Bereshit 42:9 – The beginning of the game between Yosef and his brothers

בראשית מב:ט - ויזכר יוסף את החלומות אשר חלם להם ויאמר אלהם מרגלים אתם לראות את ערות הארץ באתם.

 

When the ten sons of Yaakov went to Egypt to buy food, Yosef recognized them, 42:7, but instead of acknowledging that they were his brothers, he began to play a game with them. He accused them of spying, and then he told them that to prove their innocence, they would need to bring Binyamin, his “full brother,” 42:9-20. It is likely that Yosef had this plan in mind beforehand since he knew that they would be forced to come to Egypt due to the famine, see Bekhor Shor on 42:7. 

Why did Yosef not reveal himself to his brothers? A related question is why did Yosef not seek out his father when he had become head of Egypt?

N. Leibowitz (1976, pp. 457-461) reviews three possible reasons for Yosef’s behavior towards his brothers. One possibility is that he was acting out of revenge, and from 50:15 we see that this was the brothers' understanding even seventeen years after Yosef had revealed himself to them, see our discussion on 50:15-21 "A happy ending?" Yet, she doubts this possibility since Yosef cried immediately after he released them from jail, 42:24 (also 43:30), and a person seeking revenge does not usually cry when he is successful in his revenge.

The second possibility is mentioned by the Ramban (on 42:9) that Yosef acted to have his dreams fulfilled. With this idea, Yosef purposely did not seek out his father because he was waiting to have his dreams fulfilled. The bowing recorded in 42:6 was not the fulfillment of even the first dream since he needed Binyamin to also bow down for the first dream to be fulfilled. When the brothers returned with Binyamin and bowed down to Yosef, 43:26,28, the first dream was fulfilled, and the Netziv (on 43:27) explains that Yosef wanted to keep Binyamin as a hostage in order that Yaakov would come and bow down to him, which would fulfill the second dream. Yosef did not make a condition that Binyamin would go free if Yaakov came to Egypt, but maybe he was going to but Yehuda's speech (44:18-34) stopped him. Or, it could be that Yosef thought that Yaakov would figure out on his own to come to Egypt if Binyamin was being held as a slave.

N. Leibowitz (1976, p. 460) doubts this approach since she claims that Yosef could have had his dreams realized without making his brothers and father suffer. I am not sure what she has in mind and we will return to this approach below.

The third possibility, which is also mentioned by the Ramban (see also S. R. Hirsch 1989), is that Yosef wanted the brothers to repent from their actions towards him. True repentance is when the former sinner is in the same situation as before and does not sin. Thus, Yosef recreated the situation when he was thrown into the pit, but used Binyamin instead of himself. This time the brothers offered to be slaves with Binyamin, 44:16, and Yehuda offered to take Binyamin’s place so that Binyamin could return home, 44:33. According to this approach Yosef accomplished his goal.

While it is true that the brothers repented, the approach is highly problematic. Even if Yosef wanted his brothers to repent, this noble goal was causing great pain to his father. If he thought this repentance was more important than his father’s suffering, then he should have been happy or at least content when the brothers passed his test, yet, he could not control his crying, 45:1,2. Also, twice they admitted their guilt, once explicitly, 42:21, and once obliquely, 44:16. They also offered to be slaves to Yosef, 44:16, which was an acknowledgment of Yosef's "superiority," see our discussion on 44:16, "The middle of the game between Yosef and his brothers: You win." This showed their repentance, but Yosef did not accept their offer, 42:17, and did not reveal himself. This shows that Yosef wanted something more than their repentance. In addition, from 50:15, we see that they did not think of themselves as having repented and that Yosef had forgiven them since they were still worried that Yosef would take revenge on them. My wife, Yonina, also doubts this repentance approach since they only “repented” according to this approach under duress, but they could have looked for Yosef for many years, and it is never recorded that they made any effort to locate Yosef after they returned home without Yosef. (For other questions on this approach, see Yoel Bin-Nun quoted below.)

A fourth approach (not mentioned by N. Leibowitz) is that Yosef acted as an abandoned child. (I thought this was a "modern" approach, but Eli Silverman pointed out to me that a commentator on the Yerushalmi referred to as ha-Meassef, suggested this idea.) Elie Wiesel (1976) writes that who can blame Yosef for breaking with his family since Yosef felt abandoned by his father who had sent him to his brothers. Furthermore, Yosef must have wondered why did Yaakov not search for him? Wiesel explains that Yosef identified himself only when he was able to vanquish his bitterness, but Wiesel does not explain how Yehuda’s speech (44:18-34) vanquished this bitterness.

David Henshke (1987) follows this idea and suggests that Yosef acted not out of bitterness, but that he simply wanted to forget his history and assimilate into Egyptian society. However, once he saw his brothers, then he thought that he could get them to bring him Binyamin and have Binyamin stay with him to build a family together in Egypt. However, Yehuda’s speech brought back strong memories of his father, and then he was forced to acknowledge his past history, which meant identifying himself as Yosef. This is an appealing approach, but did Yosef intend to force Binyamin to separate from Yaakov and his family? Binyamin already had 10 children (46:21), did Yosef not know and/ or did he not care? If Yosef really wanted to forget his past, then this meant forgetting about Binyamin and not trying to force him to stay in Egypt.

Yoel Bin-Nun (1986) develops this idea of Yosef as an abandoned child slightly differently. He argues that Yosef was seeking information about Yaakov’s involvement with the brothers because Yoel Bin-Nun believes that Yosef thought that Yaakov might have been part of a conspiracy to send Yosef away. Accordingly, Yosef wanted Binyamin to stay with him so he could speak to Binyamin and find out whether Yaakov abandoned him. However, in his speech to Yosef, Yehuda said that Yaakov said “Yosef had been ripped to pieces and I have not seen him again,” 44:28. According to Yoel Bin-Nun, Yosef understood these words to mean that Yaakov was depressed about not seeing him, which meant that Yaakov was not part of any conspiracy to send him away and also that Yaakov thought that he was dead, so he should not have expected Yaakov to look for him. With this new information, according to Yoel Bin-Nun, there was no need for Yosef to hold Binyamin to get information from him and also Yosef was no longer an abandoned child, so he revealed himself.

Yaakov Medan (1987) raises numerous problems with this approach. If Yosef’s goal was to get information, then there were many others ways to do so. For instance he could have sent spies to find and speak to Yaakov. Yosef could have investigated the brothers when they first came down to Egypt. Even when Binyamin came to Egypt, Yosef could have kept all the brothers in Egypt until he had time to speak to Binyamin alone, without threatening to make Binyamin a slave. Furthermore, Yosef could have revealed himself earlier, and spoke directly to Yaakov. Also, Yoel Bin-Nun’s approach ignores the main idea of Yehuda’s speech, the suffering Yosef was causing Yaakov. In addition, according to Yoel Bin-Nun, Yosef should have stopped Yehuda after he heard that Yaakov thought he was dead, but Yehuda continued on for another six verses.

One of Yoel Bin-Nun's arguments is the name Menashe, that the name implies that Yosef wanted to forget his past. Yet, while one could argue that the name indicates that Yosef felt abandoned, it is quite a jump to argue that Yosef really thought that Yaakov sent him to his brothers to send him away.

Yoel Bin-Nun also points out that Yishmael was sent away (21:14), so there was a precedent in the family to send away one of the sons. (Also Yitzhak sent Yaakov away, see our discussion above on 28:11, "The wealth test.") Yet, not only is the precedence not exact since Yishmael was sent out of the house, while Yosef was sold into slavery and was almost killed by his brothers before they “sent” him off. Also, Yosef was Yaakov's favorite son, so if one brother was going to be chosen from the family, then Yosef was going to be the chosen one and all the other brothers would have been sent away.

I find it inconceivable that Yosef really suspected that Yaakov sent him to his brothers in order that they would send him away as a slave. Did Yosef really think that Yaakov intended for him to be thrown into the pit? Even if Yaakov criticized Yosef when Yosef announced his second dream (37:10), still this would not contradict 37:3, that Yosef was the beloved son of Yaakov. (I told this to Yoel Bin-Nun, but I do not think my question made an impression on him.)

The best explanation for Yosef’s behavior is the Ramban's explanation that Yosef wanted to fulfill the dreams and this is the only explanation that is supported by the Torah. 42:9 states explicitly that Yosef remembered the dreams and it is implausible that Yosef ever forgot his dreams. 42:9 is an insertion by the Torah to explain the ensuing narrative like by 2:25, 3:1a, 25:26, 29:17, end of 39:6, Bemidbar 12:3, the end of Bemidbar 13:20, and numerous other verses. In all cases, the insertion is to explain the ensuing narrative.

In this case, the insertion in 42:9 is to explain that Yosef was acting to have his dreams fulfilled, and in fact, the word zachor in the Torah means not just to remember but to act based on the memory, see 8:1. Furthermore, just as the brothers immediately re-called the dreams and acted upon them when Yosef went to meet them in Shekhem, 37:19,20, so too Yosef took the initiative to have his dreams fulfilled when he saw the brothers in Egypt. In addition, when he interpreted Pharaoh’s dreams, Yosef said that the repetition of Pharaoh’s dream meant that it was about to occur, 41:32, and for sure Yosef was also referring to his own dreams, which he never forgot.

Akedat Yitzhak (quoted by N. Leibowitz, 1976, p. 459) argues that Yosef should have left the fulfillment of the dreams to G-d and not have caused his father to suffer. Maybe he is correct, but only if one assumes that Yosef was acting righteously would this imply that Yosef did not act to fulfill the dreams. More likely, Yosef was so absorbed by his dreams that in his determination to fulfill the dreams that he sinned in his actions towards his brothers and father. This determination might have been due to Yosef’s personality and/ or because he viewed himself as an abandoned child. Maybe he did not realize the pain he was causing his father by not revealing himself, and once he started his plan, the fulfillment of the dreams took on a life of their own. We also see that by Yosef's interaction with the Egyptian public when they came to buy food that he took a very tough position that they had to sell all their animals and then all their land to get food, 47:15-21. A friend of mine, Yossi Moskowitz has suggested that after all the events in his life of going from a slave to being the second in charge in Egypt, Yosef might felt that he had some special destiny, which prompted him to attempt to have the dreams fulfilled. This determination does not necessarily mean that Yosef did not feel bad about how he was treating Yaakov and his brothers.

