Bereshit 49:16-18 – Yaakov’s blessing to Dan

בראשית מט:טז-יח - דן ידין עמו, כאחד שבטי ישראל. יהי דן נחש עלי דרך שפיפן עלי ארח, הנשך עקבי סוס ויפל רכבו אחור. לישועתך קויתי ה'. 

Of Yaakov’s twelve sons, there are five sons who we know something about them from the book of Bereshit: Reuven, Shimon, Levi, Yehuda and Yosef. With regard to all of these sons, in chapter 49, Yaakov gives them a blessing or says something about them that consists of more than one verse. With regard to the remaining seven “silent” sons, whom we know nothing at all about them from the book of Bereshit, Dan received the longest blessing from Yaakov, three verses, 49:16-18. Why did Dan receive a lengthy blessing?

Dan also does not seem to receive his blessing in the “correct” order of the children of Yaakov. Firstly, Dan’s blessing is not recorded in conjunction with Naftali his “full” brother (both are the sons of Bilha), whose blessing is recorded in 49:21. Secondly, it would have been expected that Yaakov’s blessings to the sons of Zilpa, Gad and Asher, would have been mentioned after the sons of Lea, since Zilpa was Lea’s “maidservant,” 29:24, but instead Yaakov’s blessing to Dan is interposed between his blessings to the sons of Leah and the sons of Zilpa.

In order to suggest answers to these questions, we will start by trying to understand the last verse of the blessing to Dan, 49:18, which records, "I wait for your deliverance, G-d." What is the meaning of the verse? The word "I" indicates that Yaakov is the one waiting, but who is the "your deliverance" referring to? Who was being saved by G-d? How does this verse relate to the blessing for Dan?

Rashi, following the Midrash (see Kasher, 1992, Torah Shelemah 49:249), explains that the verse is referring to Shimshon, who was from the tribe of Dan and who prayed to G-d to help him defeat the Philistines, (Judges 16:28). With this approach, the words "your deliverance" in 49:18 refer to G-d hearing Shimshon's prayers.

Rashbam (on 49:16) rejects the idea that Yaakov was prophesying regarding Shimshon, but he follows the idea that 49:18 refers to the tribe of Dan. He suggests that since Dan was in the rear of the camp when the people were in the desert (Bemidbar 10:25), it always had to fight other nations, and hence Yaakov was praying for the deliverance of the tribe. Yet, the Torah never mentions any battle by the tribe of Dan, but maybe according to the Rashbam, this was due to Yaakov's prayer.

On the other hand, some commentators argue that 49:18 is an introduction to the blessing for Gad, which is recorded in the following verse, 49:19. R. Menachem Kasher (Torah Shelemah, 49:254) quotes a Midrash that when Yaakov saw that Shimshon died, he realized that the redemption was not going to come from Dan, so he said that he was waiting for the true redemption which would be heralded by Elijah who the Midrash states was from Gad.

Luzzatto (on 49:18, translation in English in Leibowitz, 1976, p. 552) also follows the idea that 49:18 is an introduction to the blessing by Gad. Luzzatto explains:

When Yaakov came to bless Gad he was prompted, as in the case of Dan to employ a pun and exploit the association of the word Gad with its etymological meaning of luck. But he immediately thought better of it, emphasizing, on the contrast that it was proper to trust in G-d alone and not in the stars. He therefore proclaimed, "I wait for your deliverance, G-d," and not in that of fortune. And then he immediately bethought himself of another association of the word gad in the sense of troop (in 49:19).

With this approach, the waiting for deliverance mentioned in 49:18 is not referring to any specific event, but a general statement that Yaakov waits for G-d and does not depend on luck. The verse could then introduce the blessing to Gad in which Yaakov suggested a new meaning to the name Gad.

N. Leibowitz (1976, pp. 548-555) rejects Luzzatto’s explanation, but she does not give a reason only stating that "it sounds forced." Instead, she suggests that if 49:18 refers to the blessing by Gad, then maybe Yaakov was invoking G-d's help for Gad when they would live on the Jordanian side of the Jordan River. I doubt this idea and all attempts to relate this verse to future events since the verse does not seem to be a type of prophecy.

A third approach to understanding 49:18 is that the verse is independent of the statements/ blessings to Dan and Gad. Bekhor Shor (49:18, also see second explanation in Hizkuni on 49:18) writes that the verse means that Yaakov was stating his belief that G-d would deliver the people. Does the Bekhor Shor mean that Yaakov was praying that G-d would save the people from the exile in Egypt? Luzzatto (on 49:18) quotes from Solomon Dubno (1738-1813) that Yaakov was praying to G-d for the strength to finish the blessings before he died, but Luzzatto does not like this idea since living for just a few more minutes would not be considered as being saved by G-d.

Herbert Rand (1989/90) makes the interesting suggestion that Yaakov was praying for his deliverance for tricking his father, that these words in 49:18 were "to relieve his soul of guilt and to pray for forgiveness before he died." Rand suggests that he made this prayer at this point since in the blessing for Dan, Yaakov had referred to the heel of horses, 49:17, which would remind him of his name, heel (ekev, see 25:26), and also Yaakov had referred to Dan as a judge in 49:16.

Rand's insight suggests a new interpretation of 49:17. In in the first part of 49:17, Yaakov seems to refer to Dan as a snake, but this is a very troubling association as 3:14 records that the snake is the most cursed animal. Why would a father refer to his son as a snake? (Note Rashi and Ibn Ezra on 49:17 relate the second to a snake in the verse to the curse of the snake in the garden of Eden.)

Maybe in 49:17, Yaakov was referring to himself as a snake. The word dan in the beginning of 49:17 should then be understood as being to judge and not to the person Dan. The idea being that Yaakov was feeling guilty for his actions to Esav and Yitzhak and he was saying that he should be judged as a snake. Furthermore, the two reference to snakes in 49:17 could be because twice Yaakov did not act in the most exemplary manner to Esav, first when he sold him the nezid adashim instead of giving it to him, 25:29-34 and then when he went to Yitzhak to receive the blessing intended for Esav, 27:18-30.

In the second half of 49:17, Yaakov refers to the snake biting at the heels of a horse, and the horse could be Esav. If the first half of 49:17 is referring to Yaakov’s actions by the selling of the nezid adashim and stealing the blessing intended for Esav, then the biting at the heels in the second half of 49:17 could refer to Yaakov grabbing at Esav’s heal at birth, 25:26, which was the beginning of their fight. The reference to the snake biting in 49:17 also recalls the curse to the snake in the Garden of Eden who was cursed to bite at the heels of people, 3:15.

The last line in 49:17 refers to the rider on the horse falling. The rider could be Yitzhak who trembled greatly after he realized that Yaakov had tricked him, 27:33. Yaakov was fighting with Esav, and this led him to wrong his father. This would be similar to the actions of the snake in 49:17 who bit the horse and caused the rider to be harmed. This understanding of 49:17 then leads into 49:18 that Yaakov prayed for his salvation for his actions to Yitzhak and Esav.

One could vary this approach to 49:17, while still maintaining that Yaakov was referring to events in his lifetime. Maybe, Yaakov was trying to take the blame for deceiving Yitzhak from Rivka. Rivka had convinced Yaakov to act in a deceitful manner, 27:5-13, just like the snake convinced Havva to eat from the tree of knowledge, 3:1-5. However, in 49:17, Yaakov was saying that he was the snake, that he was the one who tricked Yitzhak, he “bit” into the horse, Esav, and hence he should be blamed and not his mother. With this idea, again in 49:18, Yaakov was praying to G-d for forgiveness.

According to these ideas, both 49:17 and 49:18 are not referring to Dan but to Yaakov. Dan’s blessing is then 49:16, one verse, just like most of his brothers. What does 49:16 mean?

Most people understand that 49:16 means that Dan was to be a judge of all the people, which could give him a very important role in the nation, something which is not evident in the book of Bereshit. On the other hand, Altar (2004, p. 287, and in a lecture on the Internet, he said that he heard this idea from Amos Funkenstein) notes that the first half of 49:16 could be understood as meaning that the people will judge Dan, as the word Dan would be the object of the word judging and not the subject. This reading requires one to pause after the word Dan in 49:16, and would be similar to the two possible readings of 25:23, the oracle to Rivka. This explanation accords with the second half of 49:16 that the people would judge Dan as one of the tribes of the nation. Yaakov’s blessing to Dan would then be that the tribe of Dan would not disappear, and the fear that this would happen was because Dan was the only son of Yaakov who had only one son, 46:23. This perilous state of the tribe of Dan could also be why Yaakov moved Dan “up” in the order of the blessings to give him and his tribe more prominence. It is possible that this change in order was one of the reasons that Dan would become a leader of his set of tribes in the desert, Bemidbar 2:31.

Bibliography:

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

Rand, Herbert, 1989/90, The testament of Jacob: An analysis of Gen. 49:18, Jewish Bible Quarterly, 18:2, pp. 101-106.

