is that it is an atzeret, Bemidbar 29:35, but this is not a name since atzeret is also used in reference to the seventh day of the holiday of Matzot, Devarim 16:8.

On the other hand, there are some indications in the Torah that Shemini Atzeret is distinct from Sukkot. First, even though Bemidbar 29:35 uses the words “the eighth day” this differs from the reference to the previous six days of Sukkot, Bemidbar 29:17-32, which are referred to as “and the X day.” The word “and” connects the days together, but the word “and” is not mentioned by the eighth day. Second, Bemidbar 29 lists all the sacrifices of the holiday of Sukkot and for seven days there is a specific pattern. However, the sacrifices of the eighth day, Shemini Azeret, are numerically different, and they do not fit into the pattern of the previous seven days. The different number of sacrifices might indicate that the eighth day is independent of the seven days of Sukkot. Finally, both Bemidbar 29:12 and Vayikra 23:34,39,41 record that one is to celebrate the holiday of Sukkot for seven days, which removes the eighth day from these celebrations. Thus, one is required to sit in the sukkah for seven days and not eight days, Vayikra 23:42.

Accordingly, from the Torah, it appears that in some ways Shemini Atzeret is part of the holiday of the Sukkot and in some ways, it is an independent holiday. This duality can also be found in Chazal. The Mishnah (Sukkah 4:8 and Ta'anit 1:1) refers to Shemini Atzeret as the last day of the holiday of Sukkah, and another Mishnah (Megillah 3:5) subsumes Shemini Atzeret within all the days of Sukkot except the first day with regard to the reading of the Torah. However, the Talmud (Sukkah 47a-48a) states that Shemini Atzeret is a separate holiday for six different issues.

Why should there exist this dualism with regard to Shemini Atzeret? I believe the answer is based on the pattern of the length of the three festivals in the Torah, Pesach/ Matzot, Shavuot and Sukkot.

Both the holidays of Sukkot and Matzot begin with a day where work is prohibited, have several days where is permitted (chol ha-moed) and then afterwards there is a day when work is forbidden again. What is the basis for this pattern?

It appears that every holiday needs to have a closure, meaning that a holiday needs to come to an end, which occurs when work is forbidden at the end of the holiday. When work is forbidden on a particular day, this marks the day for the people. If work would only have been forbidden on the first day of a holiday, then the remaining days of the holiday could lose their significance. This closure is only based on work being prohibited on the last day of the festival since it could be that the first day is celebrated in some form, as for example offering sacrifices, without work being forbidden, and the celebration initiates the festival without work being forbidden.

Once work is forbidden on the last day of the festival, then all days of the holiday become one unit. This understanding accords with the viewpoint that the word atzeret means conclusion or stopping and not a gathering (see comments of David Hoffmann, on Vayikra 23:36), as the word is used both by Shemini Atzeret and by the seventh day of the holiday of Matzot, Devarim 16:11.

This idea also occurs by Shavuot since it is really a fifty-day holiday, which begins with bringing the omer sacrifice, counting 49 days, and then on the 50th day work is forbidden. This need for closure explains why the seventh day of the holiday of Matzot (or in modern terms Pesach) is a special day without assuming that the miracle of the splitting of Yam Suf occurred on the seventh day of the holiday of Matzot, something which is not mentioned in the Torah. This idea could even apply to Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur as they also form a unit, which we now call the ten days of repentance.

If this idea of closure is correct, then this suggests that Shemini Atzeret is part of Sukkot, but then why are the celebrations of the holiday of Sukkot absent on Shemini Atzeret? My guess is that seven days, a full week, is considered an appropriate unit of time for rituals and celebrations, but eight days are not. Thus, the celebration of the holiday of Sukkot is seven days, as is the eating of matzot, and then there would be no celebrations of the holiday of Sukkot on the eighth day, Shemini Atzeret. Once the celebrations of Sukkot are only for seven days, then the sacrifices for the eighth day would also be distinct from the seven previous days.

Yet, even if the two ideas are correct: The need for closure on the festival and seven days are the appropriate time for celebration of the holiday, why is Shemini Atzeret not on the seventh day of Sukkot? The answer is that the closure in the Torah occurs on the eighth day, which marks a full week counting both the first and eighth days, as by the eight days for the brit milah, Vayikra 12:3. With regard to Shavuot, there are seven weeks, and the 50th day is the conclusion to the seventh week, see our discussion on Vayikra 23:15,16, “Counting seven weeks and fifty days by sefirat ha-omer.” With regard to the holiday of Matzot, the seventh day of the holiday is the eighth day from the holiday of Pesach, which begins on the 14th of the month while the holiday of Matzot starts from the 15th of the month (see Vayikra 23:5,6).

