Bereshit 50:15-21 - Yosef and his brothers: A happy ending?

Does the story of Yosef and his brothers have a happy ending? From a historical perspective the answer is no because the story led to the children of Yaakov being enslaved in Egypt. However, just within the book of Bereshit, is the family one big happy family by the end of the story? This question depends on whether the brothers and Yosef were truly reconciled in the end.

After Yosef identified himself to his brothers, he cried upon them and kissed them, 45:14,15. Do these actions indicate a full reconciliation? Most likely no since only Yosef and Binyamin cried, and all we learn is that the brothers were able to speak to Yosef, which does not imply that there was a reconciliation.

Seventeen years later, when the family returns to Egypt from Canaan after burying Yaakov, there is a strange conversation between Yosef and the brothers. 50:15-18 records that the brothers were worried that Yosef would take revenge on them after Yaakov died so they sent a messenger to Yosef offering to be his slaves. This offer is identical to Yehuda's offer to Yosef when Yosef trapped Binyamin with the goblet seventeen years earlier, 44:16.

Yosef responded by crying (50:17), presumably because he realized that after all these years the brothers still feared him, and then he stated “Do not fear, am I in G-d’s place?” 50:19. This phrase "Am I in G-d's place" was the same language used by Yaakov when he had his fight with Rahel, 30:2. N. Leibowitz (1976, p. 560) argues that this same phrase has a different meaning when used by Yaakov and Yosef. She claims that when Yaakov said “Am I in G-d’s place?” he was shirking responsibility, but when Yosef said the same words, he was "abasing himself to save his brother’s feelings." I think the phrase should be understood in a similar fashion in both cases. Yaakov was saying he did not have the power to give Rahel children, and similarly, Yosef was saying that he did not have the power to punish his brothers. With this understanding, this response implies that Yosef thought that the brothers had been wrong and that G-d should punish them.

Afterwards, Yosef stated that “you (the brothers) planned evil against me,” (50:20) and this recollection also insinuates that he did not completely forgive them. If the past was really forgotten, then Yosef should not have mentioned this phrase.

Yosef then stated that everything was okay since G-d worked out that everything was for the best because Yosef saved many people. Yosef then declared that he would sustain them (the brothers), and the Torah records that he comforted them and spoke to their hearts, 50:20,21. Do these verses indicate that the brothers achieved a true reconciliation with Yosef? Thomas Mann in his remarkable work, "Joseph and his Brothers," seems to say yes. He ends his re-telling of the story (1999, p.1207), "Thus he (Yosef) spoke to them and they laughed and wept together and stretched out their hands as he stood among them and touched him, and he too caressed them with his hands."

I have my doubts. Yosef's statement that it all worked out for the best since he was able to keep many people alive, le-hachayyot am rav, 50:20, is very similar to what he said seventeen years earlier when he identified himself to the brothers, le-hachayyot lachem le-phleta gedola, 45:5-8. If the brothers were still scared of Yosef seventeen years after the first time that Yosef expressed this idea, then it is unlikely that a repetition of the same idea would lead to a reconciliation. The Torah does not record any response from the brothers, and the most that can be derived from 50:21 is that Yosef reassured the brothers that they should not be sacred of him.

Did Yosef and the brothers reconcile after this conversation? The only conversation between them that is recorded afterwards is that Yosef asked the brothers to take his bones back to the land of Israel, and the brothers swore that they would honor his request, 50:24,25. Is this considered a reconciliation? The fact that Yosef made the brothers swear is not necessarily a sign that they were not reconciled since Yaakov also made Yosef swear to bury him in the land of Israel, 47:30,31. Yet, agreeing to a dying man's request is not a sign of reconciliation.

 
If Yosef and the brothers were not reconciled in the seventeen years after Yosef identified himself, then there is no reason to think that the situation improved afterwards. According, my inclination is that the brothers were not truly reconciled, and then the story of Yosef and his brothers does not have a happy ending.