Was it possible for Yosef to fulfill the second dream, which refers to a sun and a moon? It is not clear who is the reference to these items (see our discussion on 37:9,10, "Yosef’s second dream: The sun, the moon and the stars"), and hence one cannot know definitely if they were fulfilled. Most likely, Yaakov was either the sun or the moon, and then maybe Yosef wanted Yaakov to bow down to him to fulfill the dream as much as possible.

It is also possible that Yosef was not really concerned about Yaakov bowing down to him since for Yosef the crucial issue was his fight with his brothers and it was enough that his brothers fulfilled their part of the dreams by twice bowing down to him, 43:26,28. In fact, 42:9 states, that Yosef remembered he dreams that he dreamed for his brothers, which implies that Yosef was acting just in reference to his brothers and not his father.

With this idea, after his brothers bowed down to him a second time, they sat down to eat, 43:34, and this was Yosef's "victory" party. Furthermore, as part of the party, he seated them according to their birth order, 43:33, which was his way of indicating to them that they had bowed down to him, see our discussion, on 43:23-34, "The middle of the game between Yosef and his brothers: Know thy opponent."

If the dreams were fulfilled enough for Yosef, why did Yosef not reveal himself to his brothers after they bowed down to him a second time? Was he getting "greedy" and then trying to get Yaakov to come down and bow down to him? Or, maybe, at this point the issue of being an abandoned child arose, not that Yosef thought that Yaakov had sent him away to be sold into slavery, but still maybe Yosef was bothered why did Yaakov not find him? Was it because Yaakov did not look or because Yaakov thought that Yosef was dead? Possibly, Yosef always gave Yaakov the benefit of the doubt, but he must have been troubled by Yaakov's inaction with regard to Shimon. Shimon was locked up and Yaakov knew that he was alive, but he did nothing to try to free him. This raised the question in Yosef's mind did Yaakov abandon him? Thus, maybe at this point, after his "victory" over his brothers, Yosef decided to test Yaakov if he would abandon Binyamin. Accordingly, he continued his deception of his brothers until Yehuda's great speech moved him to reveal himself.

Bibliography:

Bin-Nun Yoel, 1986, A tragic misunderstanding: Why did Yosef not send word to his father? Megadim, 1, pp. 20-31.

Henshke, David, 1987, Response to articles by R. Yehuda Shaviv and Rabbi Yoel bin Nun, Megadim, 2, pp.106-108.

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

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

Medan, Yaakov, 1987, In the place where repentants stand (Yosef and his brothers), Megadim, 2, pp. 54-78.

Wiesel, Elie, 1976, Messengers of God: Biblical portraits and legends, New York: Random House.

Bereshit 27:11-14,19 – Why did Yaakov fool his father Yitzhak?

Bereshit 27:6-10 records that Rivka told Yaakov how he could fool Yitzhak and receive Yitzhak’s blessing instead of Esav. 27:11,12 then record that Yaakov was concerned that the plan would fail since Esav was very hairy and he apparently had smooth skin. 27:13 then records that Rivka told Yaakov not to worry that if the plan failed the blame would fall on her, which was either because she was confidant in the plan or because she was willing to take the chance that it would fail. 27:14-30 then records that Yaakov proceeded to follow Rivka’s instruction, Yaakov lied to his father and Yaakov succeeded in fooling his father Yitzhak. Why did Yaakov agree to fool his father?

One possibility is that Yaakov agreed with Rivka that it was crucial for him to receive the blessing from Yitzhak even if he was not the intended recipient of the blessing. Yet, as noted by many (see N. Leibowitz, 1976, 266-267 and Sarna, 1989, p. 262), Yaakov later suffered by his intended wife, Rahel, being switched, 29:25, and for his sons claiming that Yosef was dead, 37:32,33. In both cases the Torah connects the events to Yaakov fooling Yitzhak. After Yaakov complained to Lavan about not being married to Rahel, Lavan said that in our place we do not switch the older for the younger, 29:26, and Yaakov’s sons fooled him about Yosef by using the same animal, goats, 37:31, that he used to fool Yitzhak. Also, there is a literary connection through the word se'ir. 27:23 (also 27:11) records that Yitzhak was fooled since Yaakov’s hands/ arms were seirot, and the Torah refers to the goat that was used to fool Yaakov as being a hairy goat, se'ir izim, 37:31.

These connections indicate that Yaakov was being punished when Rahel was switched for Lea, and for thinking that Yosef was dead, and this indicates that Yaakov acted wrongly by fooling Yitzhak. Yaakov (and Rivka) should have accepted that Yitzhak would bless Esav to be the dominant brother, and let G-d determine what would actually happen. Yet, still one could claim that Yaakov (and Rivka) were mistaken that they thought that they had to act to fool Yitzhak to receive the blessings or maybe they mistakenly thought that by receiving the blessings then this would serve as some type of immunity for fooling Yitzhak.

A different possibility for why Yaakov participated in the trick on his father is that really he did not want to fool his father, but he felt compelled to listen to his mother Rivka. The Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 65:16) seems to follow this idea.

Another possibility is that maybe Yaakov thought that he was entitled to the blessing since he bought the title of being the firstborn from Esav, 25:33. The problem with this idea is that then he should have told Yitzhak that he had bought the title of being the firstborn and was entitled to the blessings. However, he never made this claim. Also, from Esav’s statement in 27:36, it appears that being the firstborn and receiving the blessing were independent of each other. Hence, when Yitzhak summoned Esav to bless him, Yitzhak did not refer to Esav as the firstborn but as his older son, 27:2.

A fourth possibility is that Yaakov acted simply out of spite for Esav. Maybe he did not like Esav, and he knew that if he received the blessings Esav would be upset. With this idea, Yaakov was willing to fool Yitzhak to annoy Esav.

A fifth possibility is that Yaakov thought that this was another opportunity to show that it is wrong to favor one son simply because the son was born first. This is what Yaakov tried to show when he bought the title of the firstborn son (see our discussion on Bereshit 25:29-34, “Code red”), and Yaakov would demonstrate this belief in the end of his life when he placed his right hand on Efrayim instead of Menashe, 48:14.

In this case and when Yaakov bought the title of the firstborn son, it appears that Yaakov did not plan to point out the unfairness of the concept of the firstborn, but when the opportunity presented itself, he jumped on it. In this case, it is not just that Yaakov, the younger son receives the blessing, but the crucial aspect was for Yaakov to receive the blessings first before Esav. Yaakov knew that Yitzhak and Esav would figure out that he had fooled Yitzhak, but then they would also realize that it was unfair or even ridiculous that one son should receive the blessings just because Yitzhak said the blessings first in front of one son before the second son arrived. This is the same idea that it is wrong that the firstborn child is favored simply because he was born first.

The Torah gives a clue that there is a connection between Yaakov receiving the blessing first and the birth of Esav and Yaakov though the double word ya-so yasa in 27:30, which records that after Yitzhak finished blessing Yaakov, Yaakov left Yitzhak, and Esav came back from his hunting. These are the same words in 25:25,26, which record that Esav first left Rivka’s womb (was born first) and then Yaakov left the womb afterwards. When Yaakov left Yitzhak after Yitzhak’s blessing there is a reversal of the births of Esav and Yaakov, as at the time of their births, Yaakov went out from his mother after Esav, while by Yitzhak’s blessing, Yaakov left his father before Esav.

An indication that Yaakov participated in the deceit of Yitzhak to show the silliness of the firstborn title can be seen from the word me-tateah in 27:12. In this verse, Yaakov is telling Rivka what Yitzhak will think if Yitzhak figures out that Yaakov was trying to impersonate Esav to get the blessings. It is well known that when a person projects the thoughts of somebody else, then this hints what the person is actually thinking. In this case, Yaakov said that Yitzhak will think that Yaakov is me-tateah. What does this word mean? Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon (on 27:12, also Benno Jacob, 1974, p. 179) explains the word as mocking. Yaakov was worried that Yitzhak would think that Yaakov was mocking him. We do not see that Yaakov mocked his father, but Yaakov’s thoughts about what his father was thinking, shows that he was participating in this deception to mock. He was not intending to mock his father, but to mock the idea that just because a person is born first or receives the blessing first, then that person should be blessed.

Based on this idea, I imagine that when Yaakov told his father, that he was Esav the firstborn, 27:19, he was laughing inside. Yaakov did not have say the word firstborn, as he could have just said that he was Esav. Instead, Yaakov might have imagined to himself that all he had to do to become the firstborn was to wear some clothing, and say that he was the firstborn son. This shows again how silly is the idea that a person is treated more special since he is born first. 

Even with this rationale, Yaakov should not have participated in the deceit of his father, but we can understand why he did it. This moral issue of repudiating the special status of the firstborn sons was so important to him, that he could not grasp that it was wrong to fool his father and that fooling his father would pain his father. Also, he would not have been bothered that his actions would be very upsetting to Esav. A similar issue would arise by Yosef that he was so determined to have his dreams fulfilled that he was unaware of the pain it was causing Yaakov that he did not contact Yaakov after he became a ruler in Egypt. This would then be anther way that Yaakov was punished measure for measure for fooling Yitzhak.

Bibliography:

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

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

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

A brief history of Hoshana Rabbah - הושענא רבה

In the Torah, the seventh day of Sukkot is called the seventh day of Sukkot (Bemidbar 29:32), and nothing is recorded that differentiated the day from the second to six days of Sukkot, what we call today chol ha-moed Sukkot. Today the seventh day of Sukkot has a special name, Hoshana Rabbah, and it has become almost a new holiday, very different from the other days of chol ha-moed Sukkot. 

The first mention of any significance to the seventh day of Sukkot is from the Mishnah (Sukkot, 4:5), which records that in the time of the Bet ha-Mikdash, the people would circle the altar seven times on this day. However, the Mishnah did not record any special name to the day or explain the significance of these seven circles, see our discussion, "Aravot in the Bet ha-Mikdash."