Bereshit chapter 36 - The rise and fall of Esav

Bereshit chapter 36 records the descendants of Esav. The chapter records two elleh toledot sections about Esav, and this phrase is the literary marker for the structure of the book of Berehsit, see our discussion, “Introduction: The structure of the book of Bereshit.” The first elleh toledot section concerns Esav himself, 36:1-8, and the second elleh toledot section records Esav’s descendants, 36:9-43.

Why is chapter 36 included in the Torah? Why does one need to know who was Esav’s descendants?

Radak (on 36:19) explains that the list of descendants is either to show respect for Yitzhak or for the Jewish people to know who was a descendant of Esav in order that they would not live in their land.

Abravanel suggests two other answers. One, the chapter is to tell us of the incestuous practices of Esav’s descendants, and two, the chapter is to show that the blessings that Esav received from Yitzhak, 27:39,40, were realized.

We will try to develop another possibility. We will start with a review of the chapter.

Chapter 36 can be divided into five units. The first unit is 36:1-8, which records the activities of Esav in the land of Canaan, and that he left Canaan to live in Mount Se’ir. This same process occurred with Lot, 13:5-13. Similarly, Lot's descendants received land on the east bank of the Jordan River, the land of Moav and Ammon. Devarim 2:5 records that G-d promised the land of Se’ir to Esav and Devarim 2:9,19 records that G-d promised the land of Moav and Ammon to Lot as an inheritance. Thus, just as the Torah records Lot’s departure from the land and the sordid story of his children (19:30-38), so too the Torah records Esav's departure from the land and his children. 

The second unit in chapter 36 is 36:9-19, which records that the children and/ or grandchildren of Esav became chieftains or heads of families in the land of Mount Se’ir (Rashi on 36:15).  The children of Esav had already been mentioned in the first unit, as they had been born in the land of Canaan, but as 36:9 starts a toledot section, then the genealogical information is repeated. (For similar occurrences, see 4:26-5:3, 5:32-6:10, 11:26,27 and 25:19.)

The second unit of chapter 36 is similar to the list of sons of Yishmael, as in both cases, their children become leaders of families that were like tribes, 25:16 and 36:15-19. In both cases, the lists seem to be a fulfillment of prophecies from G-d, by Yishmael, 21:13,18 and by Esav, 25:23, that nations would derive from them. In addition, these sections are also similar to 19:30-38 which record the births of Lot’s children/ grandchildren, Moav and Ammon. Both Lot and Yishmael, like Esav, were potential participants in the covenantal process, and hence just as the Torah records the descendants of Lot and Yishmael, the Torah records the descendants of Esav. In all three cases, the family member who did not remain in the covenantal process, Lot, Yishmael and Esav, were not completely disregarded, as the Torah records their descendants. Hence, the second unit of chapter 36 is significant. We are left to explain the significance of the last three units of chapter 36.

The third unit is 36:20-30, which records the chieftains or families of the sons of Se’ir the Horite, who lived in the land of Se’ir before Esav. The fourth unit is 36:31-39, and records the kings of Edom. The fifth unit, 36:40-43, records another list of families or chieftains of Esav, some of whose names correspond to the list of the second unit and some who are new.

Robert Sacks (1990) suggests a fascinating way to understand chapter 36. He notes that there are numerous textual problems with the chapter, which he calls “the most artless chapter in Bereshit and perhaps in the whole Bible.” Just a few examples: Ana is apparently a woman based on 36:2 but 36:20 seems to refer to Ana as a man. Korah is initially just a member of the Oholivama branch of Esav’s family, 36:14, but then he appears as a chieftain in both Oholivama’s and Elifaz’s branch of Esav’ family, 36:16,18. 36:20,21 record that one family has two brothers, Dishon and Dishan, but then in 36:26, Dishon seems to become Dishan. While the commentators give reasons for each anomaly, Sacks suggests that the text records the history of Esav as if it had been preserved by Esav’s children, and this is why there are so many “mistakes” in the list since Esav’s children did not keep careful records. Why would the Torah deliberately allow mistakes in the text? Sacks answers that this demonstrates the “artless character of Esav himself.”

Sacks points out a difference between the list of descendants of Esav and Yishmael. With regards to Yishmael we only have a list of his sons but not his later descendants, while for Esav his later descendants are also recorded. Sacks explains (throughout his commentary on Bereshit) that the family of Avraham was starting a New Way, which was a life based on the covenant, and this covenant is based on laws and tradition. A crucial part of a life based on laws and tradition is keeping records and thus people who were part of the New Way had to keep records. Yishmael was not part of the New Way since he was referred to as a wild ass, 16:12, and Sacks writes “the way of a wild ass is not a way that keeps records. But Esav as a strange mixture between the New Way and the wild ass does keep records. However, they tend to get scrambled a bit.”

There is also a genetic difference between Yishmael and Esav. By Yishmael only his father, Avraham, was part of the covenant with G-d, while Esav was Yitzhak and Rivka’s son, and Avraham and Sara’s grandson. Accordingly, Esav was entitled to have his history recorded, and the last three units of chapter 36 record the history of the rise and fall of Esav.

The third unit of chapter 36, 36:20-30, records the people who lived in Mount Se’ir before Esav became in control of the land. This unit then describes the rise of Esav, that he took control of the land of Mount Se’ir, see Devarim 2:22. Seforno (on 36:20) notes that this list shows that the initial inhabitants of Se’ir were men of great renown, and still Esav was able to gain control of the land from them. Furthermore, Ramban (on 36:31, also see Radak on 36:24) writes that that the list of the leaders of Seir shows the fulfillment of Yitzhak's blessing that Esav would succeed in battle, 27:40.

Afterwards, the fourth unit of chapter 36, 36:31-39, records the kings of Edom and even one of their successful battles with Moav, 36:35. This unit shows the peak of the power of the nation Edom that Esav founded. However, as we discussed on 25:23, "Did all the aspects of the oracle told to Rivka occur?" it is curious that neither Esav nor his sons are listed as one of the kings of Edom. This implies that while Esav was the great figure whose land was named after him, in the end, he was subservient to other kings. This list might then be the (partial?) fulfillment of the oracle to Rivka that the "elder would serve a younger," which was fulfilled when Esav served these other kings of Edom.

Within this fourth unit, 36:39 records that the eighth and last king of Edom was Hadar and the verse even records the name of his wife, Mehetabel, and her father/ mother and grandfather/ grandmother(?). This reference to Hadar’s wife is unique in this list and even more surprising is the reference to Mehetabel’s ancestry.

The Bekhor Shor (on 36:29) and the Baal HaTurim (on 36:39, and I thank my son Dror for pointing this out) suggest that Mehetabel is mentioned since she was the reason that Hadar became king. Furthermore, Sarna (1989, p. 253) suggests that Mehetabel’s mother and grandmother are mentioned since this indicated that Mehetabel has a “very distinguished ancestry.”

Maybe there are two other reasons for mentioning Mehetabel and her ancestry. One, 36:39 is towards the end of the list of descendants of Esav, and the list began by mentioning the wives of Esav, 36:2. With regard to one of the wives of Esav, Oholibamah, the Torah also refers to her double ancestry just like by Mehetabel. Thus, the reference to Mehetabel could be a literary technique to match the conclusion of the list with the beginning of the list. (This might have been useful for people who knew the Torah by memory.)

A second possibility is that since Hadar was the last king in the list if one wanted to find out what happened afterwards, then it is helpful to have more information about the family. Thus, Hadar's wife Mehetabel and her ancestry are mentioned.

To return to the structure of chapter 36, the fifth unit, 36:40-43, records the fall of the family of Esav. During this period presumably some families had died out and other families became prominent.  These new prominent families are the new names mentioned in this unit. Yet, these new prominent families were no longer kings. As noted by Rashi (on 36:40) after there were no longer kings of the nation of Edom, the family of Esav reverted back to smaller disjointed families, unit five of the chapter, which indicated their loss of power. 

We can summarize the significance of each unit of chapter 36. The first unit, as by Lot, shows why Esav was not part of the covenant since he left the land of Israel. The second unit, as by Yishmael, shows that G-d’s prophecy in 25:23 that nations would develop from Esav  was fulfilled. The third and fourth units show the rise of Esav, while the fifth unit shows the decline of Esav.  These last three units give the general history of Esav’s family, which Esav as a son of Yitzhak and Rivka and a grandson of Avraham and Sara was entitled to have recorded.

Bibliography:

Sacks, Robert, 1990, A commentary on the book of Genesis, Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press.

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

Bereshit 20:1,2 – The second abduction of Sara

בראשית כ:א,ב - ויסע משם אברהם ארצה הנגב וישב בין קדש ובין שור, ויגר בגרר. ויאמר אברהם אל שרה אשתו אחתי הוא וישלח אבימלך מלך גרר ויקח את שרה.