Bibliography:

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Bereshit 30:25 - 31:16 (Va-yetse) - Yaakov's and Lavan's financial agreement: Gambling

Bereshit 30:25,26 record that Yaakov told Lavan that he wanted to return home to the land of Canaan. Lavan responded by noting that he had been blessed due to Yaakov, and then he offered for Yaakov to name his salary in order that Yaakov would continue working for him, 30:27,28.  Yaakov said no, but then Lavan pressed him to make an offer, 30:29,30. Yaakov then told Lavan to separate from his flock all the animals that had spots, and Yaakov would tend all the remaining goats and sheep, i.e. those that were non-spotted (white sheep and black goats).  Yaakov's salary would then be all the spotted offspring that were born from the non-spotted flock that he would watch, 30:31-33, see comments of Ibn Ezra on 30:32-36. Lavan agreed to the deal, 30:34-36. Yaakov then took peels of bark (branches?) and placed them in front of the flocks that he watched, 30:34-42, and he became very successful, 30:43. However, Lavan's sons thought that Yaakov had gotten rich at their and their father's expense, 31:1. Were Lavan's sons correct? Did Lavan and his sons lose from their deal with Yaakov and did Yaakov cheat them?

The claim that Yaakov cheated Lavan is based on the idea that when they made their deal Yaakov had some special knowledge of breeding of the animals that Lavan was unaware of.  Thus, it is argued that Lavan expected to get many more animals from their deal, but due to Yaakov's actions Lavan got fewer animals than he expected and they tended to be the feeble ones.  (Note, the claim of feeble animals is based on how one interprets 30:42.) Furthermore, it is argued that if Yaakov had a plan how to breed the animals he should have disclosed this plan to Lavan when they made the deal.  The Maharam of Rothenburg (on 30:42, 1215-1293, Germany) accepted these accusations, and claimed that because Yaakov gave the appearance of using deceit, he was punished by his troubles with his sons. 

A modern commentator, J.P. Fokkelman (1991, p. 160) raises the stakes. He notes that Yaakov's success was due to G-d (31:9-12), and hence, "When finally, Lavan appears to be the victim, it is only because of the miraculous corrections of the flock by Providence. And if we should like to regard Lavan as the one deceived (instead of, for example, as one punished) then one thing is certain; it is no longer Yaakov who deceived him but G-d himself."

I believe that this reading of the text that Yaakov cheated Lavan is a complete misunderstanding of the deal between Yaakov and Lavan.  Twice, Lavan told Yaakov to name his wages.  Yaakov had the stronger bargaining position since he wanted to leave and Lavan was pressing him to stay because Lavan recognized that he had been blessed due to Yaakov. Yaakov should have asked for a significant sum of money and/ or a very large percentage of profits, but instead he asked for an indeterminate percentage of the offspring of the flock.  He did not even start with a "signing bonus" of some amount of flock or gold or silver.  At a minimum he should have asked for a fixed percentage of the flock and at least 50% of the flock, but instead he asked to receive the spotted offspring which I believe were approximately 25% of the offspring.  Yet, this was a risk since the number of spotted offspring is not fixed each year.  Why did Yaakov not simply ask for 25% of the offspring? Why did Yaakov make such a strange offer, when he should have received much more?

The answer is that Yaakov had two goals in the negotiations. One he did not want to get anything from Lavan (30:31) since he did not want Lavan to claim ownership of his flock.  Thus, he did not ask for Lavan to give him some amount of flock to begin with.  (Regardless, later Lavan would make this claim, 31:43!) Two, Yaakov wanted there to be incontrovertible proof that his flock was his and not Lavan's, 30:33. Thus, Yaakov wanted that all his flock would have spots, speckles or stripes, which would be proof that these animals were his.  The goal was that Lavan would not be able to cheat him again after Lavan had tricked him by switching Lea for Rahel.  Yaakov was not that concerned about how much sheep and goats he would initially get from working for Lavan because he knew that once he owned some sheep and goats, then their numbers would increase naturally.

Why did Lavan accept Yaakov's offer? The deal looked great to Lavan. Lavan had been willing to pay almost anything to have Yaakov continue working for him, and instead all he had to pay was some indeterminate amount of offspring which usually amounted to just 25% of the offspring.  Furthermore, depending of Lavan's knowledge of genetics, Lavan might have even thought that Yaakov was going to get nothing.  Did Lavan know that if non-spotted sheep and goats mate, they can still have spotted offspring? (The gene for spotted offspring is a recessive gene.) Yaakov knew this as he had learned this information from tending Lavan's sheep for fourteen years.  If Lavan did not know this information, then he should have told Yaakov that Yaakov would receive no sheep or goats from the deal, but Lavan was not concerned about Yaakov's welfare.