The Talmud Yerushalmi (Rosh Hashanah, 4:8) derives from Yishayahu 58:2 that there is a connection between the shofar and the aravot, and the reference to aravot most likely refers to the beating of the willow on the seventh day of Sukkot, which today we do after reciting the hoshanot prayers, see our discussion, "Beating the willows." This passage suggests a special significance to the seventh day of Sukkot in the Talmudic period, but nothing is spelled out.

In the times of the Geonim, Rav Saadiah Gaon (10th century) and Rav Hai Gaon (11th century) write that the custom was for people to circle seven times in the synagogues on the seventh day of Sukkot.  It is also recorded that Rav Hai Gaon would go to Jerusalem and circle around the Mount of Olives, seven times on the seventh day of Sukkot (Zevin, 1956, pp. 124,125).

A little after the time of Rav Hai Gaon, Rashi (1040-1105, commentary on Yuma, 21b) refers to the seventh day of Sukkot as the day of completion of the judgment on the water. This accords with the idea of the Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 1:2), that on Sukkot, G-d judges how much water there will be for the coming year, and the idea of completion refers to the seventh day as being the last day of Sukkot.

Around this time or a little afterwards, the term Hoshana Rabbah was coined, most likely due to the practice to recite piyyutim with the word Hoshana many times, rabbah, when people would circle the bimah (bamah) in the synagogue seven times. This name is found in the Manhig, 1155-1215, Laws of Etrog 38, and Midrash Tehillim, 11th century?, on Psalm 17, see Elbogin, 1972, p. 420, footnote 33, and Zevin, 1956, p. 124.

Apparently also around the 12th century, the prayers on Hoshana Rabbah were increased by reciting some of the prayers for Shabbat/ Yom Tov on Hoshana Rabbah, Machzor Vitry, quoted by Elbogen, p. 105. These additions are adding mizmoring (chapters) from Tehillim, the piyyut nishmat at the end of pesukei de-zimra and an expanded kedusha by Musaf. The Darkei Moshe (Orah Chayyim 664) quotes from R. Yitzhak Tyrnau (late 15th century) that on Hoshana Rabbah we do not recite nishmat and we do recite the chapter 100 in Tehillim, mizmor letodah, which indicates that the day is a regular weekday and not a special day, though R. Yitzhak Tyrnau also said to recite extra short prayers when taking the Sefer Torah out of the aron kodesh as we do on Shabbat/ festivals. These additions do not include the reciting of the 13 attributes of G-d, which we recite today on Hoshana Rabbah, since mentioning the 13 attributes of G-d when taking the Sefer Torah from the aron kodesh was only introduced into the Siddur on any occasion in the 17th century by Natan of Hanover (Millgram, 1971, p. 497). These additions to Shacharit on Hoshana Rabbah in the Middle Ages also do not include reciting Tehillim chapter 130, shir hamalot mimakim right before barkhu in Shacharit, which today we recite on Hoshana Rabbah, since this chapter seems only to have begun to be recited in the ten days of repentance in the late 16th century.

Zevin (p. 126) also quotes that in a footnote to the Shibolei Haleket (Zedekiah ben Abraham Anaw, 13th century, Rome) it is recorded that some communities recited the additions that we make to the Shemoneh Esrei during the ten days of repentance and Avinu Malkenu on Hoshana Rabbah, but we do not do follow this practice.

The next stage in the development of Hoshana Rabbah was that it went from being a day of judgment of water to being a day of judgment of people. It is not clear when this development occurred.

Zevin (1956, p. 126) writes that this is from the Zohar (Tzav, 3:31b) which develops the idea of the judgment being on Yom Kippur, but that the decree, "the papers," are sent out on the seventh day of Sukkot. This development contradicts the discussion in the Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 16a) that a person's fate is sealed on Yom Kippur and all our prayers on Yom Kippur that are based on this idea, as for example, Unetanneh tokef and Neilah. Also, this idea of sending out "the papers" with the judgment seems incredible in reference to G-d.

While this is a delicate subject since it relates to the question when was the Zohar written (my understanding is around the 13th century), my guess is that the idea that Hoshana Rabbah was a final, final day of judgement was pre-Zohar, which the Zohar incorporated and maybe refined.

This understanding is because we see two customs on Hoshana Rabbah which indicate that the day was a day of judgment of people and the customs seem to predate the Zohar. One custom was the strange custom of a person going out with just a robe (toga?) on the night of Hoshana Rabbah, and then disrobing (in a secluded place?) to see his/ her shadow in the moonlight. The idea was that by seeing or not seeing the shadow a person could tell if he/ she would live and/or other ominous events in the coming year. Trachtenberg (2004, p. 215) writes that the first Jewish reference for this custom is from the Rokeah, R. Eliezer of Worms, 1176-1228, and it is briefly referred to in the Ramban's commentary on Bemidbar 14:9. (For more on this custom, see Abduraham, 14th century, Laws of Sukkah, the Rama, 16th century, in the Darkei Moshe, Orah Chayyim, 664, and on the Shulchan Arukh, 664:1, and Sperber 1990, pp. 15,16, and 1998, pp. 173-182. Note, the Abduraham and the Rama advice people not to do this custom.)

A second custom which also pre-dates the Zohar and indicates that Hoshana Rabbah was viewed as a day of judgement is that the Manhig noted that in France people would like candles on Hoshana Rabbah like they did on Yom Kippur, quoted by Zevin, p. 126. The idea of these candles was that if they did not go out on Yom Kippur or Hoshana Rabbah, then they were also supposed to show that a person would survive the year, see Trachtenberg (2004, p. 214), and comments of the Rama on Orah Chayyim 610:4 by the candles on Yom Kippur. The Tur (14th century, Orah Chayyim 664), which is not a Kabbalistic work, mentions this custom of lighting the candles on Hoshana Rabbah like by Yom Kippur. Similarly, the Shulchan Arukh (16th century, Orah Chayyim 664:1), which is influenced by the Kabbalah, mentions that people are to lite candles on Hoshana Rabbah like by Yom Kippur. I do not think that anybody does either of these customs today, but they indicate that Hoshana Rabbah was considered a day of judgment amongst Ashkenazim in the early Middle Ages seemingly prior and independent of Kabbalistic beliefs.

Other customs which relate to Hoshana Rabbah being viewed as a day of judgement but are apparently from the late Middle Ages since they are not quoted by the Tur but they are quoted by the Rama (664:1) are for people to go to the mikvah before dawn on Hoshana Rabbah and that some people, not just the chazzan as we do today, would wear a kittel (white robe) on Hoshana Rabbah as people do on Yom Kippur.

The next stage in the development of the seventh day of Sukkot was that many prayers were added relating to water, see Tur Orah Chayyim 664. On Hoshana Rabbah, we first circle around the bimah (bamah) seven times, and by each circle, we recite a piyyut, altogether seven piyyutim, based on the phrase “anna G-d hoshiah na.” Afterwards, we recite another seven piyyutim, some of whom are prayers for rain, after we return to our places in the synagogue. After reciting the two sets of seven piyyutim an extra piyyut kol mevasser is added, and we beat the willows. The piyyut kol mevasser is a prayer for the messiah to come. It is possible that this messianic piyyut was added by the people who were expelled from Spain or their descendants since this tragedy generated a fervent messianic belief.

The Kabbalists of Sefat (16th century), many of whom were expelled from Spain or were the descendants of people expelled, seem to have added another element to Hoshana Rabbah, the custom of having a tikkun on the night of Hoshana Rabbah. Abuduraham mentions a custom to learn on the night of Hoshana Rabbah in order for a person to read all of the Torah twice and the Targum once, as the reading of the Torah was about to be completed on Simhat Torah. Abuduraham thinks this is too much to do in one night and advices people to do this learning on the ten days of repentance. It is not clear if the Kabbalists in Sefat were influenced by Abuduraham's comments, but they developed their own customs as to what texts to study on the night of Hoshana Rabbah, see Faierstein, 2012, and our discussion, "Tikkun leil Shavuot."

 
With all of these developments, Hoshana Rabbah has become a special day, more significant than the other days of chol ha-moed Sukkot.

Bibliography:

Elbogen, Ismar (1874-1943), 1972, Prayers in Israel, Hebrew, Tel Aviv: Dvir.

Faierstein, Morris M., 2012,Tikkun Leil Hoshana Rabbah, Conservative Judaism, 63:4 Number 4, pp. 92-95.

Millgram, Abraham, 1971, Jewish Worship, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Sperber, Daniel, 1990 (vol. 1), 1991 (vol. 2), 1995 (vol. 3), 1995a (vol. 4), 1995b (vol. 5), 1998 (vol. 6), 2003 (vol. 7), 2007 (vol. 8), Minhagei Yisrael: Sources and history, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Trachtenberg, Joshua (1904-1959), 2004 (re-print of 1939 edition), Jewish magic and superstition: A study in folk religion, Jerusalem: Sefer ve-Sefed Publishing.

Zevin, Shlomo Yosef (1890-1978), 1944, first edition, 1956, seventh edition, Ha-Mo'adim ba- Halakhah, Jerusalem.

Devarim 31:9,25 - Who carried the aron when the Jewish people were in the desert?

Devarim 31:9 records that after Moshe wrote the Torah, he "gave it to the priests, sons of Levi, who carried the aron of the covenant." This verse implies that the priests carried the aron (the box that contained the luchot) when the people were in the desert, but Bemidbar 4:15 (also 3:31?) and Devarim 10:8 and 31:25 record that the Levites carried the aron and not the priests.

Hizkuni (on 31:9) writes that 31:9 should not be understood to mean that the priests carried the aron and he suggests two reasons why in 31:9 the Torah refers to the priests as the people carrying the aron even though he claims they did not carry the aron. One, this reference is because very shortly afterwards the priests would carry the aron when the people crossed the Jordan River, Yehoshua 3:3,6,8, when the people circled Yericho, Yehoshua 6:6,12, and during the ceremony on Mount Eval and Mount Gerizim, 8:33 (also Melachim I 2:26 and 8:4-6), but these were exceptions to the general rule, see Sotah 33b. Two, the priests helped prepare the aron for travel (see Bemidbar 4:5,6), so 31:9 can refer to them as if they also carried the aron.

