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

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

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

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

27:4 then records that these stones were to be set up on Mount Eval, and the stones were to be either plastered again or mortar was supposed to be put between the stones. This verse raises several questions. Does 27:4 imply that the people were to go immediately to Mount Eval after they crossed the Jordan River? If yes, this would have been physically challenging. Mount Eval is thought to be near Shekhem which is around thirty miles from the people's crossing by the Jordan and involves going up 4,000 feet, from minus 1,000 feet by the Jordan River to 3,000 feet by the mountain. 

To solve this problem, the Talmud (Sotah 36a) quotes R. Shimon that the people reached Mount Eval on the day they crossed the Jordan River due to a miracle. 

A different possibility is the Talmud (Sotah 33b) quotes R. Eliezer that the mountains that today that we call Mount Eval is not the same ones as referred to in the Torah. 11:30 records information where Mount Eval (and Mount Gerizim) were located and maybe one can understand the verse to mean that Mount Eval and Mount Gerizim were by the Jordan River by the beginning of a road that started by the Jordan River, and went westwards reaching Elon Moreh. Yet, even if Mount Eval was near where the people were located, would there have been enough time for the people to cross the Jordan River, write on the stones, take the stones up to Mount Eval and set them up on the mountain?

A third possibility is that only a select few people in excellent physical condition went to the Mount Eval, wherever it was located, on the day when the whole nation crossed the Jordan River, and then they waited sometime before the rest of the nation joined them. Yet, they would still have to have waited for the people to write on the stones before they could carry the stones up to Mount Eval. 

A fourth possibility is that the people crossed the Jorden River closer to Mount Eval then commonly thought, though still there would remain the difficulty of taking the stones up the mountain in one day. All of these possibilities are not convincing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography:

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

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

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

Devarim 26:4,10 – Logistics of the bikkurim ceremony

Devarim 26:1-11 record the bikkurim ceremony that a farmer was to bring some of his new crops to the chosen place and make two declarations, 26:3 and 26:5 through the first half of 26:10, the mikra bikkurim. 26:4 records that after making the first declaration, 26:3, the farmer would give a basket of his new crops to the priest who would put it down by the altar. The farmer would then recite the second declaration, 26:5 through the first half of 26:10, and after finishing this declaration, the second half of 26:10 records that the basket would be put down before G-d. How could the basket be put down twice? Did the farmer pick up the basket when making the second declaration?

The Mishnah (Bikkurim 3:6) quotes two possibilities how the basket was put down during this ceremony. The first opinion, the anonymous tanna kamma, states that the farmer holds the basket on his shoulder the entire time he is reciting the second declaration, and after finishing the declaration he puts the basket down. This opinion seems to understand that the real placing down was at the end of the second declaration, and then the first placing down mentioned in 26:4 is understood to be on the farmer’s shoulders. As noted by David Hoffmann (1961, p. 486), it is hard to reconcile this approach with a simple reading of the Torah.

The second opinion, R. Yehuda, states that when the farmer recites the second declaration, he holds the edge of the basket while the priest holds the bottom of the basket. After the farmer finished reciting the verses, he then placed the basket down. Hoffmann writes that this approach accords with the Torah, but still 26:4 seems to state that only the priest is holding the basket at this point of the ceremony and the priest would place the basket down by the altar, while with R. Yehuda’s approach, the farmer is also holding the basket when making the second declaration and the basket is not placed by the altar prior to the second declaration.

My guess is that this double reference to putting the basket down is to indicate that two actions, the farmer’s declaration and the putting down of the basket, were happening concurrently. If the Torah had only recorded that the basket was to put down once, then one would have thought that it was to be put down either before the farmer started his second declaration (if only 26:4 was recorded) or that the placing was to be done after the farmer had finished his second declaration (if only the second half of 26:10 was recorded). However, with the double reference to putting down, we see that that the basket had to be put down both before and after the second declaration. How could this be?

The crucial point is that it would take some time (a minute? five minutes?) for the priest to take the basket from the farmer and put it down by the altar. This action would begin before the farmer made the second declaration and continue when the farmer was reciting the second declaration, as then the farmer would end the declaration or part of it before the basket was put down. Thus, prior to the farmer’s second declaration, he would hand the basket to the priest, who would then go to place it by the altar. The basket was not yet placed by the altar, but this is referred to as placing it down since once the farmer hands off the basket to the priest, the process of putting the basket down has begun. When the priest was walking over to the altar and putting the basket by the altar, the farmer would recite the verses of the second declaration and at this point he would not be holding the basket at all.