20:1,2,5 record that Avraham and Sara went to live in Gerar, and when they got there, they told people that they were brother and sister. This is similar to what they had said when they went to Egypt, 12:11-15, and just like in Egypt, Pharaoh’s servants took Sara, in Gerar, the king of Gerar, Avimelekh took Sara. Apparently, Sara's youth and beauty had returned to her even though she was old as part of the miracle that she would give birth at ninety (Rav Hisda quoted in Talmud, Baba Metzia, 87a).

Why did Avraham and Sara again try to conceal their marriage if Sara was abducted in Egypt when they used this plan? Why did they not learn from the previous case?

When Avraham and Sara went to Egypt, Avraham said that it was necessary to conceal their marriage to save his life, 12:12. In Gerar, was Avraham again worried for his life? 20:11 records that when Avimelekh questioned Avraham for why he concealed his marriage, he said that he was afraid of being killed. Yet, was this fear a sufficient reason for Avraham and Sara to conceal their marriage a second time? The Radak (on 12:12) justified Avraham and Sara’s actions in Egypt since a person cannot rely on miracles.  Yet, the ploy failed in Egypt. Would it not have been preferable for Avraham and Sara to say they were married in Gerar and take their chances that nobody would try to kill Avraham and abduct Sara?

The cynic might argue that Avraham and Sara learned from the case in Egypt to rely on this ploy since everything was good in the end as Avraham was not killed, Sara was returned and they received lots of gifts. This possibility must be rejected since from chapter 14 we learn that Avraham no longer wanted to receive gifts. 14:22,23 record that after Avraham defeated the five kings, he refused to keep any of the booty from the war, so that nobody could claim that they made him wealthy. In this case, Avraham did accept gifts from Avimelekh, 20:14-16, but this was after the fact and necessary to show that there were no sexual relations between Avimelekh and Sara. Also, the success in Egypt was due to a miracle, so with this approach, one would have to argue that now Avraham and Sara were relying on a miracle, that if Sara would be abducted again, then G-d would do a miracle to save her. Yet, if that is true, then they could have said that they were married and relied on a miracle that Avraham would not be killed.

A second possibility why Avraham and Sara concealed their marriage in Gerar is that Avraham and Sara thought that their plan was good and just because it failed once this was no reason to discard it. Maybe they thought that they just had bad luck in Egypt, but otherwise the plan would have succeeded. 20:3 records (see also Ramban on 12:12) that Avraham said that he and Sara always claimed that they were brother and sister, and not husband and wife, whenever they traveled and then it could be that Torah only records the places where there were problems.

Was Avraham really scared of being killed in Gerar? The Avraham of chapter 20 was not at all like the Avraham (Avram) of chapter 12. The Avraham of chapter 20 had fought a war against five kings, chapter 14, made two covenants with G-d, chapters 15 and 17, and had been able to argue with G-d about the fate of Sedom, 18:23-32. It is unlikely that Avraham would have such a great fear of mankind. Furthermore, Avraham had twice been told that he would have a son with Sara within the year, 17:21 and 18:14. Did Avraham think that G-d was promising him a son, but that he would not live to see it? It is true that in 20:11 Avraham mentioned that he was worried about being killed but this fear is mentioned after Avimelekh learned that they were married, and maybe in 20:11, Avraham mentioned this fear to turn "the tables" on Avimelekh that really the situation was Avimelekh’s fault since in his domain nobody was G-d fearing.

Independent of whether Avraham was scared of being killed, maybe Avraham and Sara had another reason to conceal their marriage in Gerar. Avraham and Sara arrived in Gerar not long after the destruction of Sedom, and even though Lot was saved, it was highly likely that Avraham was very upset by the destruction of Sedom.  Avraham had prayed fervently for the city, but G-d had ignored his pleas and destroyed the city. This despondency might explain why he concealed his marriage. 

The beginning of 20:1 records how Avraham, and apparently Sara, were roaming in the Negev (today the area of the northern Negev) prior to them coming to Gerar. This roaming could have been because of his sadness after the destruction of Sedom, and if so, then it is likely that he also wandered alone for some time. This would have meant separating from Sara now and then. However, people would begin to ask why was he alone without his wife? Therefore, Avraham and Sara said that they were brother and sister, which they were, 20:12, without revealing that they were also married, to stop people from thinking that they were having marital problems, especially as Yitzhak was supposed to be born soon. The idea was to enable Avraham to have time to be by himself. With this idea, Avraham and Sara would have known that there was a risk that somebody would abduct Sara since she was a "single woman" but they thought the risk was very low and worth the benefit of people not bothering them about their marriage.

Devarim 33:4 – Morasha: A special double inheritance

דברים לג:ד - תורה צוה לנו משה, מורשה קהלת יעקב

Devarim 33:4 records, “Torah commanded us Moshe, a morasha for the congregation of Yaakov.” 

33:4 is a relatively well-known verse. The Talmud (Sukkah 42a, quoted by the Rambam, Laws of Talmud Torah 1:6, and Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh Deah, 245:5) records that Rav Hamnuna said that when a child begins to speak, he/ she should be taught 33:4. If my memory is correct, in my very early years of schooling we chanted the verse, and I assume that this practice continues today. Also, in the Siddur that I used growing up, Shilo Prayer Book (1980, p. 1), the verse appears amongst the prayers that people are to recite when waking up after reciting modeh ani and doing netilat yadim. However, in more recent Siddurim, such as Rinat Yisrael, ArtScroll and one version of the Koren Siddur, the verse is no longer listed amongst the prayers to be said when a person gets up in the morning. In a different Koren Siddur, the verse is moved to after the blessings on the Torah under the heading “some say.” Maybe the verse was removed from the Siddur or moved since recently there began to be a desire not to recite verses from Tanakh before reciting the blessings on the Torah.

One question concerning 33:4 is the word "us." 33:1 records that Moshe is the speaker of the ensuing verses. Why would Moshe use the word “us” in 33:4? Also, in 33:4, Moshe is referred to in the third person which is little strange if he was the person stating 33:4. Rav Mecklenburg (Germany, 1785-1865, Haketav Vehakabbalah on 33:4, also Altar, 2004, p. 1050) suggests that 33:4 was spoken by the people after they heard Moshe saying 33:2,3. Note, a similar case occurred by 27:14, that the Levites shouted out in response to Moshe's statement regarding which tribes would be on which mountain to recite blessings and curses, see our discussion above on 27:11-26, "Curses, blessings and curses."

The word morasha in 33:4 means an inheritance. Tigay (1996, p. 321) notes that the word “connotes something vital and cherished, like its synonym nahalah.” 33:4 should then be understood to mean that the Jewish people stated that Moshe had given them a special inheritance, the Torah. This would be an appropriate response of the people after hearing 33:2,3. In those verses, Moshe recalled G-d's appearance and the special relationship between G-d and the Jewish people, and then in 33:4 the people expressed their thanks and appreciation to Moshe and G-d for giving them the Torah.

The word morasha only appears one other time in the Torah in Shemot 6:8 when G-d was giving Moshe instructions to take the people out of Egypt. Shemot 6:8 states that G-d told Moshe that after he took the people out of Egypt, he was to take them to the land that He promised to Avraham, Yitzhak and Yaakov (the land of Israel), and that He was going to give the Jewish people the land as a morasha, a (special) inheritance.

These two occurrences of the word morasha in the Torah indicate the two special inheritances that G-d gave to the Jewish people, the Torah and the land of Israel. The Jewish people then have a dual obligation to build and develop these inheritances that they received from G-d, to learn and follow the Torah and to live in and to develop the land of Israel.   

Devarim 27:1-8 – Instructions for a two-part ceremony by the Jordan River and Mount Eval

Devarim 27:1 records that Moshe and the elders told the people to shamor the laws that Moshe was about to command them that day. A few points about this verse. One, as we noted above, in our discussion on 4:6, “The definition of the word shamor in Moshe’s speeches in the book of Devarim - To remember,” the word shamor means to remember, and then Moshe and the elders were telling the people to remember what Moshe was about to say. Two, the presence of the elders here is a little surprising and a reason for their involvement in the instructions will be suggested below.

27:2 then records that Moshe, and presumably the elders, told the people that on the day when they would cross the Jordan River, they were to set up stones, which probably had been prepared before the people crossed the Jordan River, and the stones were to be shadetam be-shid. This phrase is usually translated that the stones were to be plastered as Atler (2004, p. 1008) explains that “writing on plaster, in order to make the letters stand out more distinctly was a known procedure in the ancient Near East.” On the other hand, in a very interesting article on some words in the Tanakh that their meaning has been forgotten, David Yellin (1927, pp. 456-458) writes that the meaning of the phrase is to build a building in a strong and lasting manner, which in this case means to add mortar to the rocks. This also seems to be the explanation of the Ibn Ezra and the Bekhor Shor on 27:2. Yellen also claims that the word ketav in 27:3 means to engrave on stones, as in Shemot 32:15,16, and then the writing was not on plaster.

27:3 then records that the Torah was to be written on these stones. It is not clear how much of the Torah was to be written on these stones, see Ibn Ezra on 27:1.