Abarbanel (1999, p. 491) suggests that the phrase “who carry the aron” in 31:9 refers just to the “sons of Levi’ and not to the priests. The idea being that the Abarbanel splits the phrase "the priests, the sons of Levi" into two groups: The priests and the sons of Levi. According to this idea, 31:9 should be understood to mean that Moshe gave the Torah to the priests, and to the sons of Levi, who carried the aron, and to the elders of the people.

Both of these suggestions are difficult since the phrase, the priests, the sons of Levi, occurs several times in Devarim (17:9, 18:1, 21:5) and the implication of all these verses is that the phrase is just referring to the priests. The phrase, the sons of Levi, is a description of the priests that they are part of the tribe of Levi. Hoffmann (1961, comments on 17:9) explains that with regard to the events recorded in the books of Shemot, Vayikra, and Bemidbar, the priests were just Aharon and his immediate family, and they are sometimes referred to as the sons of Aharon. However, in the book of Devarim, which transpired at the end of the fortieth year of the people’s stay in the desert, the number of priests had grown and hence they are described based on their tribal affiliation, which is Levi.

If the phrase, "the priests, the sons of Levi," just refers to the priests, then the question remains that 31:9 implies that the priests carried the aron, and not the Levites.

My guess is that during the people's stay in the desert there was a change with regard to who carried the aron. When the people first entered the desert, the only priests were Aharon and his four sons, and two of his sons, Nadav and Avihu, died in the second year of the people's stay in the desert, Vayikra 10:2. Thus, initially there were not enough priests to carry the aron, and hence, the Levites carried the aron. Accordingly, Bemidbar 4:15 and Devarim 10:8 which refer to the beginning of the people's stay in the desert only mention that the Levites carried the aron. However, by the end of the forty years, there were enough priests who could carry the aron, and they began to carry the aron either along with the Levites or just by themselves. Thus, shortly after the events recorded in chapter 31, when the people crossed the Jordan and were in the land of Israel, the priests carried the aron, Yehoshua 3:3-8, 6:6,12, and 8:33. However, instead of these cases being exceptions to the general rule, these cases are examples of the change that transpired during the forty years of the people living in the desert that the priests carried the aron instead of or in addition to the Levites.

Rav Soloveitchik (2010, p. 277) in his comments on the kinah, eicha yashvah chavselet ha-sharon, notes that there is an argument between the Ramban and the Rambam as to who was supposed to carry the aron after the people came to the land of Israel. The Ramban’s (on Sefer ha-Mitzvot shoresh 3, ve-khen) view is that the Levites were to carry the aron even in the land of Israel, while the Rambam’s (Sefer ha-Mitzvot positive commandment no. 34) view was after the people reached the land of Israel, then the priests were responsible for carrying the aron. Our understanding of 31:9 accords with the Rambam’s view, and 31:9 might be the basis for the Rambam’s view.

If this approach is correct, it remains to explain 31:25, which records that Moshe commanded the Levites who carried the aron. Why does the verse not refer to the priests as the people who carried the aron as in 31:9? First of all, Ibn Ezra (on 31:25), suggests that 31:25 could be understood as a shortened version of 31:9, and then 31:25 would mean that Moshe was referring to those Levites who carried the aron, namely the priests. A different idea is that this change at the end of the forty years of the people’s stay in the desert that the priests carried the aron did not preclude the Levites from carrying the aron even when there were enough priests to carry the aron. Thus, in 31:25, Moshe was referring to anybody, the entire tribe of Levi, who might carry the aron. Yet, if this is true, why did Moshe not refer to the Levites also in 31:9?

The difference in the references to who carried the aron between 31:9 and 31:25 relates to how the two verses connect to their surrounding verses. In 31:9, Moshe referred to the priests and the elders since in the ensuing verses Moshe gave the instructions for the Hahkel ceremony, 31:10-13, and it was the responsibility of the priests and the elders but not the Levites to ensure that the Hahkel ceremony was to occur every seven years. Thus, Moshe could not have referred to all the members of the tribe of Levi in 31:9. Also, in 31:9, Moshe mentioned that the priests carried the aron, which they had begun to do at some point in the desert, since just like they had the responsibility to carry the aron, they had the responsibility to ensure that the Hahkel ceremony would happen.

On the other hand, the context of 31:25 is that Moshe had just added the “song” to the Torah to teach the people not to sin, 31:24. This undoubtedly took time, and Moshe was then somewhat rushed for time since he had not known about the song when he had planned his last day. After writing the Torah with the song, Moshe needed it to be placed in the aron (or on its side), and this could have been done by either a priest or a Levite since both groups could carry the aron. In order for this to be done quickly, Moshe referred to the Levites in 31:25 since he wanted to increase the pool of people who would place the Torah in the aron. In addition, 31:28 records that some people were to go and gather the leaders of the nation. The reference to some people can only be to the Levites referred to in 31:25, and again the more people Moshe could get to gather the people the quicker the job would be done. Accordingly, in 31:25 Moshe refers to the Levites, which includes the priests, to increase the number of people who would place the Torah in the aron and who would go about gathering the elders and leaders of the people.

It should also be noted that the message concerning the song, and now the Torah, after the song was added to the Torah, was for all the people to learn, 31:19. Accordingly, in 31:25, it could be from a metaphorical perspective that Moshe refers to everybody who can carry the Torah, which is all the Levites and the priests, to take the Torah, and not just to place the Torah in the aron but also to teach the people, the Torah and the song that it contained. With this idea, Moshe’s message in 31:25 was more geared to the Levites. who were going to live throughout the people in the land of Israel, than the priests, even if the Levites were no longer the main group of people who carried the aron.

Bibliography

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

Soloveitchik, Joseph, (1903-1993), 2010, The Koren Mesorat Harav Kinot, with commentary on the kinot based upon the teachings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, edited by Simon Posner, New York: OU Press and Jerusalem: Koren Publishers.

Devarim 21:1-8 – The eglah arufa ceremony

Devarim 21:1-8 records a set of rituals that are to take place, the eglah arufa ceremony, if a corpse, which was presumed to have been murdered, was found in the field but the killer is unknown. The ceremony involves actions by the elders, judges and the priests, and the killing (decapitating) of a heifer in or near a wadi. Note, it is not clear if 21:9 is part of the ceremony or a charge of Moshe to the people when he was relating to them the laws of the eglah arufa ceremony.

What is the reason for this ceremony? 21:8 refers to the some of the participants of the ceremony asking for kapparah for the Jewish people, but kapparah for what? Also, why was the ceremony only done if the corpse was found in a field and not in the city?

One approach to understanding the eglah arufa ceremony is that it is to "neutralize" the effect of the murder on the land, see Patai 1939, Milgrom 1971, and maybe the Ramban on 21:5-8. Bemidbar 35:33 records that murder defiles the land, and that the land needs to be atoned when there is a murder. Bemidbar 35:33 also records that the atonement of the land is supposed to result from punishing the murderer, but in this case the murderer is unknown so according to the adherents of this approach the ceremony is a replacement to bring atonement to the land, the kapparah referred to in 21:8. Yet, with this rationale, the ceremony should also have been required if the corpse was found in the ground in a city or town, which probably is more likely than finding a dead body in the field since more people live in cities and towns, though maybe in antiquity more people lived in the country.

A second approach is that the local authorities have a responsibility to ensure the safety of the public and in this case they failed. Rashi (on 21:7), quoting from the Talmud Sotah 45b, writes that the local authorities might have been indirectly responsible for the death of the person since maybe they let the victim leave their city without an escort. For this failure to provide public security, the local authorities and the public as a whole need atonement, kapparah, and this explains why the elders, the judges and the priests are involved in the ceremony.

The approach can explain some of the details of the ceremony. 21:3,4 record that the heifer that is killed had never worked, and that the ceremony takes place by a wadi which had never been tilled or could not be tilled afterwards, which emphasizes the loss of life due to the murder, see Rashi on 21:4. The seeing of the dead heifer and the wadi by the local authorities and the priests might make them aware of their failure in not maintaining public security. Maybe one can then claim that this ceremony was only done for a murder in the fields since in the city the local authorities would take responsibility to provide public security, but they might be tempted to shirk responsibility for people outside of their jurisdiction. Yet, can one really fault the elders for not escorting the victim, does every person who leaves a city need an escort? Can local authorities protect every person from being killed?

The Rambam (Moreh, 3:40) suggests a third approach that the ceremony was in order to help catch the murderer. He writes, “there will be many stories and discussions among the people because of the investigation, the going-forth of the elders, the measurements, and the fact that the heifer is brought there.” The talk will lead to the discovery of the murderer. Furthermore, since the land where the heifer was to be killed could never be used, the owner of the land would make every possible effort to ensure that the murderer is caught. I do not understand this last point since I understand that the heifer was killed in a deserted area. It would seem to me that doing the ceremony in the land of a person unconnected with the crime would be stealing, see our discussion on 21:4, "The eglah arufah ceremony: A wadi in the land of Israel."

With this approach the prayer for kapparah in 21:8 would be for the local authorities and the people who did not find the murderer. A possible proof for this idea is that 21:9, whether it was part of the ceremony or not, stresses the importance of purging the innocent blood shed, which means to punish the murderer, see 19:13. (The Jerusalem Talmud, Sotah 9:6, suggests that maybe the guilt of the local authorities is that they let the murderer go free and failed to punish him, though this seems to be a very low probability event.)

N. Leibowitz (1980a, pp. 201-208, see also Ramban on 21:5-8, and Abravanel 1999, p. 324) rejects the Rambam’s suggestion since she doubts that “all this elaborate ritual was designed merely as a device for detecting the murderer.” Yet, it could be that the killing of the heifer was a sign for the penalty the murderer was supposed to receive (Driver, 1902, p. 242), and the fact that heifer had never been worked highlights the innocent blood that was shed, as by the second approach. Also, the going to a wadi in a deserted area would make the ceremony more burdensome for the local authorities, which would give them an incentive to work hard to catch the murderer to avoid having to do the ceremony. Furthermore, it could be that for the Rambam the crucial issue is the ceremony itself and not the details of the ceremony.