The first half of 26:10 records that the farmer ends the second declaration by stating that he has brought his crops since by finishing the second declaration and by having given his crops (in the basket) to the priest, he has fulfilled his obligation to bring the bikkurim. The second half of 26:10 then records that the basket is placed down before G-d, and this is referring to the action by the priest, who placed the basket down by the altar when the farmer was reciting the verses or depending on how long it took for the priest to place the basket down, after the farmer finished making the second declaration. The putting down in 26:10 is attributed to the farmer since the priest is the messenger of the farmer, but it is the priest who is putting the basket down (see Hoffmann, 1961, p. 486).

In conclusion, the double reference to putting down the basket during the bikkurim ceremony enclose the second declaration of the farmer, and signify that when the farmer was making his second declaration the priest was simultaneously putting down the basket by the altar.

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 28:69, 29:3-5 – The covenant on the plains of Moav: Full covenantal knowledge of G-d

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 28:69 records that G-d made a covenant with the Jewish people in the land of Moav, or more specifically on the plains of Moav (Bemidbar 36:13, Devarim 34:8), and this covenant was in addition to the covenant that was established at Horev, (Sinai). Why was there a need for another covenant between G-d and the Jewish people?

The most logical reason why another covenant is needed is because the previous covenant had been nullified, and in fact, this might have occurred by the covenant at Mount Sinai. It is possible that the sin of the golden calf nullified the first covenant made at Sinai, and hence a second covenant was made at Sinai, see Shemot 34:10. However, this second covenant (or the first if the sin of the golden calf did not nullify the covenant) at Mount Sinai was never nullified. Even by the sin of the spies (Bemidbar 13,14), the Torah does not mention that the covenant had been nullified. Immediately after the sin of the spies, G-d commanded the people about laws they had to keep in Israel, Bemidbar 15:1-41, which shows that the covenant had not been abrogated. Furthermore, 28:69 explicitly records that the covenant in Moav was in addition to the covenant at Sinai, so why was there a need for another covenant on the plains of Moav?

I believe the most popular answer, based on the views of R. Akiva (Sotah 37b), is that the new covenant on the plains of Moav was not new but was a repetition of the covenant from Mount Sinai since R. Akiva maintains that Moshe was taught all of the Torah when he was on Mount Sinai. However, R. Yishmael argues with R. Akiva and claims that new laws were taught to Moshe after he came down from Mount Sinai. Yet, even if one accepts R. Akiva’s opinion that Moshe was taught all the laws of the Torah on Mount Sinai, this does not mean that he told the people the laws of Devarim until the 40th year.  If Moshe did not teach the people the laws of Devarim, then it is quite amazing that the generation who experienced the Decalogue did not receive the complete Torah.

26:18, 27:9 and 29:12 imply that the covenant on the plains of Moav was to complete the covenant of Sinai, and not just a repetition of the first covenant. These three verses record that the people were going to become G-d's nation on that day. What happened on that particular day? As R. Yehuda (Berachot 63b) asks, “Was it on that day that the Torah was given to the Jewish people?” Ibn Ezra (on 27:9) explains that 27:9 means that on that day the covenant between G-d and the Jewish people was established, and it was the covenant that made the people G-d's nation. Yet, were not the people already G-d's nation since they already had made a covenant with G-d at Mount Sinai forty years earlier? The answer is that the covenant at Sinai was only a partial covenant, and hence the people were not yet fully G-d's nation. Only when both covenants, the covenants of Mount Sinai and of Moav, were established did the people truly become G-d's nation.

29:8,11,13, also imply that some new covenant was established on that day, and not that the covenant on the plains of Moav was just a repetition of the covenant from Mount Sinai. This new covenant was the completion of the covenant that began at Mount Sinai, as stated in 28:69.

If the covenant on the plains of Moav completed the covenant made at Mount Sinai, why did G-d make the first covenant at Mount Sinai a partial covenant, which necessitated an additional covenant? This enters the realm of speculation, but here goes.

Maybe the first covenant at Mount Sinai was only a partial covenant since the goal was to establish the complete covenant in the land of Israel.  However, Moshe was needed to establish the covenant since he was G-d’s messenger to transmit the covenant, and hence once Moshe was unable to enter the land of Israel, 3:27, then the additional covenant could not have been done in Israel. Instead, the covenant on the plains of Moav was established as close as possible to the people's entrance to the land of Israel. In addition, the ceremony on Mount Gerizim and Mount Eval was to take place immediately (27:2,4) when the people entered the land of Israel, and this ceremony was part of the establishment of the covenant of the book of Devarim.  