In any event, even if Lavan understood basic genetics, he must have wondered why Yaakov offered such a weird deal, when Yaakov could have received a much larger percentage of the flock and a fixed percentage.  Thus, Lavan realized that Yaakov had a plan how he could profit from this deal, as Yaakov had even stated during the negotiations that he wanted to succeed (30:30).  Did Lavan know of this trick of placing the bark peels in front of the animals? This was a universal folk belief so probably yes, but he was not bothered by this trick since it does not work and Lavan knew that.

Accordingly, Lavan was gambling when he agreed to Yaakov's offer. Lavan knew that Yaakov had a plan to increase his number of offspring, but Lavan was gambling that Yaakov's plan would not work. Lavan was not deceived when he made the deal.  He knew that it was possible that Yaakov would receive more animals from the deal than from a fixed percentage, but Lavan gambled that he would be the one who would get the better of the deal. 

In the end, Yaakov was correct about the genetics but incorrect about how to stimulate breeding, while Lavan was correct that the strips of bark had no effect on the animal's breeding but incorrect about the genetics.  Thus, Yaakov received some of the offspring, and from this base he was able to build up his wealth. Yet, this was not the end of the story.

31:8 records that Yaakov told Rahel and Lea that Lavan had changed the wages many times, but G-d had saved him from Lavan's tricks. Lavan had changed the wages that Yaakov would only receive the offspring with speckles and not with stripes or spots, or that Yaakov would only receive the offspring with stripes and not with speckles or spots. What was the point of this change in wages?  Why did Lavan just not change the wages to a fixed percentage? Also when did Lavan change the wages?

In the first year or two of the deal, Yaakov began to receive some of the offspring and this upset Lavan since he thought that Yaakov was not going to receive anything when the non-spotted flocked mated.  However, instead of accepting that non-spotted flock can have spotted offspring, he began to think that the trick of the peeled bark was working. Thus, he changed the wages in order that the trick could not work.  The peeled bark could only "cause" spotted animals, but it could not "determine" the type of spots.  Lavan began to change the wages to certain types of spots in order that the trick would fail and then Yaakov would work again for nothing.

At this point, G-d intervened, as indicated in 31:8,9,12,16, that G-d made sure that the offspring would be born based on the new mark as fixed by Lavan.  It could be that G-d caused all of the offspring to be born with the particular mark fixed by Lavan, or maybe just all the offspring that were to have marks were born with the particular mark fixed by Lavan.  These two possibilities depend on how one understands the words ya-tzel in 31:8 and he-tzil in 31:16. If the words mean that G-d took Lavan's flock, then G-d intervened that all the offspring would be marked.  However, Speiser (1964, p. 244) suggests that the words should be understood as salvaged.  G-d then salvaged from Lavan those animals that Yaakov was entitled to based on their initial deal, and G-d did not allow Lavan to gain from changing the initial terms.    

Why did G-d intervene at this point? Hoffmann (1969, on 30:39) writes that it was to punish Lavan for how he treated Yaakov for not paying him wages during the first fourteen years that Yaakov worked for Lavan.  I would vary this idea that now G-d intervened since Lavan was attempting to take advantage of Yaakov by changing the conditions of the deal.  

It is not even clear if Lavan lost from the deal.  By the first stage of the deal, before Lavan started to change the wages, Lavan was still getting the majority of the offspring, approximately 75% of the offspring.  Also, there is no indication that the blessing he received from G-d, which he acknowledged before the deal, 30:27, stopped after the deal was made. Even by the second stage of the deal, when Lavan began to change the wages, if he did start to lose, then this would serve him justly since he was trying to cheat Yaakov.  However, if G-d intervened to just change the animals that were to be born with marks that they would have the particular mark fixed by Lavan, then it is possible that even in the second stage of the deal, Lavan was still benefiting from the deal.

31:1 records that that Lavan's sons complained that Yaakov took everything from their father, Lavan. Is this complaint credible?  Lavan's sons were probably jealous of Yaakov. Yaakov had initially come to their house penniless, and they would have begrudged any success by Yaakov. They viewed Yaakov' success as being a zero sum game, that any success that Yaakov had lowered their wealth and income. They were unaware that Lavan had been blessed due to Yaakov and hence due to Yaakov they were much richer than had Yaakov never came to their house. In addition, they probably were unaware of Lavan's offer to Yaakov to name any wage, and Lavan's attempts to cheat Yaakov. 