Would the ceremony really lead to that much more knowledge of the murderer? 21:1 implies that an investigation was done to find the murderer before proceeding with the ceremony (see Tigay 1996, p. 191, quoting Josephus, Antiquities 4.220). If the investigation failed it would be unlikely that the ceremony would produce more evidence. Yet, maybe it is important to mark an end to the investigation and then one can learn from the failures. If one just allows an investigation to drift off, then there is no accounting for how to improve an investigation for the next murder. According to this idea, could one claim that a murder investigation in a city never ends and/or is usually fully investigated, while by a murder in a field where nobody lives, there is barely any investigation at all. Accordingly, the eglah arufa ceremony was by the finding of the corpse in the field to increase the incentive to have an investigation and to help find the murderer in this case and other cases.

A different idea is that it is well known that if one repeats a ceremony even if it is meaningful, too many times, the ceremony loses its specialness, and people become annoyed with the ceremony. Maybe the same idea is relevant here. Really, the ceremony is appropriate wherever the body is found, but if it is done in every case where a murder is unknown, then the ceremony will lose its impact. Just doing the ceremony when a corpse is found in the field makes the ceremony a unique event, which will impart the participants with a greater sense of responsibility. With this idea, the prayer of 21:8 (and 21:9?) that the Jewish people should be forgiven would not be just for the corpse found in the field that necessitated the ceremony, but for all cases of unsolved murders. This idea would only be relevant to the second and third approaches, as with the first approach even if the ceremony had no meaning to the people involved still the land “needs” the ceremony to attain kapparah.

A historical curiosity of the eglah arufa ceremony is that the Mishnah (Sotah 9:9) writes that the ceremony was discontinued when there were many murderers in the country. Yet, one would think that specifically when there were many murders, then the ceremony was more crucial. The Rambam (Laws of murder and preservation of life, 9:12) seems to explain that when there were many murders, then there was always somebody who had information about the murder, and the ceremony was not done even if there was just one witness to the event. Yet, even if the ceremony was not done when there existed one witness, still the ceremony should still occur when there is no known witness because if this is not true, then the ceremony could never have occurred since one could always say maybe there is some witness out there. Instead, maybe the idea is that when there were many murders, there were many unsolved murders, and then the ceremony became too frequent and lost its effect, so Chazal discontinued the ceremony.

Bibliography:

Abarbanel, Yitzhak (1437-1508), 1999, Commentary on Devarim, Jerusalem: Horev Publishing

Driver, Samuel Rolles, 1902, A critical and exegetical commentary on Deuteronomy, third edition, Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1980a, Studies in Devarim, translated and adapted by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Milgrom, Jacob, 1971, Eglah Arufah, in Encyclopedia Judaica, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, Vol. 6, pp. 475-477.

Patai Raphael, 1939, The 'egla 'arufa or the expiation of the polluted land, Jewish Quarterly Review, 30, pp. 59-69.

Tigay, Jeffrey H. 1996, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society

The kinah: Eicah eli konenu - The tragic death of Yoshiyahu - איכה אלי קוננו

On Tisha B’av there is a custom to recite kinot at night and in the morning, and in previous years we have discussed the kinot Shavat suru meni and Eicah asta be-apcha, the first two kinot that are recited in the morning. This year we will discuss the sixth kinah that is recited in the morning, Eicah eli konenu.

The kinah, Eicah eli konenu, again by R. Elazar haKalir, has twenty-two lines, and an addendum with four more lines. The first word in each of the twenty-two lines is the first word in each verse of chapter four of Eicah, and as the order of the verses in chapter four of Eicah, as well as the first three chapters of Eicah, follow the aleph bet, the order of this kinah is also based on the order of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The relationship between chapter four in Eicah and this kinah is that many people understand Eicah 4:20 to be referring to Yoshiyahu (Talmud Ta’anit 22b). Also, since Divrei Hayamim II 35:25 records that Yirmiyahu wrote a kinah about Yoshiyahu, there developed the idea that all of chapter four in Eicah is a kinah about Yoshiyahu, see Rashi on Eicah 4:1.

This kinah is a fairly well-known kinah since the kinah is relatively less obscure than other kinot. This kinah is based on the tragic death of Yoshiyahu (Josiah), who was the King of Yehuda from 639-608 BCE. (His death is recorded very briefly in Melachim II 23:29,30 and with a little bit more detail in Divrei Ha-Yamim II 35:20-25.) When Yoshiyahu was 39 years old, in 608 BCE, Egyptian forces came by boat to Israel and wanted to march through the land apparently to aid the Assyrians (in northern Syria/ Iraq) who were fighting the Babylonians. Yoshiyahu attempted to stop the Egyptians, and he was killed fighting the Egyptians in Megiddo, around 100 kilometers north of Jerusalem.

The first line of the kinah, aleph, notes that Yoshiyahu started to rule when he was eight years, as he began to rule after his father, Amon, was assassinated.

The second line of the kinah records how the Egyptians wanted to pass through the land of Israel, and that Yoshiyahu’s good deeds did not save him. This is the question of the kinah, how could it be that such a righteous king was killed by the Egyptians? Note the Egyptians are referred to as the children of Ham, the son of Noah who was cursed in some manner (Bereshit 8:19-27), and also in the third blessing by kriat shema at arvit, Egypt is referred to as the children of Ham. This disparaging reference to Egypt only increases the question how could such a righteous king die by the hands of descendant of the cursed Ham?

The third line of the kinah describes how great was Yoshiyahu, as it says that he was the best leader the people had since Moshe (called Avigdor in the kinah). This line is based on Melachim II 23:25, which makes the same point. I have always wondered what happened to King David or Yehoshua? Rav Soloveitchik (2010, p. 294) writes that Yehoshua was greater than Yoshiyahu, but Yehoshua was not a king. This idea accords with the verse in Melachim II, which stresses that Yoshiyahu was the greatest king. With regard to King David, Rav Soloveitchik suggests that Yoshiyahu was greater than David in the sense that Yoshiyahu had to destroy idols and David did not have to fight against idol worship. This might be, but traditionally David is remembered as the greatest king. Perhaps, Yoshiyahu is not remembered as prominently as David because Yoshiyahu had such a tragic end as discussed in the kinah.

After stating how great Yoshiyahu was, lines four, six and the second half of line 8 of the kinah try to explain how it was that Yoshiyahu suffered such a tragic death if he was so righteous. The answer in the kinah is that he suffered due to the sins of his generation who sinned secretly. For example, line four states that people kept idols on the two sides of the door, which meant that the idols would not be seen if the door was open, but when the door was closed then the people would see and worship the idols in their homes (Midrash Eicah Rabbah 1:53).

Line five of the kinah presages the end of the kinah that Yoshiyahu who was considered to be like gold would instead be completely tarnished like coal by the Egyptians when they killed home so cruelly.

Line seven records that Yoshiyahu ripped his clothing, when he realized that he had not succeeded in reforming the people. The source for this line is a statement by R. Yaakov on Eicah 2:17 (recorded in Midrash Eicah 1:1 and 2:21).

The first half of line eight notes the approaching Egyptian army, and lines nine and ten of the kinah quote from Divrei Hayamim II 35:21 that the Egyptian king Neco sent a messenger to ask Yoshiyahu not to intervene and to let the Egyptian forces pass through the land of Israel.

Line 11 of the kinah records that Yoshiyahu did not agree to this request from Neco, and Yoshiyahu justified his refusal by referring to the blessing recorded in Vayikra 26:6 that a foreign army would not cross through the land of Israel.

Line 12 then records that Yoshiyahu also did not listen to Yirmiyahu who urged him to let the Egyptians pass through. Rav Soloveitchik explains (2010, p. 296) explains that Yirmiyahu understood the verse in Vayikra only to mean that an enemy army would not pass through the land of Israel, but Egypt at that time was not an enemy, which meant that they should be allowed to pass through. However, the Talmud (Ta’anit 22b) quotes that Yoshiyahu argued that the verse also referred to a peaceful foreign army, and hence he thought that he had divine support to stop the Egyptian army.

Line 13 of the kinah ignores this argument about Vayikra 26:6, but states that in any event the people were not worthy of receiving the blessing from G-d since they sinned secretly and ignored the words of Yirmiyahu who was from Anatot (a little north of Jerusalem).

Line 14 of the kinah records how the Egyptians slaughtered the Jewish people in the battle and line 15 records how some people (Yirmiyahu?) tried to tell the people to retreat and stop fighting, but the people continued to fight the Egyptians.

Line 16 of the kinah records how the Egyptian archers succeeded at shooting at Yoshiyahu, and lines 17 and 18 state how even after they wounded Yoshiyahu, they continued to shoot more arrows at him, as altogether three hundred arrows pierced him. The source for these lines is that Divrei Hayamim II 35:23 records that Yoshiyahu was fatally wounded by Egyptian arrows, while Midrash Eicah Rabbah (1:53) quotes R. Manni that three hundred arrows pierced him to such an extent that his body became like a sieve. Horrible.

Lines 19 and 20 of the kinah record that as Yoshiyahu’s attendants went to him in his dying moments, they heard him say that “G-d was righteous and that I had sinned” a verse from Eicah 1:18. This indicates that Yoshiyahu did teshuvah in his dying moments that he recognized that he had sinned by not listening to Yirmiyahu. The source for these lines is the Talmud Ta’anit 22b and Eicah Rabbah 1:53, which states that Yoshiyahu said these words to Yirmiyahu.

Line 21 of the kinah notes that Egypt would be punished for what they did and three years later, in 605 BCE, the Egyptian army was decisively defeated by the Babylonians in two battles in northern Syria.

Line 22, the last line of the kinah, returns to Yoshiyahu, who again (as in line five) is compared to the finest gold, and again the kinah states that he was punished due to the sins of the people, which is the answer to the question how could such a righteous person die in such a horrible manner.

The next four lines are the addendum to the kinah, and they state that Yoshiyahu died at Megiddo and in a post-shemitta year. I am not sure why it is important that he died in a post-shemitta year, but maybe this was to connect his death with the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash which according to Seder Olam (quoted in Erechin 12b) was also destroyed in a post-shemitta year.

The kinah then notes that 22 years after Yoshiyahu died, 586 BCE, the first Bet ha-Mikdash was destroyed which corresponds to the twenty-two words or lines of the kinah.

The last two lines of the addendum are obscure, but seem to refer back to the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash, that an anonymous person is quoted as saying that he thought that G-d would protect the people, but G-d let the Bet ha-Mikdash be destroyed. Maybe these lines are here since Yoshiyahu also thought that G-d would protect him, but G-d let his die so horribly.

