Bemidbar 10:34 record (adaptation of Fox, 1995, translation), “Now the cloud of G-d is over them by day, as they march from the camp.”
This passage raises at least two questions. 10:34 implies that the cloud of G-d traveled above the aron to lead the people. Why were both the aron and the cloud necessary? Two, where was the cloud when the people marched? 9:15,16 record that the cloud floated above the Holy of Holies in the mishkan (Ramban on 9:15), and apparently the cloud was always on top of the Holy of Holies. Furthermore, 10:21 records that the mishkan was located in the middle of the people when they traveled, and then the cloud would be in the middle of the people. However, 9:17 records that when the cloud lifted up this was the signal to the people that they should march, and when the cloud “settled,” then this signaled to the people where they should camp. Also, 10:34 records that the cloud traveled with the aron leading the way. Thus, these verses imply that the cloud was in front of the people when the people marched.
Starting with the latter question, if we think of the cloud of G-d as literally a cloud, then it was able to expand and contract. Even though the cloud of G-d probably was in a form of a pillar still it functioned as a usual cloud whose elements can join together and split up. The cloud could have expanded to cover both the camp of the people, and the marching of the aron. This might have occurred in two ways. One, a small section of the cloud could have broken off to lead and cover the aron, while the main cloud remained on top of the camp of the people. When the people would join up with the Yehoshua and the aron (see above), then the small cloud would also re-join the main cloud. Two, the cloud over the people could have expanded to include a path to lead the way (see Rashi on 9:18) and cover Yehoshua and the aron, and then as the people traveled towards the aron, the path would contract. With either approach, the cloud was always over both the aron marching before the people and the people, as stated in 10:34. It is also possible that the cloud that split or extended out could have been in front of both the aron that was leading the way and of the people.
With regard to the first question, why was there a need for both the aron and the cloud to lead the way? The cloud showed that G-d was leading the way as indicted in 9:18 (also see Shemot 23:20 and 33:2), but even when G-d performs miracles, still mankind must attempt to contribute what he can. The aron with Yehoshua and his men marching before the people, follows a typical pattern of armies, that a scouting party goes ahead to lead the way. This was the people’s role in their journey, but ultimately it was the cloud that directed the people when and where to march and camp.
The idea that the cloud of G-d split up can explain the relationship between the verses 10:12 and 12:16. 10:12 records that the people left Mount Sinai, and the cloud camped in the desert of Paran. (It seems that the desert of Paran was in the northeastern part of the Sinai desert and/ or in the western part of the Negev desert.) Afterwards, 11:3 records that people camped in Taverah, which was re-named Kivrot ha-Taavah, 11:34. 11:35 then records that the people went to Hatzeirot, and from Hatzeirot they went to the desert of Paran, 12:16. How could it be that the people only made it to the desert of Paran in 12:16 when 10:12 already records that they reached the desert of Paran?
Ibn Ezra (on 10:33, also see Hizkuni on 10:12) explains that Taverah, Kivrot ha-Taavah and Hatzeirot were located in the desert of Paran. Yet, if this is true, why would 12:16 state that the people camped in the desert of Paran after leaving Hatzeirot, if Hatzeirot was part of the desert of Paran? Could it be that initially they camped in known locations in the desert of Paran, and afterwards they camped in a non-descript part of the desert, so it was just called the desert of Paran?
Ibn Ezra (on 12:16) quotes a different answer in the name of the many that initially only the cloud of G-d was already in the desert of Paran. This approach accords with a literal reading of 10:12. 10:12 states that the people started to travel away from Mount Sinai, but the verse does not record that the people reached the desert of Paran, only that the cloud settled by the desert of Paran. Ibn Ezra dismisses this answer without giving a reason, but I think it accords with the idea of the splitting and re-joining ability of the cloud of G-d.
The idea would be that when the people started to move as recorded in 10:12, the cloud of G-d went ahead of them to lead the way but only the cloud immediately reached the desert of Paran. Again, this does not mean the entire cloud reached the desert of Paran. Only a part of the cloud of G-d reached the desert, as the main part of the cloud was on top of the Holy of Holies in the middle of the people. The aron followed the path of the cloud of G-d marching in the direction of the desert of Paran, and the people followed the aron. On the way, the aron and the people stopped in Taverah, Kivrot ha-Taavah and Hatzeirot. Thus, the people only reached the desert of Paran after being in Hatzeirot, which was not part of the desert of Paran, as recorded in 12:16. When the people finally reached the desert of Paran, the two parts of the cloud of G-d were re-united.