A second possible explanation for why initially G-d only imparted part of the covenant to the people at Mount Sinai is from 29:3, which records that Moshe told the people “But G-d has not given you a mind (lev) to know, or eyes to see or ears to hear until this day,” (Fox, 1995, p. 987, translation). This verse is perplexing. What was it that the people did not know? Why did G-d not let the people have this knowledge? Also, what was happening that day that would give the people the knowledge that they had been lacking?

I believe the standard explanation of the verse is that the people did not understand G-d due to their intransigence or sins (see N. Leibowitz, 1980, pp. 289-293), but the verse refers to G-d as being the cause of their misunderstanding. Thus, this lack of knowing was not because the people who left Egypt had a slave mentality.

What knowledge did G-d withhold from the people and why? A possible answer is that the withholding was that G-d only partially transmitted the covenant until that day. On this particular day they established the covenant on the plains of Moav, and then the people would have full covenantal knowledge of G-d. 29:3 means that not only did the people lack full knowledge of the covenant until that day, but also they lacked the full ability to comprehend G-d since G-d had not given them the complete covenant.

29:4,5 explain that G-d withheld from the people the complete covenant since they had to undergo the process of living in the desert and depending on the mahn for food every day. Thus, 29:5 ends by stating that the experience of not having real food but living on the mahn was to give the people the knowledge of G-d. The people had to know on a daily basis that their life was dependent on G-d, see 8:3. Also, the people had to know that G-d was with them even if they did not see G-d doing miracles, as the people did not see the mahn when it came down in the nighttime. This process was to teach the people what is means to believe in G-d and this was necessary for the people to be able to receive the complete covenant. Thus, the mahn was to be stored forever to show the people this important miracle, Shemot 16:32. Accordingly, the first covenant at Mount Sinai was not a complete covenant since the people had to experience living based on the mahn until they could receive the complete covenant.

The mahn parallels the ten plagues since both were to give the people a knowledge of G-d, 29:5 and Shemot 9:14-16; 10:1,2. The experience of the ten plagues was necessary for the first part of the covenant at Mount Sinai, and the experience of the mahn was necessary for the second part of the covenant on the plains of Moav.

It could be that the two reasons for why the covenant at Mount Sinai was a partial covenant, the desire to have the complete covenant in the land of Israel and the need for the people to experience the mahn, are complimentary. The people began to receive the mahn on the 15th day of the second month (Shemot 15:1), and they left Mount Sinai, a little more than a year later, on the 20th of the second month, Bemidbar 10:11. (It is striking that the Torah records these days, when it is very sparing with dates, and maybe the reason is that we should know that a year passed from when they first started to get the mahn.) Thus, the people had a year to receive the mahn, which should have been enough time for the lesson of the mahn to be instilled in the people. The covenant that was later established on the plains of Moav was not told to the people at that time since very shortly afterwards they were supposed to get to the land of Israel, and then they could complete the covenant in the land of Israel. However, after the sin of the spies, it was clear that the people needed more time to learn the lesson of the mahn. It is not clear if they needed exactly forty years, but they still had to wait until they were on the verge of reaching the land of Israel. Thus, in the 40th year, when the lesson of the mahn had been instilled in them and they were on the verge of entering the land of Israel, the covenant could be completed on the plains of Moav and the people then had full covenantal knowledge of G-d.

Bibliography:

Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.

Leibowitz, Nehama, 1980, Studies in Devarim, translated and adapted by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Devarim 27: 11-26 (Ki Tavo) – Curses, blessings and curses in chapters 27 and 28 in the book of Devarim

דברים כז:יד - וענו הלוים ואמרו אל כל איש ישראל קול רם.

Devarim 27:11-13 record that Moshe told the people that when they would come into the land of Israel, six tribes, including the tribe of Levi, should go up on Mount Gerizim to bless the people and six tribes should go up on Mount Eval to curse the people. 27:14 then records, ve-anu ha-Leviim… “And all the Levites are to speak up and say to every man of Israel, (with) voice raised," Fox, 1995, p. 973, translation.

This translation (and all that I saw) is based on the idea that the first word of 27:14, ve-anu, is to be understood as being a future (imperfect) verb that the Levites will speak or respond in the future, as opposed to meaning the Levites responded at that time. The apparent basis for this understanding is that a vav before a verb can reverse the tenses of a verb from the past to future when there is a vav with a past verb which comes after a future verb to which the verbs are connected either logically or temporally (a vav ha-hippukh, vav consecutive or vav conversive). This is similar to the usage of the same word in 21:7 and 26:5.