27:4 then records that these stones were to be set up on Mount Eval, and the stones were to be either plastered again or mortar was supposed to be put between the stones. This verse raises several questions. Does 27:4 imply that the people were to go immediately to Mount Eval after they crossed the Jordan River? If yes, this would have been physically challenging. Mount Eval is thought to be near Shekhem which is around thirty miles from the people's crossing by the Jordan and involves going up 4,000 feet, from minus 1,000 feet by the Jordan River to 3,000 feet by the mountain. To solve this problem, the Talmud (Sotah 36a) quotes R. Shimon that the people reached Mount Eval on the day they crossed the Jordan River due to a miracle. A different possibility is the Talmud (Sotah 33b) quotes R. Eliezer that the mountains that today that we call Mount Eval is not the same ones as referred to in the Torah. 11:30 records information where Mount Eval (and Mount Gerizim) were located and maybe one can understand the verse to mean that Mount Eval and Mount Gerizim were by the Jordan River by the beginning of a road that started by the Jordan River, and went westwards reaching Elon Moreh. Yet, even if Mount Eval was near where the people were located, would there have been enough time for the people to cross the Jordan River, write on the stones, take the stones up to Mount Eval and set them up on the mountain? A third possibility is that only a select few people in excellent physical condition went to the Mount Eval, wherever it was located, on the day when the whole nation crossed the Jordan River, and then they waited sometime before the rest of the nation joined them. Yet, they would still have to have waited for the people to write on the stones before they could carry the stones up to Mount Eval. A fourth possibility is that the people crossed the Jorden River closer to Mount Eval then commonly thought, though still there would remain the difficulty of taking the stones up the mountain in one day. All of these possibilities are not convincing.

Another question is why were the stones to be set up by the Jordan River and then set up again by Mount Eval?  Hizkuni notes that the word “these” in 27:4 implies that the same stones were set up in the Jordan River and on Mount Eval, but why should the same stones have been used? It would have been easier to have two sets of stones. Also, if these were the same stones, and one understands 27:2 to mean that the stones were plastered, why does 27:4 again record that the stones were to be plastered?

On the other hand, Rashi (on 27:2) and Hoffman (1961, p. 469) writes that there were two sets of stones, one by the Jordan River and one by Mount Eval? This approach seems to ignore the word “these” in 27:4.

27:5-7 then record that the people were to build an altar of stones at Mount Eval, offer sacrifices, and eat the sacrifices. This offering of sacrifices would be an example of offering sacrifices at the chosen place, 12:6,11, since G-d had chosen to have this particular ceremony at Mount Eval. Note, once this ceremony was over, then Mount Eval would not necessarily have remained a chosen place.

27:8 then records that the Torah was to be written on the stones, which might be referring to the stones that were used to build the altar, and again it is unknown how much of the Torah was to be written. Yet, if the stones in Mount Eval were the same stones as by the Jordan River, then the Torah had already been written or carved into them by the Jordan River.

My guess is that the 27:1-8 record instructions for two separate but related ceremonies. The crossing of the Jordan River was such a significant moment as the people had been waiting forty years to reach the land of Israel that it warranted a ceremony to mark the crossing. The instruction for this ceremony is recorded in 27:2,3, and this ceremony was to be done on the exact day when the people crossed the Jordan River since 27:2 records the word ba-yom. Also, the end of 27:3 indicates that the ceremony of 27:2,3 was because the people had come to the land flowing with milk and honey, as G-d had stated to Moshe by the burning bush, Shemot 3:8.

There was also a need for another ceremony to mark the covenant that Moshe was establishing with the people on the eastern side of the Jordan River, in the land of Moav, 28:69. This second ceremony is the ceremony recorded in 27:4-8. This covenant was only fully established when the tribes would go up on Mount Eval and Mount Gerizim to curse and bless the people, 11:29; 27:11-13, and then the ceremony recorded in 27:4-8, was to be prior to the tribes blessing and cursing the people. Possibly it was desired to have the ceremony for the covenant on these mountains since these mountains are thought to be near Shekhem, and Shekhem, was where Avraham had first built an altar when he entered the land of Israel, Bereshit 12:6,7. This second ceremony was similar to the ceremony in Shemot 24:3-11 by the establishment of the covenant at Mount Sinai, and since in that ceremony, the elders had a distinguished part, Shemot 24:9,10, so then here in the ceremony by the second covenant, the elders were also given a role to help Moshe inform the people of the ensuing ceremony, which parenthetically, Moshe would not participate in.

The second ceremony was not on the day when the people crossed the Jordan River, but it was sometime afterwards, for all the problems mentioned above. The basis for believing that the second ceremony was on the day when the people crossed the Jordan River is the word be-overkhem, in 27:4 (and 27:12). What does the word mean? While the word could just refer to the time it took the people to cross the Jordan River as in 27:2, this crossing can also be considered as entailing a longer process. The idea is that until the people finished establishing the covenant that was told to them in the land of Moav, they were still considered as crossing into the land of Israel. This would be similar to the idea that even when the people were in the desert they were still considered as being in the process of leaving Egypt, see 4:45,46. Note that 27:4 does not have the word on the day, which appears in 27:2, since 27:4 is referring to a period after the day when the people crossed over the Jordan River.

These two ceremonies were connected through the same set of stones. The stones were first set up by the Jordan River, then picked up and set up a second time by Mount Eval. Following the idea that mortar was put in between the stones in 27:2, this was because the stones had to stay securely in place until they were ready to be taken to Mount Eval. The stones were then re-set up on Mount Eval again with mortar in order that they would be secure for some time on Mount Eval. We can view the two ceremonies as two parts of one large ceremony.

Why did 27:8 record that the Torah was written on the stones that were set up on Mount Eval, after the Torah had already been written on the stones in 27:3, when the stones were by the Jordan River? The need to re-write the Torah might have been because the goal was to write the Torah immediately prior to the blessing and curses on Mount Eval and Mount Gerizim. Or, it could be that the writing by the Jordan River was rushed and then not so clear, while the writing on Mount Eval could have been slower and clearer. Note that 27:8 ends with the phrase that this writing of the Torah was to be very clear (see Ibn Ezra on 27:8), which could be to be emphasize that this second writing was to be clearer than the first writing by the Jordan River. Finally, there is the possibility that during the time from the crossing of the Jordan River until the second ceremony on Mount Eval some of the words on the stones had already started to be blurred, and hence there was a new writing for the second ceremony.

Bibliography:

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company

Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1961, Commentary on Deuteronomy, translated by Tzvi Har-Shefer, Tel Aviv: Nezach.

Yellin, David, 1927, Forgotten meanings of Hebrew roots in the Bible, in Jewish Studies in Memory of Israel Abrahams, New York: The Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, Press of the Jewish Institute of Religion, pp. 441-458.

The kinah Eicah asta be-apcha - הקינה איכה אצת באפך

The second kinah recited in the daytime of Tisha B’av is Eicah asta be-apcha. This kinah was composed by R. Elazar haKalir. His name appears in an acrostic form at the end of the kinah, though this acrostic is not obvious. After the twenty-two lines that follow the aleph/ bet structure of the kinah (not counting the refrain in between the stanzas), there are two “extra” lines, and these contain the five letters that form the name Elazar, aleph, lamed, ayin, zayin and resh: The second letter in the first word of the first extra line is an aleph. The first letter in the second word of the first extra line is a lamed. The first letter in the first word of the second half of the first extra line is an ayin. The first letter in the first word of the second extra line is a zayin, and the first letter in the second half of the second extra line is a resh.

This kinah is a tongue twister since each line has either five or six words that all begin with the same letter, are difficult to pronounce, and follow the aleph bet structure. This ability to form all these words within the aleph bet structure shows R. Elazar haKalir’s literary artistry. 

This kinah continues the previous kinah in two ways. One, the previous kinah, Shavat suru meni, was focused on the destruction of the first Bet ha-Mikdash, while this kinah begins by referring to the destruction by the Romans of the second Bet ha-Mikdash. Secondly, the first kinah was based on chapters one through four in Eicah, and in this kinah, the refrain in between each stanza is from the first verse in the fifth chapter of Eicah.

This kinah has many other connections with Megillat Eicah:

One, the opening word of each stanza is eicah, the first word in Eicah 1:1, 2:1 and 4:1.

Two, Eicah 2:1 records the phrase how did G-d not remember, and the middle phrase of each stanza of this kinah has the phrase “that G-d did not remember.”

Three, the kinah is based on a comparison of what occurred by the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash and what should have been and this same idea is expressed in Eicah 2:1.

Four, the third word in the first line of the kinah, the aleph line, be-apcha, is in Eicah 2:1.

Five, the third word in the fourth line of the kinah, the daled line, derech, is in Eicah 1:4.

Six, the second and third words in the fifth line of the kinah, the heh line, hagta be-hegyecha, appear in Eicah 1:5 (also in Eicah 3:22).

Seven, the first word in the seventh line of the kinah. the zayin line, zanachta, is the first word in Eicah 2:7.

Eight, the sixth word in the ninth line of the kinah, the tet line, temeim, is the first word in Eicah 1:9.