Accordingly, the three different elements: The need for closure that there is a prohibition of work at the end of the holiday, that the closure is on the eighth day and that celebrations for a holiday last for seven days, created the dual nature of Shemini Atzeret. The element of closure means that Shemini Atzeret is part of the holiday of Sukkot, but as the closure is on the eighth day and celebrations are for seven days, Shemini Atzeret is also distinct from the holiday of Sukkot in that the celebrations of the holiday of Sukkot are not applicable to the day.

Simhat Torah: A timeline

In a fascinating book, Avraham Yaari (1964, re-printed 1998) explains the history of the numerous customs on Simhat Torah. I have derived a timeline of the celebration of the holiday from the book. (All pages below from Avraham Yaari, Toldot Chag Simhat Torah, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1998.)

Torah – no mention of the holiday.

Talmud – Megillah 31a records that on the day after Shemini Atzeret, one reads Ve-zot ha-bracha and Va-yamod Shelomo, (King 8:22) for the haftorah. This ruling was only relevant for Bavel, who had two days of Shemini Atzeret, and who completed reading the Torah once a year. However, in Israel the Torah was finished once every three or three and half years, see Rambam, Laws of prayer 13:1. Thus, only in Bavel could there have been an annual holiday to celebrate the completion of the reading of the Torah. However, in Israel, not only was the reading of the Torah not completed in a year, but also communities in Israel finished reading the Torah at different times. When each community would finish reading the Torah they would celebrate, but this was not necessarily near the holiday of Shemini Atzeret. Yaari (p.16) notes that one cannot find one piyyut from the land of Israel from the era of the paytanim that was specifically written about Simhat Torah because the holiday was not celebrated in Israel.

Geonim – The day was called Yom Bracha (p.20), ten people were called to the Torah (p.21), there was no special title for the person who received the last aliyah, and some places began the custom to read Yehoshua 1 for the Haftorah instead of Va-yamod Shelomo (see also Rambam, Laws of prayer, 13:12, and Tosafot Megillah 31A, le-machar). Some communities completed the reading of the Torah by Yom Kippur, and some had a custom to read the first day of Bereshit by minhah or neilah at Yom Kippur, either by heart or from the Torah (pp.18,19). The last aliyah was the last 8 verses of the Torah (p.71). In Bavel, they recited a piyyut, asher beglall ha-avot, which ends with a reference to Moshe's death, and initially this was recited within the blessings on the haftorah (pp.166-168). (The piyyut can be found in the Machzor Rinat Yisrael for Sukkot, Nusach Sefard, 1981, p. 507.) When this piyyut was recited, there was a custom to dance (pp. 24,319, quoted in Mishnah Berurah 699:11), but there was no dancing by hakafot since there were not yet hakafot. Also, after finishing reading the Torah and apparently also after the haftorah, a blessing was recited for the whole congregation and for the people who worked and contributed to the congregation (p.180).

1099- The Crusaders captured Israel, and massacred the Jewish communities of Jerusalem and Hebron. This effectively ended the custom of reading the Torah in a three year cycle, though the custom continued for some time in Egypt, see Rambam, Laws of prayer, 13:5, completed 1180 or 1178, and Binyamin Tudela’s visit in Egypt in 1170 (p.15). Mordechai Akiva Friedman spoke in Beit Knesset Yakir Efrayim in Modiin (where I go), on parahsat shekalim 2011, and he said that the custom of reading the three year cycle ended in 1211.

End of 11th century, beginning of 12th century - first mention of the name Simhat Torah amongst Sefardim (R. Yitzhak Ibn Gais, Spain 1020-1089, p.29) and in France (Rashi, 1040-1105, p.30). In France, everybody had an aliyah, which seems to have included children (pp. 92,160).

Machzor Vitry (R. Simhah of Vitry, d. 1105, student of Rashi, grandfather of the Ri) records the custom to read from sefer Bereshit with a sefer Torah. He also mentions, apparently for the first time, the term hatan both for the last aliyah and for the aliyah by Bereshit and the reshut to call up the hatan (p.64). Yaari (pp. 64,138) argues that the reshut for the hatan Torah was written before the time of the Crusaders since it describes conditions in Israel, while the reshut for the hatan Bereshit does not refer to these conditions. Also, in the initial reshut for hatan Torah there is no mention of the term hatan, which suggests that this reshut was written before the reshut for hatan Bereshit. Question remains was the reshut for hatan Torah from Israel when they celebrated every three/ three and half years the finishing of the reading of the Torah or was it written in France based on their understanding of conditions in Israel? The Sefardim still do not recite the reshut but instead they recite rhymes and songs, see below.