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
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Vayikra 25:4-18 (Behar): Equality vs. efficiency
Vayikra 25:4-18 records the laws of the special years, shemitta and yovel. Regardless of the rationale for the laws, what are the implications of the laws? One implication is that the resting of the land and opening it to all people would have increased the level of equality in society. The landowners would harvest less of their fields while the poor would have a greater opportunity to work to obtain food. However, almost inevitably when there is an increase in equality there is a loss of efficiency and the resting of the land is no exception to this rule. The loss of efficiency is that fewer crops would be produced in the shemitta and yovel years because the land was to lie fallow, and an untended field will be less productive than a cultivated field.
There are possible gains in efficiency from the resting of the land. One, as mentioned by the Rambam (Moreh 3:39) the resting of the land could be considered a form of crop rotation. Buchholz (1988) suggests that maybe the shemitta year increased the capital stock by forcing people to save in the intervening six years. However, as noted by Soss (1975) most of the savings would be for food, which would literally be eaten in the 7th year. Soss (p. 338) suggests a different possibility, that as one could not work in the fields during the year, this would free time which “would act to stimulate technical inventiveness and innovation.” One other consideration is that the loss of production in the seventh year would naturally have been partially offset by people working harder in the six intervening years to compensate for being unable to work in the seventh year. In fact, one could understand the verses that introduce the shemitta year as obligating a person to work in the intervening years. Thus, Shemot 23:10 and Vayikra 25:2 record, “For six years you are to sow your land (Fox translation).” (Note this idea could also apply to the Shabbat, see Shemot 20:9 and Devarim 5:19.) Yet, notwithstanding these possible gains in efficiency, it seems very unlikely that they would be greater than the loss of the produce that was forgone in the shemitta and yovel years.
The return of the ancestral land in the yovel year also relates to the tradeoff between efficiency and equality. When the people would return to their ancestral fields this would decrease the inequality in society since each person would have the opportunity to start over again and there would be an increase of the assets of the poor people. Yet, with the return of the land, there is less incentive for a buyer to develop the land in the intervening 49 years. Buchholz (p.422) also argues that the subdivision of plots “limits the ability to exploit economies of scale” by the farming. Yet, unless there are large transaction costs, this problem could be surmounted since adjacent farmers could work together to attain economies of scale.
There are some potential gains in efficiency from the return of the land. While one generation might have worked hard to become wealthy and accumulate large tracts of land, the continued possession of the land by future generations could reduce the level of competition in the economy. The inheritors of the land might tend to “satisfice” as opposed to maximizing the value of the fields. The redistribution of the land means that the descendants of the previous large landowners would have to re-earn their wealth, and the people who returned to their ancestral land would have resources that would enable them to compete. Accordingly, by the return of the land in the Jubilee year, there is a gain in equality and it is possible that the increase in opportunities would lead to an increase in efficiency.
There are possible gains in efficiency from the resting of the land. One, as mentioned by the Rambam (Moreh 3:39) the resting of the land could be considered a form of crop rotation. Buchholz (1988) suggests that maybe the shemitta year increased the capital stock by forcing people to save in the intervening six years. However, as noted by Soss (1975) most of the savings would be for food, which would literally be eaten in the 7th year. Soss (p. 338) suggests a different possibility, that as one could not work in the fields during the year, this would free time which “would act to stimulate technical inventiveness and innovation.” One other consideration is that the loss of production in the seventh year would naturally have been partially offset by people working harder in the six intervening years to compensate for being unable to work in the seventh year. In fact, one could understand the verses that introduce the shemitta year as obligating a person to work in the intervening years. Thus, Shemot 23:10 and Vayikra 25:2 record, “For six years you are to sow your land (Fox translation).” (Note this idea could also apply to the Shabbat, see Shemot 20:9 and Devarim 5:19.) Yet, notwithstanding these possible gains in efficiency, it seems very unlikely that they would be greater than the loss of the produce that was forgone in the shemitta and yovel years.
The return of the ancestral land in the yovel year also relates to the tradeoff between efficiency and equality. When the people would return to their ancestral fields this would decrease the inequality in society since each person would have the opportunity to start over again and there would be an increase of the assets of the poor people. Yet, with the return of the land, there is less incentive for a buyer to develop the land in the intervening 49 years. Buchholz (p.422) also argues that the subdivision of plots “limits the ability to exploit economies of scale” by the farming. Yet, unless there are large transaction costs, this problem could be surmounted since adjacent farmers could work together to attain economies of scale.
There are some potential gains in efficiency from the return of the land. While one generation might have worked hard to become wealthy and accumulate large tracts of land, the continued possession of the land by future generations could reduce the level of competition in the economy. The inheritors of the land might tend to “satisfice” as opposed to maximizing the value of the fields. The redistribution of the land means that the descendants of the previous large landowners would have to re-earn their wealth, and the people who returned to their ancestral land would have resources that would enable them to compete. Accordingly, by the return of the land in the Jubilee year, there is a gain in equality and it is possible that the increase in opportunities would lead to an increase in efficiency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)