Nine, the first word in the tenth line of the kinah, the yud line, yekar, is in Eicah 4:2.

Ten, the first word in the twelfth line of the kinah, lo, the lamed line, is the first word in Eicah 1:12 and 4:12. The word lo also appears in several other verses of Eicah since the word lo is a common word.

Eleven, the first and fifth words in the fourteenth line of the kinah, the nun line, nesiat and nasata, are the first word in Eicah 3:41.

Twelve, the first word in the fifteenth line of the kinah, the sameach line, sacta, is in Eicah 3:45.

Thirteen, the first word in the seventeenth line of the kinah, the peh line, pasta, is in Eicah 2:16 and 3:46.

Fourteen, the first word in the nineteenth line of the kinah, the kuf line, karata, is the first word in Eicah 1:19 and 3:55.

Altogether we can say that R. Elazar haKalir incorporated many words from Megillat Eicah to write this kinah, but these are just background elements for him to express the difference between what happened by the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash and what should have been. This comparison highlights the suffering of the people, as the fall is even greater if ones knows how high or special the people’s situation was supposed to have been.

This comparison occurs in each stanza of the kinah, which consists of two lines. In the first line of each stanza, referring to what happened, R. Elazar haKalir uses various terms to refer either just to the Romans, mentioned specifically in the first line or also the Babylonians, while in the second line of each stanza, referring to what was supposed to be, R. Elazar haKalir refers to the Jewish people. For example, after referring to the Romans in the first line of the kinah, in the second line, R. Elazar haKalir refers to the covenant between G-d and Avram in Bereshit 15.

The comparison of what was, the first line in each stanza, to what was supposed to have been, the second line in each stanza, is not equal since each line of what was supposed to have been has six words that begin with the appropriate letter, while the line which describes what was only has five words with the relevant letter. I wonder if this inequality is a type of prayer for the fulfillment of the promise of what was supposed to have been since the phrase of what was supposed to have been is greater in terms of the number of words than the phrase of what was. Some minor support for this idea is that the ending of each stanza has a phrase referring to talking/ praying in reference to the letter from the line of what was supposed to have been. For example, the end of the second stanza is u-vechen dibarnu, “And so, we spoke,” by the line of the letter daled which recalls what was supposed to have been.

Bemidbar 36:5-9 – Tribalism

Hello,

I have received a warning from the host of the blog (Google) that the email subscription service, which uses Feedburner, is ending in July 2021. This means that after July 2021, people who have signed up to receive the posts on this blog to their email will no longer automatically receive the posts. Instead, I will start an email list with a link to new posts, which I will send out when I upload a new post, which is around once a month. If you want to be included in this email list, send me an email at ajayschein@gmail.com. In addition, if you want to post a comment, you have to send it to me because, for reasons that are not clear to me, the blog does not accept comments.

Thanks

Andrew Schein


Bemidbar 36:1-4 records that the elders of the tribe of Menashe were afraid that the tribe of Menashe would lose some of its land if the daughters of Tzelofhad, who were to inherit land, would marry outside of the tribe. 36:5-9 records that Moshe told them that their fears were justified and hence he instructed the daughters of Tzelofhad to marry men from the tribe of Menashe.

There are different opinions how to understand Moshe’s response. The Talmud quotes Shmuel (Baba Bathra 120a) that Moshe was only giving advice and the Ramban (on 36:7, again see Baba Bathra 120a) suggests that the law not to mix-up the tribal land was only for that generation. Both of these approaches are possible, but the simplest understanding of Moshe’s response is that restriction on who to marry was binding and for all generations since there is no indication in the Torah that this was just advice or a temporary law.

As pointed out by the Ramban (on 36:7) and the Bekhor Shor (on 36:9), it is not clear if restricting women who can inherit property to marry within their tribes, will stop land from “moving” to another tribe. 36:8 records that only if a woman is going to inherit land, then she cannot marry outside of her tribe, but the Torah does not limit all women from marrying outside of their tribe. This means that there could be a case where a woman has a brother or many brothers, who were supposed to inherit their father’s land, and the woman married outside of her tribe thinking that her brother(s) would inherit her father’s land. However, if her brother or brothers died without any children, then the woman would seem to inherit from her father even if she had married outside of her tribe. Yet, this case would probably not occur that much.

Why was it a problem if land “moved” from one tribe to another? What would be so bad if a person from one tribe lived and owned land amongst another tribe, as everybody was part of the same nation? Why did Moshe just not respond to the tribe of Menashe that it is not a problem if a person from another tribe would own land within their tribe? Also, just like the tribe of Menashe could have “lost” land, the tribe could have “gained” land if a person from the tribe married a woman who would inherit land from another tribe.

These questions are part of the larger question of why did the Jewish people maintain the tribal structure by the division of the land? Was this for legal reasons as maybe it was considered easier to judge people within one’s tribe? Was the tribal system considered a simpler way to administer a large nation? Or, was it that the tribal affinity was so great that people did not want to give it up even if it meant weakening the bonds of the nation as a whole?

Maybe the goal of maintaining tribes and their land was a way to maintain the names of the sons and even grandsons of Yaakov. The idea of keeping a name of their father is the claim of the daughters of Tzelofhad, 27:4, and is the basis for the law of yibbum, Devarim 25:6. This concern could also be with the names of the children of Yaakov, and the Jewish people are called in the Torah the sons of Yisrael, see for example 36:1,2,3,4,7,8,9,13. By distributing the land based on tribal names, this maintains the names of the sons of Yaakov and the two grandsons who Yaakov blessed in Bereshit 48. This same idea would then apply to not allowing some tribes to inherit land within other tribes since with the land “moving” within the tribes, it is theoretically possible that after enough years, a tribe’s land would lose its distinctive name.

A minor proof for this idea that the goal here is to maintain the names of the sons of Yaakov is that 36:1,5,12, three times refer to Menashe as the son of Yosef. This reference to Yosef is not necessary, but it does hint that the basis for the law to marry within the tribe is keep the name of Yosef, and then his brothers, the sons of Yaakov/ Yisrael.

Interestingly, to this day, the Jewish people are known based on the name of Yehuda, the fourth son of Yaakov.

Bemidbar chapter 16 – Korah's rebellion: The great rebellion by an unholy coalition

Bemidbar 16 records Korah’s rebellion against Moshe and begins by recording that Korah took, and then mentions three other people, Datan, Aviram and On, 16:1. On is a mystery person in this chapter since we never hear of him again in the chapter, see our discussion on 16:1, “A few unworthy men.”

What is this taking in the first half of 16:1? Who or what did Korah take? Ibn Ezra (on 16:1, see Alter, 2004, p. 762 ) explains that Korah took people to join his rebellion. Hizkuni (on 16:1) explains that Korah took Datan, Aviram and On. The Rashbam and the Bekhor Shor (on 16:1) explains that Korah, Datan and Aviram took the 250 people mentioned in 16:2, but the Torah uses the singular, Korah took in 16:1, to teach us that of the three, Korah was the more active personality in this rebellion. I prefer the Ibn Ezra’s approach. Korah was the chief ringleader of the rebellion (17:14; 26:9), and he gathered or took together different groups of people to make a coalition against Moshe. The second half of 16:1, informs us that Datan, Aviram and On joined with Korah, and they were named possibly since they were his first followers, the most prominent or the most belligerent of his followers.

The beginning of 16:2 records that “they stood before Moshe.” The “they” refers to Korah, Datan and Aviram (and On?), and it can mean that they literally stood before Moshe or that they started organizing a challenge to Moshe. The they could also refer to other anonymous people that Korah took in 16:1. The reminder of 16:2 refers to 250 well known people that joined the rebellion. It would seem that the group of 250 people joined after Korah, Datan, Aviram and On began the rebellion. With regard to speculation as to who were these 250 people, see our discussion below on 16:2,"Who were the 250 men who were part of Korah’s rebellion?”

As noted by many (for example, see S. R. Hirsch on 16:8-11) the rebellion consisted of two groups of people. One group was the 250 people who wanted to become priests or high priests and the second group was led by Datan and Aviram, but it also included other people, who were upset with Moshe’s political leadership. Korah was part of both groups and unified the two groups in the rebellion, 16:1,5,8,16,19,24. The Torah uses several words to connect the two groups. We will point out these literary hints and show that chapter 16 is one unit and not disjointed.

The beginning of 16:3 records that the group of rebels gathered on Moshe and Aharon. If one understands that 16:2 was referring to the rebels challenging Moshe without meeting him in person, then 16:3 records the first face to face confrontation between Moshe and the rebels, while if one understands that 16:2 refers to a physical meeting between Moshe and the rebels, then 16:3 records a second face to face confrontation between Moshe, this time also Aharon, with the rebels.