One question about this kinah is that I have never understood why Yoshiyahu did not listen to Yirmiyahu and why would he have thought that he knew the interpretation of the Torah better than Yirmiyahu. While one can give a political answer that no king wants to have a foreign army march though his/ her territory, or that Yoshiyahu was worried that Egypt was not going to just march through peacefully or that Yoshiyahu thought that by attacking the Egyptians, he would become an ally of the Babylonians, the rising power in the world, still Yirmiyahu had told him to allow the Egyptians to pass through. My guess is that maybe Yoshiyahu understood that he was a righteous king and he thought that it was obvious that G-d would save him, and this seems to be a conception of some religious people that they become very confident that G-d will intervene to save them even if they are acting recklessly.

Another question concerning this kinah is why do we recite a kinah about the death of one person? Rav Soloveitchik (2010, pp. 292, 293) proposed three answers. One, the kinah about one person shows that what happens to one person is important. Two, Yoshiyahu was great leader and king, and the loss of a “great” person can be comparable to the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash, and three, Yoshiyahu’s death signaled the ensuing destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash since if a righteous king like Yoshiyahu could not save the people, then all was lost.

I would add that it is “obvious” that R. Elazar haKalir would write a kinah about Yoshiyahu’s tragic death once Divrie Hayamim II 35:25 states that Yirmiyahu wrote a kinah about Yoshiyahu, and, as mentioned above, there is the idea that chapter four of Eicah is a kinah about Yoshiyahu. The question is why did Yirmiyahu write a kinah about Yoshiyahu, and the answer could be that since Yirmiyahu knew Yoshiyahu personally, his death was a great blow to Yirmiyahu and Yirmiyahu might have even felt guilty that he was unable to have stopped Yoshiyahu from fighting the Egyptians.

Bibliography:

Rav Soloveitchik, 2010, The Koren mesorat harav kinot: Commentary on the kinot based on the teachings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, edited by Simon Posner, Jerusalem: Koren Publishers; New York: OU Press.

Bemidbar 1:1 – The terms mikdash, mishkan, and ohel moed in the books of Bemidbar and Devarim

In our discussions on Shemot 25:8,9; 27:21, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Shemot,” and on Vayikra 1:1, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra,” we attempted to explain that the term mishkan only refers to the walls and ceiling of the special cultic building, which consisted of two rooms containing the aron, the menorah, the inner altar and the table of bread that the Jewish people built in the desert, while the term ohel moed refers to the entire complex, the mishkan, the special ritual furniture, and the courtyard around the mishkan. In addition, the term mikdash refers to the collection of ritual items, independent of the building or tent where they are located. Now, we want to examine all cases of these three terms in the book of Bemidbar and the book of Devarim (only one verse).

1:1 records that G-d spoke to Moshe in the ohel moed, and according to our understanding this could have been anywhere in the entire complex.

1:50 refers to the mishkan three times, that the Levites would be in charge of the mishkan edut, that they will carry the mishkan, and that they will serve or guard the mishkan (Milgrom, 1990, p. 10). 1:51 continues with this theme, that the Levites would take down and put up the mishkan. 1:53 concludes this short section with another two references to the mishkan (altogether seven from 1:50-53) that the Levites would camp around the mishkan ha-edut and that the Levites would be in charge of watching/ protecting the mishkan ha-edut. (This term mishkan ha-edut appears three times in the section of 1:50-53.) 1:50 twice refers to the vessels, i.e., the ritual furniture that is situated in the mishkan, and hence we see that the mishkan is the walls but not the items within the walls. Possibly the Torah uses the word mishkan here and not ohel moed because of the second term ha-edut. The term edut is never use in the Torah in conjunction with ohel moed, only ohel edut or the mishkan edut, maybe because ohel moed refers to the entire complex and one should not think that that entire complex is considered edut, testimony. On the other hand, ohel ha-edut refers to the inner room of the mishkan, which housed the aron, which contained the tablets, which are the edut.

2:2 records that the Jewish people were to camp around the ohel moed, and this would mean around the entire complex.

2:17 records that the ohel moed would travel with the people. Again, this is referring to the entire complex, which would be carried with the people travelled, and not just the special building within the complex.

3:7,8 refer to both the ohel moed and the mishkan. Following Milgrom (1990, p. 16, and Levine, 1993, pp. 141,142) the first half of 3:7 records that the Levites are to guard the ohel moed, the entire complex from the Jewish people approaching it inappropriately. In addition, the first half of 3:8 means that the Levites were to guard the items in the ohel moed, the complex, when they were being transported. The end of both 3:7,8 refer to the Levites work in the mishkan, and I would understand that these verses refer first to the taking down of the walls and ceiling of the special building when the people travelled, and then afterwards to the re-assembling of these walls and ceiling when the people reached their next camp.

3:23 records that the Gershonite clan within the Levites, camped on the side of the back of the mishkan, which continues the designation from 1:53, which also used the word mishkan, see our discussion above on the verse.

3:25 records the work of the Levite family, Gershon, in moving parts of the ohel moed when the people travelled in the desert. 3:25 refers to the ohel moed, then the mishkan, then the ohel, and then its cover. The verse indicates that the ohel moed is distinct from the mishkan since if they are synonyms, why would both terms be mentioned twice, one after each other in the verse? 3:25 should be understood to mean that first the verse refers to the entire complex, the ohel moed, and then it specifies the mishkan, the walls and the first or second ceiling of the special building, see 4:25 and Levine, 1993, p. 159.

The next term in 3:25 is ohel, tent, which tent? Rashi (on 3:25 and on 4:25, and followed by Milgrom, 1990, p. 20), explains that the word ohel, tent, in 3:25 refers to the second layer of covering on top of the mishkan. This accords with Shemot 26:7, that the second covering on top of the mishkan, was considered as the tent of the mishkan, and was not part of the mishkan. It could also refer to the third covering, if the second ceiling was also considered part of the mishkan.

The following word in 3:25 is its cover, and this probably refer to the cover of the second covering, namely the third and/ or the fourth covering to the area of the mishkan, as recorded in Shemot 26:14, 36:19, and 40:19.

The last phrase in 3:25 is the curtains of the opening, petach, to the ohel moed, and this is the opening to the courtyard coming from the mishkan since the following verse, 3:26, refers to the opening of the courtyard. However, as we discuss in Shemot 25:8,9; 27:21, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Shemot,” and on Vayikra 1:1, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra,” I think that the term petach ohel moed can sometimes also refer to the opening to complex from outside the complex.

3:26 refers to the curtains “on the mishkan” and this refers to the curtain that cordoned off a courtyard that was around the walls of the special cultic building (and the outer altar). Accordingly, the term “on the mishkan” means surrounding the mishkan.

3:29 records that the Kehat clan amongst the Levites camped on the south side of the mishkan, which follows method of designating their camping spot from 3:23 and 1:53. Similarly, 3:35 records that the Merari clan amongst the Levites camped on the north side of the mishkan.

3:36 records that men of Merari were to carry the beams that made up the mishkan, that is to say the walls of the special building.

3:38 refers to Moshe and Aharon camped before the mishkan on the east and before the ohel moed on the east. Again, we see that the ohel moed is distinct from the mishkan since if they are synonyms, why would both terms be mentioned twice, one after each other in the verse? The verse first mentions the camping of Moshe and Aharon in reference to the mishkan, as occurred by the three clans of the Levites, 3:23, 29, 35. Why then does the Torah add that Moshe and Aharon were also before the ohel moed, lifnei ohel moed? The answer is that if the Torah had only written that they were to camp before the mishkan, then one might have thought that they were to camp in the courtyard of the complex. To reject this possibility, the Torah records that they were to camp before the ohel moed, as this is the entire complex, and being before the entire complex means to be outside the complex. The phrase before the mishkan would then mean to camp in the direction of the opening of the special building but not next to the special building. Note, Milgrom (1991, p. 209) argues that from Bemidbar 8:9,10, we see that the phrase lifnei ohel moed means outside of the complex, and see also our discussion on Vayikra 3:8,13 in our discussion on Vayikra 1:1, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra.”

3:38 also refers to the mikdash, and this means the collection of special ritual furniture that was within the mishkan/ ohel moed since Aharon and his sons were responsible for these items being packed when the people travelled, 4:5,15,19.

4:3,4,15 record that the work of the Levite family of Kehat was in the ohel moed, referring to the work of carrying the special ritual furniture that was in the entire special complex when the people travelled in the desert. The verse did not use the term mishkan since the family of Kehat carried the special ritual items within the ohel moed, but not the walls and the ceiling of the special building, which constituted the mishkan.

The first half of 4:16 records that Elazar was to be charge of various items associated with the sacrifices that were not ritual furniture. The second half of 4:16 records that Elazar was in charge of the mishkan, meaning the walls and ceiling of the special building, and all items, the special ritual furniture and supplementary vessels, within the mishkan, ostensibly when the mishkan/ ohel moed was being dismantled. Again, the fact that 4:16 records “within” indicates that the mishkan is just the exterior of the special cultic building. Yet, why does 4:16 refer to the mishkan in 4:16 since Elazar’s brother Itamar was in charge of the Levites families of Gershon and Merari and they carried the walls and the ceiling of the mishkan? Milgrom (1990, p. 28) suggests that based on 3:32, Elazar was in charge of his brother, and then overall in charge of the transporting of the mishkan. Thus, his father Aharon was only in charge of covering the special ritual furniture, 4:4,15,19, but not of overseeing the transport of the items. The second half of 4:16 is then a summary sentence not just in reference to the work of the family of Kehat, the preceding verses, and possibly this summary is mentioned at this point due to the first half of 4:16 recording that Elazar was directly in charge of the transport of the various items that were not ritual furniture. (Note it is not obvious that the family of Kehat had to carry the items mentioned in the first half of 4:16.)

4:23 records that the family of Gershon was to work in the ohel moed, which refers to these Levites carrying different parts of the entire complex. If the term ohel moed just means the mishkan, the special building, then this description of their work is difficult since 4:26 records that they were to carry various items from the courtyard. Yet, if the term ohel moed refers to the entire complex, then 4:23 refers both their work carrying items from the special building and from the courtyard, as recorded in 4:25,26.