Machzor Vitry also records custom to take out all the sifrei Torah in the day just like they did for Hoshana Rabbah, and to recite piyyutim when taking out the Torah and holding them (p. 261). This custom of removing the Sefer Torah was not done by Sefardim, and it is not mentioned by the Shulchan Arukh, but by the 16th century it had become accepted in Sefat (p. 266). Machzor Vitry also mentions that everybody in the congregation including the children would get aliyot on Simhat Torah (p. 92).

12th century- The custom in some places in Spain and many places in Provence was to read Bereshit by heart (pp. 37,38). This custom of reading from the Torah spread except in Italy, where until recent times the custom was still to read the first three verses of Bereshit by heart (p. 49). Eshkol (Ravad II, 1110-1179) records that the hatan made a meal for the congregation (p.155). Tosafot (Megillah, 21B, Tana) records that the last aliyah starts from the beginning of chapter 34, va-ya’al Moshe. However, the Rokeach (Germany, 1160-1238) writes that the last aliyah starts with 33:26, the last four verses of chapter 33 (p.72). Rokeach also thought that the hatan should say shehechiyanu (p.150).

13th century – The custom of the Maharam Rutenberg (1215-1293) was that the last aliyah starts with 33:27, the last three verses of chapter 33 (p.72), which became the accepted Ashkenazi practice.

14th century – R. Aharon Hakohen of Lunel (Provence) writes that after the haftorah and ashrei, the Sefer Torah were taken out, and kinot were said about Moshe’s death (p.262). Also mentions (also see ha-Manhig) custom to sing songs for the hatanim as is still done today for real hatanim by Sefardim (p.141). The custom of taking out all the sifrei Torah from the aron at night on Simhat Torah in first mentioned in Germany (by communities on the Rhine), though Yaari notes that the Maharil (15th century) did not mention this custom (pp. 262,263). Also, in the 17th century in Worms (which is on the Rhine), they did not take out the sifrei Torah at night (p. 264).

Tur (1275-1340, Orah Chayyim 669) records that Bereshit is read as the third sefer Torah apparently after the Haftorah was read. Yaari (p. 156) deduces from the Tur’s language that Sefardim had not yet accepted the custom of the hatan to make a meal. Abduraham (Seville, early 14th century) records that Bereshit is read from the second sefer Torah (p.40), there were five aliyot (p.91) and the person who received the last aliyah read the entire parasha, which became the Sefardi custom (p.73).

15th century- Maharil (1365-1427, Germany), the aliyah by Bereshit is the first chapter until va-yachulu, and the chazzan says the next three verses, 2:1-3 (p. 81). Maharil tried to limit the number of aliyot to six (5 plus hatan Torah), but this was only accepted in a few German communities (p.93). However, later other communities tried to limit the number of aliyot since it takes so long to call everybody up (pp. 94,95). Maharil also mentions the custom of kol naarim, to call all the children together for one aliyah (pp. 93,161). ( I am not sure how this fit into the six aliyot.)  Yaari (p. 161) notes that later the custom in Germany was to start from u-ledan, 33:22. (The Levush, R. Mordechai Jaffe, 1535-1612, Poland, also writes that the aliyah for the children starts from me-oneh, p.162.) Yaari (p. 164) writes that most Sefardim, except in Israel, never accepted the idea of a communal aliyah for children.

R. Isaac Tirna (Sefer haMinhagim, late 14th century, 15th century, Austria/ Hungary) also quotes this custom of kol naarim and that the reading for the children is from me-oneh, 33:27. R. Zevin (Moadim be-Halakhah, 1956, p. 137) writes that he was the first person to record to do hakafot on Simhat Torah, but only at night. He is also the first to mention the custom to read from the sefer Torah at night (p. 194). Ve-zot ha-bracha was not read, but other sections that were called nedarim were read, see Rama (669), Mishnah Berurah (669:15) and Yaari (pp.194-200). This custom to read the Torah at night was not accepted by everybody. R. Avraham Danzig (1748-1820, Hayyei Adam, 153:7) writes that in some places, such as Prague, they took out the sefer Torah and rolled it, but did not read it (pp. 201,202). Yaari (pp. 201,202) notes that today the Perushim communities in Jerusalem who follow the Gra do not read at night, but the Gra himself would go up for an aliyah in his beit midrash! Yaari (p. 202) also writes that this was only an Ashkenazi custom, as the Sefardim did not accept it. There was a custom in Italy and later in Germany to put a lit candle in the aron after taking out all the Sefer Torah. This custom was abolished by the Taz, 17th century, Orah Chayyim 154:7, (p.265).