From 16:5,8 we know that Korah was part of this gathering referred to in 16:3, but it is not clear if Datan and Aviram was also part of the gathering in 16:3. 16:12 records that Moshe sends messengers to speak to them, which means that they were not present at the ensuing conversation, but did they leave after the rebels’ accusations in 16:3 (Aaron Israel, personal correspondence, suggested this to me) or did they not participate at all in this gathering. If they were not part of the gathering in 16:3, and 16:2 does not refer to an actual confrontation, then it could be that Datan and Aviram did not encounter Moshe until 16:27. If they were part of the gathering of 16:3, then when did they leave? Maybe after Moshe started to speak to Levites, as they decided that his speech was not relevant to them.

16:3 then records that the rebels said to Moshe and Aharon that since everybody is kadosh, why did Moshe and Aharon lord over them and the Jewish people? It is not clear exactly what the rebels wanted at this point: Did they want a democracy? Did they want anarchy? Did they want to replace Moshe and Aharon?

16:4 records that Moshe fell on his face. Why? The Rashbam (on 16:4) suggests it was to pray and that G-d then instructed Moshe what to respond to the claim of Korah and the 250 people. While this could be, this is not recorded in the Torah, and it could be that this falling down might have been just for Moshe to collect his thoughts how to respond to the rebels. With this idea, Moshe's response in the following verses was his idea, see our discussion on Shemot 16:6-13, "Predicting the future." In class, Nissim Edri suggested that he fell because he was so sad that the people would make these accusations against him. This would be like his falling on his face when the people said that they wanted to go back to Egypt after hearing the report of the spies, 14:5.

16:4 does not record that Aharon responded to the accusations of the rebels, even though later he would fall on his face, 16:22, and he fell on face when the people said that they wanted to go back to Egypt after hearing the report of the spies, 14:5. Maybe Aharon felt guilty about being the high priest since he had participated in the sin of the golden calf, Shemot 32:4,5.

16:5-7 record Moshe's first response to the rebels. He told them that in following morning there would be a test of the fire-pans that the people would put incense on these fire-pans and then G-d would make it known who was the one person who was kadosh. This statement is a repudiation of the claim of Korah and his followers that all the people are kadosh in 16:3. Also, since Moshe said that one person would be shown to be kadosh from the test this indicates that Moshe understood that the rebellion was because people were upset that he had appointed his brother Aharon to be the high priest, which might have been seen as a case of nepotism. It is interesting that Moshe did not include himself in this test, as this test was just to prove that Aharon was chosen by G-d to be the high priest.

Rashi (on 16:5) suggest that Moshe made the test for the following day to give the people a chance to think and decide to stop their rebellion. In class, David said that the people needed time to prepare the test. This is reasonable since they had to get incense and fire-pans, and it is not obvious that both items were so readily available.

In the end of 16:7, Moshe mentioned that the people from the tribe of Levi should not participate in this rebellion since they already have an official status though not as high a level as the priests. We know that Korah was from the tribe of Levi, 16:1, and most likely many of his followers were also Levites. Furthermore, as a literary point, Korah initially claimed to Moshe and Aharon that rav lachem “too much is yours,” 16:3, and Moshe responded to the Levites with the same words rav lachem bnei Levi, “too much is yours, sons of Levi,” 16:7.

16:8-11 records how after Moshe explained the test for the following day, he expanded on his plea for the Levites to desist from the rebellion. In these verses, Moshe was both trying to speak specifically to Korah and at the same time speak to the Levites who were part of the rebellion. 16:10 records how he explicitly stated that the rebels desired to be priests, and in 16:11 he tried to get them to stop attacking his brother Aharon. Moshe began this plea with a literary point, as in the end of 16:7, he said rav lachem, "too much is yours" and in 16:9, he began, ha-meaht, is it too little for you?

16:12 records that after Moshe tried to persuade the Levites from within the group of Korah and the 250 people to stop rebelling, he then attempted to talk to Datan and Aviram by sending messengers to ask them to come to him. However, they refused to come, and they spoke with great impudence to Moshe, 16:12-14. They accused Moshe of taking the people out Egypt, a land flowing with milk and honey (!), to have them die in the desert.

We see that Datan and Aviram were in close communication with Korah and the 250 people since they mimic Moshe's words to the Levites who were with Korah. In 16:9, Moshe said ha-meaht “is it too little” to the Levites, and Datan and Aviram used this same word ha-meaht, 16:13, when they accused Moshe “is it too little” that you took us out of Egypt. In class, Dror Haburu suggested that maybe they had heard Moshe speak these words, and then they left to go to their tents.

N. Leibowitz (1982, p. 206) adds that just as Moshe ended with a rhetorical question when he spoke to the group of 250 in 16:10, so too Datan and Aviram included a rhetorical question in 16:13. Milgrom (1990, p. 133) also notes that Datan and Aviram used the word tistarer, lord over, in 16:13 which is similar to the word that Korah and the 250 men said in 16:3, titnase`u, raise yourself.

In addition, Gary Rendsburg (2002, pp. 415,416) notes that Datan and Aviram’s retort to Moshe comprised one word/ sound four times, which he calls a leading word. 16:12,14 record that Datan and Aviram twice said that they would not go up to Moshe, lo naaleh, and in 16:13 they said that Moshe took them up from Egypt, he-elitanu, and that Moshe was ruling over them, alenu. 

This same word/ sound also appears by Moshe’s last statement to the Levites right before he sent for Datan and Aviram, when Moshe questioned the Levites why were they protesting against Aharon, alav, end of 16:11. In addition, when Moshe gave the instructions to the 250 men, he also used a word with the same sound, alehen, on it, 16:7. All these six words have the letters ayin and lamed. In addition, while the word for protesting used by Moshe, talinu, 16:11, in reference to the Levites, does not have the letter ayin, it has a similar sound to the words he-elitanu and alenu in 16:13 and the word lanu in 16:14 said by Datan and Aviram via the letters lamed, nun and vav. These words/ sounds are a literary way to connect the two groups of rebels.

Datan and Aviram's claim in 16:13 that Moshe was killing the people is difficult. They must have been claiming that it was Moshe's fault that the people were to die in the desert. The people were stuck in the desert due to the sin of the spies. Was Moshe responsible for the sin of the spies? Maybe they were claiming that Moshe should not have sent the spies since they believed it was his decision to send the spies. Or, maybe they were upset that Moshe did not join the people when they tried to go to the land of Israel on their own, 14:44, since they thought that Moshe made this decision on his own without speaking to G-d.

In any event, we see that while the two groups of rebels had different complaints against Moshe, they were unified by the same underlying rationale. Korah and the 250 people claimed that Moshe appointed Aharon as the high priest on his own since Aharon was his brother, and Datan and Aviram claimed that Moshe caused the people to be stuck and die in the desert on his own. We see that this was the main point of contention from Moshe’s words in 16:28,29 prior to the land opening up.

16:15 records Moshe's response to Datan and Aviram's claim. The verse records that Moshe was angry probably because they spoke with so much impudence. 16:15 records three statements Moshe said to G-d: One, do not accept their minhah; Two, I did not take a donkey from them; Three, I did not wrong any of them. To understand these statements, we need to understand that while Moshe was responding to the statements of Datan and Aviram, he was still standing in front of Korah and the 250 people. Moshe heard Datan and Aviram's tirade from their messenger, but he had not moved from his discussion with Korah and the 250 men. Thus, the first statement "not to accept their minhah," means, as explained by Rashi (on 16:15) that Moshe was asking G-d not accept the incense offering the following day of the 250 people. This was a hint or warning to the 250 people not go ahead with their incense test the following day since if G-d would not accept their incense they could die. The second statement that he did not take a donkey from anybody was against the claim of the Korah and the 250 men, that he appointed Aharon to be the priest since he was his brother, as here Moshe denies taking anything at all for himself even a donkey. Note, in Moshe's second statement he did not literally say that he did not take any donkey but that he did not lift anything, nasa`ti, and when Korah and the 250 men complained in 16:3 of Moshe lording over them, they used the same word, titnase`u. Moshe’s third statement was in response to Datan and Aviram's tirade that he had caused the people to die in the desert. Moshe said he had not wronged the people, which was saying that the people were destined to die in the desert because of their sins and not his actions.

16:16,17 then record that Moshe told Korah and the 250 people to appear the following morning and offer an incense offering. These instructions, repeat Moshe’s instructions from 16:5-7. The Ramban (on 16:16) notes that here Moshe specifically included Aharon in the test, and this was not mentioned previously. In addition, from a literary perspective, the repetition of the instructions forms a bookend after the interlude with Datan and Aviram, which occurs numerous times in the Torah, for example, Shemot 6:13,29. Furthermore, it is typical that people repeat instructions to make sure they are understood. Also, maybe Moshe repeated the instructions to the test since he wanted to make sure that the 250 people understood the risk they were taking by doing the test since it is possible that from the first set of instructions in 16:5-7, the 250 people did not comprehend that they could die from the test. Finally, when Moshe repeated the instruction, he again used the leading word/ sound based on the letters, ayin and lamed, alehem, 16:17.