4:25 is similar to 3:25 and refers to the work of family of Gershon of carrying the curtains (ceilings) of the mishkan and the curtains of the ohel moed. Again, if these terms are synonyms, then it is odd that both are mentioned in the verse. Instead, the first item are the curtains of the mishkan, and this was the first cover on top of the area that had the special cultic furniture, excluding the outer altar.

The second phrase in 4:25 is “and ohel moed” referring to some curtains mentioned in the beginning of the verse, yet what are the curtains of the ohel moed? As noted by Rashi (on 4:25) the reference is probably to the second (third?) covering above the enclosed area of the mishkan, which was made from goat’s hair. Shemot 26:7 refers to this covering as a tent to the mishkan, which could imply that this second (third?) covering was not part of the mishkan, but it would be part of the ohel moed. With this idea, only the first (second?) covering is part of the mishkan, but not the additional coverings. The additional coverings (third and fourth) of the area enclosed by the mishkan are referred to in the following words of the verse. Accordingly, if the second covering is also considered part of the mishkan, then the phrase “and ohel moed” is a general statement, which is explained by the following words, “its cover,” the cover to the mishkan, and the skin of the tachash, the fourth covering, while if the second covering is not considered part of the mishkan, the phrase “and ohel moed” is referring to the second covering of the mishkan.

The end of 4:25 refers to the curtain by the opening of the ohel moed, see our discussion above of this phrase in 3:25.

4:26 has the phrase “on the mishkan” and this has the same meaning as in 3:36.

4:28 concludes the section on the work of the Levite family Gershon, and refers to them working in the ohel moed like in 4:23, the beginning of the section. This term ohel moed is more general than the term mishkan, and some of the items carried by the family of Gershon were part of the ohel moed and not the mishkan.

4:30 records that the work of the family of Merari was also in the ohel moed, just like by the family of Gershon, 4:23.

4:31,32 specify the work in the ohel moed of the family of Merari. They were to carry the walls, bolts and sockets of the mishkan, and the columns that formed the wall of the courtyard, which were not part of the mishkan but are subsumed under the term ohel moed.

4:33 is the concluding verse to the description of the work of the family of Merari, and refers to the ohel moed, as in the beginning of the section, 4:30, and this pattern is similar to the section on the work of the family of Gershon.

4:35,37,39,41,43,47 all refer to the three different Levite families working in the ohel moed, the entire complex, in reference to a count of how many men in each family between the years thirty and fifty. This reference to working in the ohel moed accords with the mention of the ohel moed by the opening and closing verses of the description of the work of each family in chapter four.

5:17 records that the priest was to take some dirt from the mishkan to create some type of drink for the suspected adulteress. This means that the priest was to take some dirt that was between the walls of the special building since there was no floor to this building.

6:10,13 records that the nazir who accidently became tamei needs to bring two birds to the petach ohel moed to offer as sacrifices. As mentioned in our discussion above on 3:25, this place is probably the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, though it could be the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex.

6:18 records that the nazir was also to cut/ shave the hair on his head at the petach ohel moed, and again as 6:10,13, this could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, though it could be the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex. In this case, my inclination is that the location is the entrance from the outside the complex, as would a person or many people be cutting their head by the opening to the special cultic building?

7:1 records that when Moshe finished putting up the mishkan, meaning the wall and ceiling of the special building, then he anointed it, the vessels that were inside the special building, the outer altar, which was not in the mishkan, and the other vessels in the courtyard.

7:3 then records that the tribal leaders offered sacrifices before the mishkan, which means that they offered sacrifices on the altar in the courtyard. The altar was situated before or in front of the special building, which was the mishkan.

7:5 then records that the tribal leaders gave wagons to Moshe to help the Levites in their work in the ohel moed, which accords with the description of the work of the three Levite families mentioned in chapter four.

7:89 then record that after the sacrifices of the tribal leaders, Moshe went into the ohel moed, and he heard a sound coming from inside the special building, which was G-d speaking to Moshe. While it could be that Moshe went into the special building, it could also be that he was in the courtyard when he heard G-d speaking to him.

8:9 records that as part of the ceremony to induct the Levites, the Levites were to be brought before, lifnei, the ohel moed, and all the people were to gather around. 8:10 then records that the Levites were to be brought closer before G-d, and the people were to place their hands upon them. Milgrom (1991, p. 209) points out that 8:9 should be understood to mean that the Levites were first brought outside the complex, and this where the people gathered. Afterwards, as recorded in 8:10, they entered the courtyard of the mishkan, passing by the people. This explanation accords with the idea that the ohel moed is more encompassing than the mishkan.

(If one wants to claim that the terms mishkan and ohel moed are synonyms, that both terms refer to the enclosed area with the two rooms, then one would understand that 8:9 means that initially the Levites were in the courtyard of the mishkan with the people, and then in 8:10 they either went into the special building with the two rooms or they scrunched up within the courtyard. Both options seem logistically unreasonable.)

8:15, 19, 22, 24, 26 record that after the Levites were inducted, then they were to work in the ohel moed, which again follows the description of their work in chapter four, see our discussion on 4:23.

9:15, records that on the day when the mishkan was constructed (see 7:1) then the cloud of G-d covered the mishkan (2), and specifically the ohel edut (also mentioned in 9:17). As discussed above on 1:50-53, the ohel edut is the inner room of the special building, and the cloud of G-d was then partially above the special building. 9:18, 19, 20, 22 all continue to discuss the cloud of G-d being above the special building. The Torah did not use the term ohel moed in these verses, since the cloud of G-d did not cover the courtyard.

10:3 records that trumpets would be blown to call the people to come to the petach ohel moed. As discussed above on 3:25, 6:10-18, this phrase could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, or the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex. In this case, my inclination is that the location is the entrance from the outside to the complex since very few people could fit inside the courtyard of the ohel moed.

10:11 again refers to the cloud of G-d on top of the mishkan, like in 9:15-22.

10:17 refers to the taking down of the mishkan, the opposite of 9:15, and the transporting of the mishkan by the families of Gershon and Merari. While one might have expected 10:17 to use the term ohel moed instead of the mishkan, maybe since the main work in transporting the special complex, was the taking down of the walls and the ceiling of the mishkan, so then the Torah refers to the mishkan in 10:17.

10:21 records that the family of Kehat transported the mikdash, which means the collection of special ritual furniture. 10:21 ends by recording that the mishkan was to be re-built when the people got to the new camp, and again putting back up the walls and ceiling of the special building was the most difficult part of the re-constructing the special complex, which could be why the Torah uses the term mishkan and not ohel moed in 10:17. Also, the mishkan needed to be re-assembled in order to house the special cultic items being carried by the family of Kehat.

11:16 refers to ohel moed, but this was a tent that Moshe had outside the camp, and is unrelated to the special building and courtyard that was within the camp, see Benno Jacob, 1992, pp. 960-966.

12:4 records that Moshe, Aharon and Miryam were to meet at the ohel moed, and it is not clear if this was referring to Moshe’s tent outside the camp, or to the entrance to the courtyard of the special building within the camp.

14:10 records that the glory of G-d appeared in the ohel moed. Most likely this vision of the glory of G-d was within the cloud that was on top of the mishkan, and the cloud moved to be over the courtyard. This was a frightening vision to stop the people from stoning Moshe, Aharon, Yehoshua and Calev.

16:9 records that Moshe asked the Levites within Korah’s rebellion that was it not enough that they worked in the mishkan? I think the reference is to the Levites carrying the mishkan when the people travelled in the desert since they did not work in the mishkan. Maybe, Moshe mentioned the mishkan and not ohel moed since the work carrying the mishkan was more special than transporting parts of the courtyard.

16:18 records that Aharon and the 250 men were to stand by the petach ohel moed, and 16:19 records that they were joined by Korah and other people at the petach ohel moed. As we discuss above on 3:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, this phrase could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, or the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex.

16:24,27 refers to the mishkan of Datan, Aviram and Korah, but this means a regular tent as indicated by 16:25, without any cultic functions.

17:7,8 record that the glory of G-d appeared over the ohel moed, and then Moshe and Aharon could only go up to the ohel moed, but not into the ohel moed since they could not approach the glory of G-d. The ohel moed here refers to the entire complex, and the it seems that just like in 14:10, the glory of G-d was within the cloud of G-d and the cloud moved over the courtyard towards the people.

17:9,10 then record that G-d spoke to Moshe, and 17:11 records that Moshe told Aharon to take coals from the outer, apparently from the outer altar. Yet, if the cloud of G-d was over the ohel moed, which encompassed the courtyard of the mishkan, and the outer altar was in the courtyard, how could Aharon go to the outer altar? It must be that the glory of G-d and maybe the cloud of G-d has left the courtyard by the time that Moshe spoke to Aharon.

17:15 records that after going around the people with a pan of incense, Aharon returned to Moshe who was petach ohel moed. Initially Moshe and Aharon had approached the ohel moed in 17:8, and then apparently the cloud of G-d departed from the ohel moed. Moshe was then able to go into the ohel moed and he went to the entrance of the ohel moed, which as we discuss above on 3:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, 16:18,19, this phrase could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, or the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex.

17:19 refers to the ohel moed that the staffs of the tribal leaders and Aharon were to be placed in the ohel moed before the edut, the aron which had the luchot. This might refer to inner room of the mishkan, which has the aron, but could these tribal leaders enter that room or even the outer room of the special building? More likely, 17:19 means that the tribal leaders put their staffs in the courtyard near the special building, and then 17:22 records that Moshe took the staffs into the ohel edut, the inner room of the mishkan. Maybe, the phrase “before the edut” in 17:19 was to specify that the ohel moed being discussed was of the special building and not Moshe’s private ohel moed.

17:28 records that the people said that they realized that they would die if they entered the mishkan, and this refers to entering the area enclosed by the walls and the ceiling of the special building. This did not include the courtyard surrounding the special building since at certain times or in certain areas, people could enter the courtyard, and hence 17:28 does not use the term ohel moed.

18:1 refers to the mikdash, concerning some sin relating to the collection of the special ritual items.