The fact that the complaint came from Lavan's sons indicates that Lavan knew that he was not cheated. Later Lavan accused Yaakov of stealing his gods, 31:30, but he did not claim that Yaakov stole his animals.  Lavan did claim that all of Yaakov's flocks were really his, 31:43, but this was clearly a falsehood since Yaakov deserved to be paid something for watching Lavan's flocks, and in the same breath Lavan also claimed that Yaakov's wives belonged to him and not to Yaakov! A proof that Lavan did not lose from the deal is that if Lavan was really losing from deal, then he would have ended the deal and not just attempted to changes the wages. 

Accordingly in the deal between Yaakov and Lavan for Yaakov to watch Lavan's flocks, Yaakov's offered to work at a much lower wage than he was worth since his goal was that Lavan could not claim ownership of his future flock and in order that he should not be cheated by Lavan.  Yaakov did not cheat Lavan. Instead it was Lavan who gambled and then attempted to cheat Yaakov, but G-d intervened to save Yaakov. In addition, while Lavan did not gain as much from the deal as he desired, it is unlikely that he lost from the deal.

Bibliography:

Fokkelman, J.P. 1991, Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis, second Edition, JSOT Press.

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

Speiser, Ephraim Avigdor (1902-1965), 1964, Genesis: The Anchor Bible, Garden City: New York: Doubleday & Company.

Bereshit 15:9-21 (Lekh Lekha) - Avraham's (Avram's) first covenant with G-d: To cut the gap

Bereshit 15:9 records that G-d told Avram (Avraham) to take a three year old calf, a three year old goat, a three year old ram, and two birds. (This follows Ibn Ezra's explanation, but Rashi and Ramban explain that Avram was to take three calves, three goats and three rams.) Avram was to cut the mammals in half and lay each half facing each other, but the birds were not to be cut, 15:10. Vultures descended on the animals, but Avram chased them away, 15:11. Avram was then told a prophecy that his descendants would suffer in a foreign land but the fourth generation would return to the land, 15:12-16. After this prophecy, a fire (a smoking oven and a fiery torch), which symbolized G-d's presence, passed between the pieces, and G-d made a covenant that Avram's children would inherit the land, 15:17-21. Accordingly, this covenant is referred to as the covenant of (between) the pieces.

This ceremony raises several questions. Is there any significance to the type of animals chosen? One answer (see Genesis Rabbah 44:14,15, Rashi on 15:6,9 and Rambam on 15:10), is that prior to the ceremony Avram has asked by what merit would his descendants would inherit the land and G-d answered him by the merit of the sacrifices. Thus, the choice of animals was because G-d was instructing Avraham which animals would be suitable for sacrifices. Benno Jacob (1974, p.101, quoted by N. Leibowitz, 1976, p. 149) argues that the ceremony here has no connection with sacrifices since there was no altar, no blood was poured out and nothing was burnt. Instead, he suggests that the animals were simply chosen because they were available. Another possibility is that though the animals were not meant as sacrifices still they had to be pure animals since the fire that passed through them symbolized G-d's presence.

Why were the mammals divided? Rashi (on 15:10) explains that the ancient way to make a covenant was for an animal to be split and for the partners in the covenant to pass through the divided animal. Thus, in Hebrew the description for making a covenant is literally called to cut a covenant. Rashi quotes Jeremiah 34:18-20 which records that the princes of Yehuda and Yerushalayim passed between a divided calf in order to impress upon them that if they did not keep the covenant, then they would be punished and would become food for the animals. The passing through the animals was a type of self-imprecation, where the person accepts upon himself a potential punishment for not upholding his part of the covenant.