16:18 records that on the following day, the 250 people (not Datan and Aviram), went to the entrance of the ohel moed to do the incense test, and they stood near Moshe and Aharon. The entrance to the ohel moed is usually referring to the area in the courtyard of the mishkan by the curtain that leads into the mishkan itself, though it could also refer to the entrance to the courtyard. 16:18 twice records the word alehem, the eighth and ninth times this word/ sound appears in the chapter.

16:19 records that Korah gathered all of the edah on them, alehem, by the entrance to the ohel moed, and that the glory of G-d appeared to/ before the edah. The word alehem, is the fourth time this word appears since 16:17, and the tenth time this sound of the letters ayin and lamed appears in the chapter.

This information about the gathering in front of the ohel moed in 16:19 appears to repeat 16:18. Also, what does it mean “on them” in 16:19? On who? In addition, why now did the glory of G-d appear?

Rashi (on 16:19) suggests that during the time from Moshe’s instructions concerning the test the previous day until the morning of the incense test, Korah went around to gather (take, like in 16:1) more supporters to the rebellion. This is logical. 16:18 then refers to the 250 people from 16:2 that they were standing by the entrance to the ohel moed, while 16:19 refers to Korah and these additional people, who were supporting the 250 people, who also gathered in the ohel moed (the courtyard of the mishkan), and who are referred to as he-edah. The phrase “on them” in 16:19 would then be that these additional people were added to the gathering of the 250 people and Moshe and Aharon mentioned in 16:18.

My understanding is that usually only the Levites and priests could enter the courtyard, and the 250 people, who were not all Levites, were given special permission to be in the courtyard to do the test.  However, these additional people who entered the courtyard of the mishkan did not have permission to be there, and this infringement might be what caused the appearance of the glory of G-d. Maybe there was a fear that people would enter the inner room of the mishkan, and the glory of G-d was to stop them.

16:20,21 record that G-d told Moshe and Aharon to separate from this edah, since G-d (the glory of G-d?) was going to kill ha-edah. Why would G-d threaten to kill Korah, the 250 people and the additional people if they were allowed to do the incense test, which was not yet finished since it appears that Aharon had not yet lit his fire-pan? The answer is that the threat was with regard to the additional people, ha-edah from 16:19, who were not included in the incense test, and who had no reason to be in the courtyard of the mishkan.

G-d did not want to kill these people since otherwise G-d would have done so without informing Moshe. Instead, G-d wanted Moshe and Aharon to pray, which they did in 16:22. G-d’s threat here is similar to G-d’s statement to Moshe by the sin of the golden calf, Shemot 32:10,  by the sin of the spies  Bemidbar 14:11-20, and in the next chapter 17:10, see our discussion on Bemidbar 17:10,11, “A quick learner.”

16:22 records that Moshe and Aharon prayed for the edah, which again is the additional rebels that Korah gathered in between the announcement of the test and the morning of the test. Moshe and Aharon blamed their actions on one person, which was Korah who had convinced them to join the rebellion, 16:19. It is not recorded that these additional rebels died, as the Torah only records that 250 people died by the ohel moed, 16:35. This would mean that G-d accepted Moshe and Aharon’s prayers in 16:22. However, maybe these were the people who afterwards claimed that Moshe and Aharon killed the people of G-d, 17:6, and then they were killed in the ensuing plague, 17:17:14.

While in 16:22 Moshe and Aharon were praying for G-d to spare ha-edah, the group of additional people that gathered with Korah in 16:19, Moshe and Aharon’s prayer was just as relevant to the people who had gathered around Datan and Aviram. G-d responded to Moshe and Aharon’s prayer by telling Moshe to go to the tents of Korah, Datan and Aviram to speak to ha-edah, the people who gathered around these tents that they should move away, he-alu, from Datan and Aviram (and Korah?), 16:23,24. This word he-alu is again the word/ sound with the letters ayin and lamed. Note, the word used for tent in 16:24 is mishkan, which here is not a cultic place, but a regular tent, and it connects with Moshe’s words in 16:9, that it should have been enough for the Levites to work in the mishkan/ ohel moed.

Aharon was not told to accompany Moshe to go got Datan and Aviram, 16:23, since Aharon had to remain with the 250 people since he was involved in the incense test, 16:16. When Moshe went to the tents of Korah, Datan and Aviram, Aharon participated in the incense test with the 250 people. However, Aharon was no longer involved in the "action," which further indicates that the rebellion was primarily in reference to Moshe since the finale of the rebellion is Moshe speaking in the following verses.

The word ha-edah in 16:22,24 connects the two groups of rebels. In 16:22, the reference to the word ha-edah is to the additional rebels with Korah and the 250 people, while in 16:24 (and in 16:26) the term ha-edah is referring to the additional rebels with Datan and Aviram. This term ha-edah in these verses gives a seamless transition from the focus being on the rebellious group of Korah and 250 men to focusing on the other rebellious group of Datan and Aviram.

16:25,26 record that Moshe followed G-d’s instructions and went to Datan and Aviram's compound (for the first time) to request the people to separate from Datan and Aviram. This request was a warning to them to save their lives, which is similar to Moshe’s (and Aharon’s) prayer to G-d to spare the people who had joined the 250 people, 16:22, and in both cases the word, chet, appears, 16:22,26.

In addition, 16:25 states that Moshe got up, kam, since he had fallen on his face to pray, 16:24, but when he fell on face beforehand, 16:4, the Torah did not mention that he stood afterwards prior to his speaking to Korah, 16:5. Possibly, here the word kam is mentioned to connect to the beginning of the rebellion, when Korah, Datan and Aviram (and On?) stood, kamu, before Moshe, 16:2. Now, Moshe is standing and this standing signals that the rebellion is about to end.

One curiosity about 16:25 is that for the first and only time in this incident the elders of the people are mentioned, as they accompanied Moshe when he went to Datan and Aviram. Maybe this mention was to show that not everybody was involved in the rebellion or for the elders to be witnesses to the impending miracle.

The first half of 16:27 records that the people who had been with Datan and Aviram accepted Moshe’s warning to separate from Datan and Aviram. This separation is referred to by the word, va-yealu, which is not the usual word for people leaving an area, but it corresponds to the word he-alu in 16:24. Their separation is also the opposite of what Datan and Aviram did, as they said in 16:12,14, lo naaleh, we will not go up to Moshe, but their supporters separated from them. This word ve-yealu is the twelfth time this word/ sound appears in the chapter.

The second half of 16:27 records that Datan and Aviram remained with their families steadfast in their rebellion. 16:27 records that they were standing by the entrance of their tents, petach ohalehem, which is another literary connection with the 250 people who were by the entrance of the ohel moed, petach ohel moed, 16:18,19. Also, Datan and Aviram had accused Moshe of blinding the people, 16:14, while they had blinded their family to stay with them and die.

16:28-30 record that Moshe made an impassioned speech to counter the claims of the two groups of rebels that he was doing things on his own without being commanded by G-d. Moshe said if that G-d would do an unprecedented miracle to swallow up Datan and Aviram, then this would show that Moshe did not act on his own. 16:31-34 then record that this happened. Note, Moshe ended his speech by using the word, ni-atsu, 16:30, which has a similar sound to the description of the Datan and Aviram being defiant, nitsavim in 16:27. Also, Rendsburg (2002, pp. 416, 417) quotes Moshe Garsiel, who noted that the phrase Moshe used in 16:30, ve-im beriah, has the five letters of the name Aviram.

Moshe’s speech and ensuing miracle are the crucial points of the incident since the lesson of this incident is to teach again that Moshe is a messenger of G-d. This lesson was known from the plagues and the splitting of Yam Suf, Shemot 14:31, but maybe after some time (a year?), people were starting to doubt that Moshe was G-d's messenger. Also, maybe the arguments of Korah and the 250 people that if everybody was kadosh, 16:3, then how could it be that G-d has chosen Aharon to be the high priest was causing people to believe that it was Moshe's decision to appoint Aharon. Also, after the debacle of the spies, as argued by Datan and Aviram, maybe people were starting to doubt that Moshe was G-d's messenger. Thus, this miracle of the land swallowing up Datan and Aviram again showed that Moshe was G-d's messenger, and hence Moshe had to announce this sign before it occurred. Maybe this lesson is why this incident is recorded in the Torah since from a narrative perspective the whole rebellion could have been skipped.

16:33 records that the ground covered Datan and Aviram and maybe Korah (see our discussion on 16:32-35, "How did Korah die?), and has the leading and connecting word, alehem, which is the thirteenth time in the chapter this word/ sound appears, seven by the rebellious group of Datan and Aviram and six by the rebellious group of the 250 men. A 14th time, and the seventh by the group fighting against Aharon occurs by the aftermath of the rebellion, in 17:11, aleha, when Aharon again takes a pan with ketoret. This count does not include the word al, which appears seven times in chapter 16, 16:3(3),4,11,22(2), and the words me-al, 16:26,27.