18:4 refers to the Levites watching or guarding the ohel moed. The following verse. 18:5, refers to watching the altar, and if this refers to the outer altar, then the term ohel moed must refer to the courtyard where the outer altar was situated.

18:6 repeats (a type of bookend) that the Levites were to work in the ohel moed. This could refer to transporting the ohel moed, as recorded in chapter four or maybe it means to stand in the courtyard (see our discussion on Devarim 18:6,7, “To stand before G-d”) since the Levites did not do any work in the mishkan, other than carrying it when the people travelled in the desert.

18:21,23,31 mention the Levites working in the ohel moed, and would have a similar understanding to 18:6.

18:22 records that a regular Jew (i.e., not a priest or a Levite) could not enter the ohel moed, which I understand to mean that they could not regularly enter the courtyard. Most likely there could be exceptions to this rule, as for example by the new mother, Vayikra 12:6, unless one claims that after Korah’s rebellion, even these exceptions were no longer allowed. If one claims that ohel moed means just the mishkan, then it is not clear when any regular Jew would ever have gone into the mishkan. However, during the rebellion of Korah, it might be that many regular Jews entered the courtyard of the mishkan some with permission but many without, see our discussions above on 16:19 and on Chapter 16, “The great rebellion by an unholy coalition.”

19:4 records that the blood of the red cow was to be sprinkled in the direction of the ohel moed, the entire complex.

19:13 records that if a person is tamei and does not purify him/herself, then he/ she has made the mishkan tamei. 19:20 expresses a similar idea, but records that the person has made the mikdash tamei. The mikdash is the collection of special ritual items, and all of them except the outer altar are situated in the area enclosed by the mishkan. Possibly 19:13 refers to the mishkan and not the ohel moed to express the gravity of the person remaining tamei.

20:6 records that when the people were complaining for water, Moshe and Aharon went to the petach ohel moed, and we discussed above on 3:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, 16:18, 16:19 this phrase could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, or the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex.

24:5 records that in Bil’am’s third set of blessing he praised the mishkenotecha of the Jewish people. This word refers to the tents that were the dwellings of the people, and not to the special cultic building.

25:6 records that the leaders of the nation were weeping at the entrance of the ohel moed, petach ohel moed, and as we discuss above on 3:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, 16:18, 16:19, 17:15, and 20:6, this phrase could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, or the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex. 

Similar to 3:25, 4:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, 16:18, 16:19, 17:15, 20:6 and 25:6, 27:2 records that the daughters of Tzelofhad spoke to the leaders of the people and the whole assembly petach ohel moed, and this can either mean the entrance to the entire complex or to the entrance to the courtyard. In this case, I think it means the entrance to the entire complex since I do not think that all these people referred to in 27:2 could be in the courtyard of the ohel moed.

31:30 records the instructions from G-d to Moshe that part of the booty from the war with Midyan was to go to the Levites who guarded the mishkan. This refers back to 1:53, which records that the Levites watched the mishkan ha-edut, and this was their principle area that they guarded. Possibly this guarding is mentioned here since the share of the booty in the verse was from the Jewish people to the Levites, and the people should realize that the Levites were protecting them when they guarded the mishkan, see 1:53 again.

31:47 records that Moshe fulfilled G-d’s instructions in 31:30 that Moshe took some of the booty that the people got from the war with Midyan and gave it to the Levites who guarded the mishkan.

31:54 records that Moshe and Elazar took all the gold from the soldiers who had defeated Midyan and placed it into the ohel moed. It is unlikely that they could put all the gold into the outer room of the mishkan, and then 31:54 means that they put it in the courtyard, or maybe some was put in the courtyard and some in the outer room of the mishkan. This concludes the mention of these three terms, mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed, in the book of Bemidbar.

In the book of Devarim, only the term ohel moed appears (twice) in 31:14. 31:14 records that Moshe and Yehoshua were to go the ohel moed, they went there, and they stood in the ohel moed.

As mentioned above on Bemidbar 11:16, there were two ohel moeds when the people were in the desert, one within the camp connected to the special cultic building, and two, Moshe’s private tent outside the camp. It is not clear which ohel moed is being referred to in Devarim 31:14. Benno Jacob (1992, pp. 960-966), believes it is Moshe’s private tent since 31:14 records that Moshe and Yehoshua had to walk to the tent. This could be, but my inclination is that the ohel moed being referred to in 31:14 is within the camp since I think the point of the appearance of the cloud of G-d goal was to show the people that G-d was with Yehoshua, and this lesson could best be shown if the cloud of G-d appeared in the midst of the people.

Following this idea, 31:14 means that Moshe and Yehoshua went to the courtyard of the mishkan. I doubt they went into the special building since Yehoshua who was not a Levite or a priest could not enter the building.

The first half of 31:15 records that the cloud of G-d appeared in the ohel, which from 31:14 would mean the ohel moed (within the camp), and then the second half of 3:15 records that the cloud was by the entrance to the ohel, again apparently the ohel moed (within the camp). Most likely, the first half of the verse means that the cloud of G-d appeared in the courtyard surrounding the special building, and not inside the special building. The second half of 3:15 then specifies where in the courtyard the cloud of G-d appeared, at the entrance to the courtyard. Again, this entrance could be from outside the complex or the entrance into the courtyard leaving the special building, see our discussions above on 3:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, 16:18, 16:19, 17:15, 20:6, 25:6, and 27:2. Moshe and Yehoshua would have been standing between these two points/ areas, and would have turned to face the cloud of G-d depending on where it was located. Note the Torah needed to specify that the cloud of G-d was by the entrance since if it was in all of the courtyard, Moshe and Yehoshua could not have been in the courtyard, see Shemot 40:34,35. (If one believes that the first half of 3:15 means that the cloud of G-d appeared in the special building, then the second half of 3:15 means that the cloud moved from the inside the special building to the entrance to the building).

Bibliography:

Levine, Baruch A., 1993, Numbers 1-20, The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday.

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

Milgrom, Jacob, 1991, Leviticus: The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday.

Bemidbar 20:16 – A window into Moshe’s perception of his life

במדבר כ:טז - ונעצק אל ה' וישמע קולנו וישלח מלאך ויצאנו ממצרים והנה אנחנו בקדש עיר קצה גבולך. 

20:14-17 records Moshe’s request to the king of Edom to let the people pass through his country, and within this request Moshe recalled some of the history of the people. Moshe mentioned that when the people were in Egypt, they had cried out to G-d, G-d heard the cries of the people, G-d sent a malakh, and G-d took the people out of Egypt. Moshe’s reference to a malakh in this message to the king of Edom is perplexing. It is not clear who is being referred to, what incident is being referred to, its importance to the Exodus from Egypt, and why this information should be relevant to the king of Edom.

Rashi (on 20:16) writes that the malakh is referring to Moshe, the messenger of G-d. Yet, would Moshe, the humblest person, Bemidbar 12:3, refer to himself as a malakh? Why would Moshe need to tell the king of Edom that he was a messenger from G-d? Was this information supposed to scare the king of Edom? Moshe could have just mentioned that the people cried out to G-d and G-d saved them, without any reference to himself.

Ibn Ezra (on 20:16) notes that many people believe that Moshe was referring to himself, but he thinks that Moshe was referring to a real malakh. Yet, did a malakh have an important role in the Exodus from Egypt? Shemot 14:19 refers to a malakh who stood between the Jewish people and the Egyptians prior to the miracle of the splitting of the Yam Suf. However, this was a minor part in the miracle of the splitting of the Red Sea, and occurred after the people left Egypt.

Some translators (see for example, in JPS, Milgrom, 1990, p. 168 and Kaplan, 1981, p. 439) write that in 20:16 Moshe was saying that a malakh had taken the people out of Egypt. The only possible reference to a malakh by the Exodus is that Shemot 12:13,23 refer to a mashchit, destroyer, by the tenth plague, who according to some commentators (Hizkuni on Shemot 12:23) was a malakh. Yet, Shemot 12:29 records that G-d killed all the firstborn Egyptians and not a malakh.   Also, 20:16 refers to G-d, and then records three verbs relating to actions of G-d, that G-d heard the cries of the people, that G-d sent a malakh and that G-d took the people out of Egypt. These three separate verbs imply that G-d’s sending of the malakh was distinct in some way from G-d taking the people out of Egypt, and then in 20:16, Moshe was not saying that the malakh took the people out of Egypt. 

My guess is that in 20:16, Moshe was referring to the malakh he saw by the burning bush, Shemot 3:2. This incident happened after the people cried to G-d, and G-d heard their cries, Shemot 2:23,24, which follows the order of events Moshe recalled in 20:16. Yet, this incident was only crucial to Moshe, and was only indirectly related to the Exodus of the people from Egypt since this vision of the malakh was to induce Moshe to be the leader of the people. Moshe did not have to mention this sending of the malakh by G-d to the king of Edom, but it could be that he mentioned it as a personal matter. Many times, a speaker or writer, will include a point in a speech or in a book, which has meaning only to the speaker and the writer, and not to the public who will be hearing the speech or reading the book. The person mentions the point since it is important to the person even if the intended audience will not grasp the significance of the point. In this case, when G-d sent the malakh by the burning bush, this was the turning point in Moshe’s life, and hence for him this was a crucial point of the story. Thus, in his recollection of the basic facts of the Exodus from Egypt, Moshe mentioned this point. This recollection is even more poignant coming at the end of the 40 years of the people’s stay in the wilderness, and right after Moshe was told that he would not take the people to the land of Israel, 20:12.

My daughter Talia has pointed out to me that also Moshe’s first recollection in 20:16, that we cried, is an anomaly since Moshe did not cry out to G-d due to the suffering from slavery as the people did as recorded in Shemot 2:23. Shemot 5:22 does record Moshe crying out to G-d, but this crying out was due to G-d’s actions. Talia suggests that by using the pronoun we, in 20:16, Moshe was tying himself to the people, and their crying out to G-d. Furthermore, Talia notes that combining this point with the idea above that in 20:16 Moshe was referring to his personal vision of the malakh, then in Moshe’s message to the king of Edom, there is a synthesis of Moshe and the people that what happened to the people is a part of who he was, and what happened to him is a part of the history of the Jewish people.

Bibliography:

Kaplan, Aryeh, 1981, The Living Torah, New York: Moznaim Publishing Corporation.

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