The idea would then be that the mammals were divided in order for the fire to pass through them, and this passing through established the covenant. Yet, can the passing of the fire through the animals signify the idea of self-imprecation as occurs in Jeremiah 34? Was G-d calling upon Himself a future punishment? Gerhard Hasel (1981) argues that one cannot compare Jeremiah 34 to Bereshit 15 since it cannot be that G-d is making a self-imprecation. Instead, he points out that ancient treaties from the second millennium BCE invoke the killing of an animal as a "rite of treaty ratification, symbolizing the binding status of the covenanting parties," and by these treaties there was no evidence that one or both parties to the treaty passed through the animals. Thus, just the cutting of the animals signified the making of the covenant. Why then did the fire pass through the pieces? Hasel suggests that this act was a divine ratification of the covenant that G-d "irrevocably pledged the fulfillment of His covenant promise to the patriarchs." Another possibility is from the Rashbam (on Shemot 24:11 and Shemot 33:18) that the fire was an example of a theophany which accompanies all the covenants with G-d.

Why did Avram not pass through the animals either before or after the fire? Maybe Avram did not need to pass between the animals since the covenant did not obligate him in anyway because the covenant was G-d's promise that Avram's descendants would inherit the land. In addition, as explained by Hasel, there was no need for Avram to pass through the animals since the covenant was made just by the cutting up of the animals.

Why were the birds not divided? Ramban (on 15:10, also see Hizkuni) explains that since there were two birds one could be placed facing the other, and then there was no need to cut up the birds. Thus, in total there were two columns (or rows) with each column having half a calf, half a goat, half a ram and a bird.

Why was there a need for three mammals and two birds? In the ceremony recorded in Jeremiah only one calf was divided. Why here was one animal not sufficient? Many commentators have viewed the number of animals as having a symbolic message. For example, Rashi (on 15:10, also see Radak) suggests that the mammals were symbolic of the nations of the world, while the Jewish people were symbolized by the birds.

Benno Jacob (1974, p. 103, also see S. R. Hirsch 1989, pp. 278, 279, on 15:9) writes that the animals are related to the ensuing prophecy of 15:13-16. The three divided animals represented the three generations that would suffer slavery in Egypt, while the birds, which were not divided, symbolized the generation that would go free. This makes a connection between Avram's action with the animals and the prophecy of the slavery in Egypt. Yet, it is not clear how the division of the animals relates to the suffering in Egypt and we have no knowledge how many generations actually were slaves in Egypt. Furthermore, the end and the crucial point of the prophecy is that the fourth generation would return to the land of Israel, but according to this symbolism the birds just symbolize that the fourth generation goes free from Egypt and do not indicate that the generation would return to the land of Israel. However, the idea of relating the symbolism of the animals to the ensuing prophecy and to the numbers three and four is logical because in total there were four animals in each column and the number three is stressed both by the age of the mammals and by the fact that there were three mammals.

In the ensuing prophecy, 15:16 records that the fourth generation would return to the land of Israel, and I believe that this prophecy is referring to Yosef. (See our discussion on Bereshit 15:16, "Who is the fourth generation in the prophecy of the covenant of the pieces?") Therefore, my guess is that the four sets of animals relate to the history of the generations of Avram and his immediate descendants. In each of the first three generations, there was a split in the family, Avram and Lot, Yitzhak and Yishmael, and Yaakov and Esav. These separations in Avram's family were symbolized by the division of the mammals. The fourth generation began as two families, the sons of Lea and Rahel, which is symbolized by the two birds, but in the end this generation joined together when Yehuda risked his life for Binyamin (45:18-34), and this is symbolized by the fact that the birds were not divided.

The unity of the fourth generation explains an anomaly of the text. 15:9 refers to two birds, but 15:10 uses the singular term bird. It is true that the singular can function as a collective noun, but why not use the plural? Radak writes that the use of the singular symbolizes that all the Jewish people would be unified even when they were dispersed throughout the world, but I think it signifies the unity of the fourth generation, the children of Yaakov.

I believe that the prophecy of the return of the fourth generation refers to Yosef and his generation (see discussion below on 15:16, "Who is the fourth generation?"). With this understanding, there is a parallelism between the symbolism of the number of animals and the ensuing prophecy, that both refer to the set of same four generations that begins with Avram.

15:11 records that vultures attempted to eat the animals, and Avram chased them away. It seems that the vultures attempted to eat all of the animals, but Radak argues that the vultures only attacked the birds. In any event, why is this action by the vultures and Avram recorded in the Torah? Again, these actions are viewed as being symbolic; see for example comments of the Ramban and Radak (on 15:11).