Simultaneously with the ground opening up and swallowing Datan and Aviram, 16:35 records that a fire went forth, most likely from the glory of G-d mentioned in 16:19, and killed the 250 people offering the incense, see also 26:10. This test showed that G-d had chosen Aharon since Aharon was the only person who survived the incense test. Not only did the two groups of rebels die at the same time, but since both groups were standing by the entrance to their respective tents, then from a literary point of view, they died in the same location. Also, the fire went forth, yatsa, 16:35, just like Datan and Aviram, yatsu, went out of their tents, 16:27.

Many have noted, already by Philo (Moses 2:285,286), that the punishments to the two groups were parallel, as one group, Datan and Aviram, was punished from below while the other group, the 250 people, was punished from above. In addition, the different punishments were to answer the different claims of the two groups. The group of 250 people wanted to become priests so they were given this opportunity by being able to offer the incense offering, which Rashi (on 16:6) explains was the most desired sacrifice. This was a cultic test to see if G-d would accept them as priests, but this had no relevance to Datan and Aviram who were arguing that Moshe should not be the leader of the people. Had Datan and Aviram died from the fire of G-d by the incense offering this would have just proved that they were not worthy of being priests but that was not their argument. Instead, Datan and Aviram's punishment was that a new miracle was done which was a sign that Moshe was truly G-d’s emissary since Datan and Aviram had challenged Moshe's leadership.

The different punishments also correspond to the different statements of each group. Datan and Aviram said that they would “not go up” to see Moshe, 16:12,14, and they were punished by going down in to the ground. With regard to the group of 250 men the key word is k-r-v, come close, which is mentioned in 16:5,9,10,17,35. Ostensibly they wanted to become priests to become close to G-d. Yet there are limits to how close mankind can get to G-d without being killed, and they were killed when they tried to get too close to G-d.

Bibliography:

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Leibowitz, Nehama, 1982, Studies in Bemidbar, translated and adapted by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Milgrom, Jacob, 1990, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Rendsburg, Gary, A., 2002, The Leitwort in parashat Korah, in A divinely given Torah in our day and age, Vol. II, edited by Aryeh A. Frimer and Shlomo H. Pick, Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University, pp. 414-417.

A suggestion for the structure of the book of Vayikra

מה ענין שמיטה אצל הר סיני?

The book of Vayikra can be divided into three units, and the phrase behar Sinai, Mount Sinai, is a literary marker to these units. The phrase behar Sinai appears four times in the book of Vayikra, 7:38, 25:1, 26:46 and 27:34. By the second appearance of the phrase, Rashi (on 25:1) recorded one of his most famous questions, “What is the connection between shemitta (the laws in the beginning of chapter 25) and Mount Sinai?” My answer is that it is a literary way to mark the beginning of a new unit in the book of Vayikra.

The first unit in the book of Vayikra is from 1:1 to 7:38, and 7:38 records the phrase behar Sinai, which marks the end of the unit. The book of Shemot ended with the construction of the mishkan, and the first unit in Vayikra (chapters 1-7) records the laws of the sacrifices which were offered in the mishkan.

The second unit is from 8:1-24:23. This unit has a unique structure consisting of three cycles and within each cycle there are five themes. The five themes are separation, a connection of the people to the mishkan, a reference to G-d’s presence relating to the mishkan, a sin, and laws that are consequences of the sin and or are to amend for the sin. I will present the structure in a table and then I will explain the table.

Structure of the second unit of the book of Vayikra	Cycle 1: 8:1-10:20: Chapters 8-10	Cycle II: 11:1-17:16:  Chapters 11-17	Cycle III: 18:1-24:23:  Chapters 18-24
Separation = kedusha	8:1-36	11:1-47	18:1-21:24
Connection between the people and the mishkan	9:1-23a	12:1-15:33	22:1-23:38
G-d’s presence	9:23b,24	16:1-34	23:39-24:9
A sin	10:1-3	17:1-7	24:10-12
Laws that are consequences of the sin and or are to amend for the sin	10:4-10:20	17:8-16	24:13-23

The first cycle within the second unit is from 8:1-10:20. Chapter 8 records the initiation of the priests, which separated them from the general population, and made Aharon and his sons kadosh, 8:12,30. Also, within this ceremony, Moshe poured oil on various items in the mishkan, and was mekadesh the mishkan, 8:10,11,15. Afterwards, 9:1-23a records the ceremony of the eighth day, which was the dedication of the outer altar. This ceremony showed the connection of the people to the mishkan through the sacrifices of the people, 9:3,4, which were the main sacrifices in the ceremony, as the people brought more sacrifices than the priests. This section ends with Aharon twice blessing the people, 9:22,23a, which again shows a connection between the mishkan and the people. The culmination of the ceremony was that a fire came and burnt the sacrifices, and this fire showed G-d’s presence, 9:23b,24. 10:1-3 then records the sin of Nadav and Avihu, the sin of the first cycle. 10:4-20 then records laws relating to removing the bodies of Nadav and Avihu and how the priests were supposed to act after this tragedy. Within this section, 10:8-11 record laws that the priests are forbidden to drink wine in the mishkan, and this is conceptually related to the sin of Nadav and Avihu since when people become drunk, they do not follow the rules like Nadav and Avihu did.

The second cycle within the second unit is 11:1-17:16. Vayikra 11:1-47 focuses on the laws of eating, which is a type of separation of humans from animals and tumah relating to animals. This section ends, 11:44-47 with the statement that that people are to be kadosh and to make a separation between different animals, just as G-d has separated the people by taking the people out of Egypt. Afterwards, chapters 12-15 record the laws of tumah, but also the sacrifices of various individuals, the sacrifices of the new mother, 12:6,8, the sacrifices of the metsora, 14:10-31, and the sacrifices of the zav and the zavah, 15:14,15,29,30. 15:31 ends this section of tumah and taharah by warning the people not to defile the mishkan by their tumah, which connects the people with the mishkan. Chapter 16 then records the service of Yom Kippur, and the key element of the service was Aharon’s entry to the Holy of Holies, where he would be symbolically before G-d, 16:13,30. The beginning of Chapter 17 refers to people sacrificing to demons, 17:7, which is the sin in the cycle. Afterwards, there are laws relating to blood, which seems to relate to the sin of the people (see our discussion on 17:3-11, “Blood and demons”). The section ends with laws relating to nevelah and terefa, 17:15,16 since within the discussion of the sin of sacrificing to demons, there are references to slaughtering animals, 17:3,5.

The third cycle in the second unit of the book of Vayikra is 18:1-24:23. Chapters 18 and 20 refer to sexual misconduct, which relates to the idea of separation from different people, and form a bookend around chapter 19. Not only are the sexual prohibitions a form of separation, but the point of the laws is to separate the people from other nations, 18:3, 24-30; 20:24,26. 20:25 at the end of this sub-section, refers back to the separation of the animals, a theme of chapter 11, and this is because both sections embody the separation theme of their respective cycles. 21:1-24 continues the theme of separation with reference to the priests, with regard to who the priests can marry and a separation between priests with blemishes and priests without blemishes. Afterwards, 22:1-33, records general laws concerning the sacrifices, such as laws about the quality and status of animals that can be donated for sacrifices, and the sacrifices again show the connection between people and the mishkan. Note that within this section, 22:32 refers to kedusha, which is not a theme of this section, but the kedusha is in reference to G-d and not the people. 23:1-38 continues with the idea of connections between the people and mishkan, as this section records the bringing of sacrifices on the festivals. After the concluding verses of 23:37,38, there are more laws about the holiday of Sukkot, 23:39-44, but these laws do not relate to sacrifices. Instead, a central theme of these laws of Sukkot is for a person to celebrate before G-d, 23:40. The idea of being before G-d occurs again in 24:1-4, by laws relating to lighting the menorah, and by the laws of the lechem ha-panim, 24:5-9. Accordingly, 23:39-44, 24:1-4 and 24:5-9 all express the idea of being before G-d, which is the third theme in the cycle, a reference to G-d’s presence. Afterwards, 24:10-12 records the case of the blasphemer, which is the sin of the third cycle. Afterwards, 24:13-23 record laws that relate to the sin of blasphemy and the punishment of the person who sinned.

Within the three cycles of the second unit of the book of Vayikra, the presence of G-d in each cycle becomes less manifest, and correspondingly, the sin in each cycle also becomes less pronounced. Also, the cycles do not end with a sin, but with laws that relate to dealing with the sin. The point might be that while people inevitably sin, they can overcome their sin by following the laws. 

The third unit of the book of Vayikra is 25:1-27:34. As mentioned above, 25:1 begins the unit with the reference to behar Sinai, and the unit and the book of Vayikra ends with this phrase, 27:34. Within this unit, 25:1-26:45 can be divided into four parts based on the concluding sentences, 25:38,55; 26:13,45, see our discussion on Shemot 6:5-8, “The four words of redemption.” This section of 25:1-26:45 also concludes with the phrase behar Sinai in 26:46. The last chapter of Vayikra, chapter 27, is connected with chapter 25 since some of the laws in chapter 27 are dependent on the yovel year, 27:17,18,21,23,24, which is first introduced in 25:8-13.