16th century- The Shulchan Arukh (R. Yosef Karo, 1488-1575, Orah Chayyim 669) does not mention any special customs on Simhat Torah other than reading three sifrei Torah, Ve-zot ha-bracha, Bereshit and maftir. On the other hand, the Rama (d. 1572, Cracow, Darkei Moshe and Orah Chayyim 669) lists many customs on Simhat Torah. One example is that he writes that the aliyah of the children is ha-malach ha-goel, (Bereshit 48:16). He writes that this reading is from a sefer Torah, which would require another sefer Torah or a lot of rolling of the sefer Torah (p.162). Rama also writes that both at night and in the day there was a custom to circle the bimah, hakafot, and Yaari writes that he meant only once (p. 265). It appears that in the Middle Ages, prior to the development of the custom of hakafot by the kabbalists, the Ashkenazim seemed to have had more celebrations on Simhat Torah than the Sefardim.

End of 16th century - R. Chayyim Vital (student of the Ari, R. Isaac Luria) writes that he saw the Ari dance seven hakafot on the night after Simhat Torah (pp. 266, 267). (The Ari moved to Sefat in 1569 and died shortly afterwards in 1572, at the age of 37/38.) This sighting by R. Chayyim Vital was changed to being on the night of Simhat Torah (p. 268), and then the custom of hakafot spread in the 18th century to Europe (p. 275). However, even up to the time of the Mishnah Berurah (1907, 699:10), some places only did three hakafot. In any event, this new custom changed the nature of Simhat Torah from reading the Torah to doing hakafot (p. 276). With the development of hakafot, dancing became a prominent feature of the day. Yaari (pp. 319-327) notes that while some people danced from the time of the Geonim until the 16th century on Simhat Torah, there are a just a few written references to dancing on Simhat Torah in that period, but starting from the end of the 16th century, there are many references to dancing on Simhat Torah. In Sefat, they also had the custom that the hatan makes a meal for friends and family (p.156).

17th century- Europe – Custom began that the congregations recited Bereshit 2:1-3 prior to the baal keriah (baal korei)reading this section, and afterwards there developed the custom for the congregation to say “it was night and day” for each day of creation (p.82). In some places in Israel, Syria and Turkey, the congregation would accompany the hatanim either to the synagogue or to their homes with torches. This custom of taking torches was later abrogated due to fear of desecration of the holiday when one had to extinguish the fires (pp.123,124). In the Sefardi congregation in London, the hatanim would be the gabbis and would have special chairs (pp.121,122). R. Ephraim Zalman Margolis (1762-1828, Brody) writes that at night some communities would read the sections called nedarim, while others would read Ve-zot ha-bracha with five aliyot (p. 200).

18th century – In Europe, the custom began to do hagbah by switching the hands (p.75). In Yerushalayim and Hebron they did hakafot on the night after Shemini Atzeret, which is Simhat Torah in the Diaspora (pp.281-283). Hemdat Hayamim writes that even people in the Diaspora should do hakafot on Shemini Atzeret. This opinion was accepted by Hasidim, who did hakafot on the night of Shemini Atzeret, though some also did during the day of Shemini Atzeret, in addition to doing hakafot on Simhat Torah (pp. 277,278).

19th century – In the Chatam Sofer's beit midrash in Pressburg there were three hatanim, as the maftir was also called hatan (p.95). In the Young Israel of New Rochelle, where I went to for many years, they also followed this practice, and I was called hatan maftir in 1988.

End of 19th century, early 20th century – The Mishnah Berurah (669:15, also see Arukh Hashulchan 669:2) writes that the custom was to read Ve-zot ha-bracha at night with only three aliyot and they would recite kadish afterwards. However, in Russia, the custom of reading nedarim at night remained, as R.Zevin (1888-1978, Moadim be-Halakhah, 1956, p.139, Yaari, p.201) writes that men who were eligible to be drafted in the Russian army would bid for the aliyah, ha-malach ha-goel, Bereshit 48:16, since it was considered a good omen that they would not be drafted.

Late 20th century – When I was a child that there was a custom for the children to tie the talitot of the adults, but I have not seen this done in years. I was told that this was also done in Australia (by Paul Kloot) and in Paris (by Fredrick Duetsch).