My guess is that the symbolism is that the covenant is unconditional. If the vultures just attempted to eat the birds, who according to my understanding refer to the fourth generation, then the message is that the promise that the fourth generation would return to the land of Israel was unconditional. On the other hand, if the vultures attempted to eat all the animals, then the idea is that the promise of land to all of the four generations from Avraham was unconditional. Thus, the Jewish people were forbidden from taking the land of Lot's children, Moav and Ammon, and Esav's children when they marched towards the land of Israel, Devarim 2:5,9,19. With regard to the Yishmael 17:20 and 21:13 record G-d's promise that his children would become a separate nation and 25:18 records that they lived in a wide expanse of land.

Bibliography:

Hasel, Gerhard, 1981, The meaning of the animal rite in Genesis 15, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 19, pp.61-78.

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

Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1974, The first book of the bible: Genesis, commentary abridged, edited and translated by Earnest I. Jacob and Walter Jacob, New York: Ktav Publishing House.

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Deavrim 30:11-14 (Nitsavim) – Not in the heavens

Devarim 30:11-13 record that that Moshe told the people that "the commandment that I command you today is not too wondrous, it is not too far away. It is not in the heavens…. It is not across the sea..." What lesson was Moshe trying to teach the people? Also, Moshe stated four negatives, "It is not too wondrous," "not too far away," "not in the heavens" and "not across the sea." Was Moshe expressing one idea, but just changing the example? Or was Moshe expressing four separate ideas?

The Bekhor Shor (on 30:11,12,13) explains that Moshe was expressing one idea that all four examples are to teach the people that fulfilling the law was not beyond a person's capability. Tigay (1996, p.286) also explains that Moshe was expressing one idea, but according to him, the lessons was that Torah was understandable. For example, based on Kohelet 7:23, Tigay explains that the phrase "not too far away" means "not beyond your intellectual grasp." Similarly, on the phrase "it is not too wondrous" Robert Altar (2004, p.1029) writes, "The crucial theological point is that the divine wisdom is in no way esoteric- it has been clearly set out in this book of teaching and is accessible to every man and woman in Israel."

These two approaches give different readings of 30:14. 30:14 records, "Rather, near to you is the word, exceedingly, in your mouth and in your heart to observe it" (Fox 1995 translation)." What is the meaning of the phrase "in your mouth and in your heart"? According to the Bekhor Shor (on 30:14, also see Ibn Ezra on 30:14) the verse relates just to fulfilling the laws, that when one fulfills the law, he/ she should do it with his/ hers mouth and heart dedicated to G-d. According to Tigay, the phrase "in your mouth "means the Torah is "readily accessible to you, you can know it by heart," and the phrase "in your heart" means to know the Torah "internally and not merely by rote." (The idea that the phrase "in your heart" is to understand is because in those days people believed that the heart was the faculty of cognition.) And, then if a person has this understanding of the Torah, he will observe the laws.

Maybe these two approaches can be combined. Ibn Ezra (on 30:12,13, also see Bekhor Shor) makes the interesting suggestion that the four example are really two sets of examples: the phrase "it is not in the heavens" (3) is an explanation of the phrase "it is not too wondrous" (1), and the phrase "it is not across the sea" (4) is an explanation of the phrase "it is not too far away" (2). With this idea, the first set of phrases (1 and 3) could be like Tigay that Moshe was telling the people that the Torah could be understood and was not beyond their mental capabilities. The lesson of the second set of phrases (2 and 4) would then be like the Bekhor Shor that Moshe was telling the people that fulfilling the laws was not beyond their physical capabilities. 30:14 concludes this lesson, that the people could both understand the Torah, "in your mouth and heart," and fulfill the Torah. Note, if one does not accept the Ibn Ezra's division of the four phrases, still one could arrive at a similar result by arguing that phrases 1 and 2 (30:11) express the idea that the Torah can be understood, while phrases 3 and 4 (30:12,13) express the idea that Torah can be fulfilled.

Postscript: The name of this blog lobashamayim "not in the heavens" is from 30:12, and is based on the idea just discussed that the Torah was given to mankind to understand. Thus, I try to understand both the Torah and Jewish customs/ practices from a human perspective without invoking mysticism. It is up to you the reader to decide if I succeed. I wish everybody a shanah tovah.