The flipping of the tenses of the word ve-anu to being a future verb makes 27:14 incomprehensible. Why are the Levites being singled out in 27:14, as in 27:11-13 Moshe had told all the people to go up on the mountains? Also, if the Levites are to call out to all the people, then presumably they would be in the middle of the people, but in 27:12, Moshe had said that the Levites were to be on Mount Gerizim and not in the middle of the people. Furthermore, 27:15-26 record that the Levites proclaimed curses, while according to 27:11, they were to bless the people.

The Talmud addresses the problems of 27:14 in two discussions. The Mishnah Sotah 7:5 (quoted by Rashi on 27:14) explains that really the Levites proclaimed both curses and blessings to the people, rather than just curses as recorded in the Torah. According to the Mishnah, for each curse recorded in the Torah, the Levites converted it to a blessing for one who did not violate the prohibition. For example, if 27:15 records “cursed be the one who makes an idol” than the Levites said this curse facing Mount Eval, and they also said “blessed be the person who did not make an idol” facing Mount Gerizim.

The Talmud also endeavors to ascertain where the Levites were located during the ceremony. Talmud Bavli (Sotah 37a) records three possibilities: either all the Levites were below between the mountains, only the elders of the Levites were below and the remainder of the tribe was on Mount Gerizim, or only those Levites who worked in the mishkan/ ohel moed were between the mountains, while the remainder of the tribe was on Mount Gerizim. The Yerushalmi (Sotah 7:4) adds a fourth opinion that all the Levites were on Mount Gerizim, and only the priests were below between the people.

All of these explanations to 27:14 are problematic. The Torah does not mention that the Levites said a corresponding blessing to each curse recorded in 27:15-26. If they really said such a blessing, why did the Torah not record it? Why should the Torah only write the curses and not the blessings? Furthermore, some of the blessings would not make sense. For instance, 27:21 records “cursed be the person who commits bestiality,” so then the corresponding blessing would be blessed be the person who does not commit bestiality. Why should a person who abstains from such an abominable practice be blessed? In addition, the suggestions in the Talmud Bavli with regard to the location of the Levites lack textual support.

Ibn Ezra (on 27:15) suggests a different approach to understanding Moshe’s instructions in 27:11-13. He writes that the simple understanding of 27:11-13 is that Moshe's instructions concerning the blessings and curses that were to be said by the twelve tribes on Mount Gerizim and Mount Eval are the blessings and curses recorded in 28:3-6,16-19. When then did the Levites pronounce the curses recorded in 27:15-26?

David Tzvi Hoffmann (1961, pp. 501-506) notes that the verse in the book of Yehoshua (8:34) which mentions the blessings and curses of the ceremony at Mount Gerizim and Mount Eval refers to the blessings and curses of chapter 28 and not to the curses of 27:15-26. Hoffmann follows the Ibn Ezra that 28:3-6 and 28:16-19 are the blessings and curses referred to 27:11-13, and he maintains that 27:12 refers to the tribe of Levi while 27:14 refers just to the priests, as mentioned in the Yerushalmi (Sotah 7:4). He suggests that after the blessings and curses of chapter 28 were said, the Levites descended from the mountain and said the curses recorded in 27:15-26.

Luzzatto (on 27:15) seems to suggest the opposite order, that the curses of 27:15-26 were said prior to the blessings and curses that were said on Mount Gerizim and Mount Eval. With this idea, initially the Levites would have been between the two mountains to call out to the people, and then after saying the curses in 27:15-26, they climbed up Mount Gerizim to join the other five tribes who were already on the mountains.

I am not convinced by these explanations. Why should there be a set of blessings and curses and then one set just of curses? It seems odd that for one set of blessings and curses the tribe of Levi should be similar to all the tribes and on the mountain, while for the other set of curses, which occurred almost simultaneously, the tribe should be separate from the other tribes between the mountains. Furthermore, according to Hoffmann and Luzzatto, the Torah should have spelled out the order of the blessings/curses and curses, and explained that the Levites were to go up or down between the blessings/ curses and curses.

To understand 27:14, we have to understand the meaning of the word ve-anu in the beginning of the verse. Is the vav in the word ve-anu a vav consecutive to make the verb anu, respond, change from being a past verb to a future verb? While the rule of vav consecutive exists in numerous cases, it cannot apply in 27:14 due to all the difficulties mentioned above. There is no literary connection either logically or temporally between 27:12,13 and 27:14, and hence 27:14 is an independent verse. This means that the vav of 27:14 does not flip the tenses, and word ve-anu should be understood as a past verb, the Levites responded. This would not be a unique case. For example, on Bereshit 26:10, Siftei Chachamim explains that the vav in the beginning of the word, ve-heveti means a vav that connects words and should be understood in the past tense, as Rashi explains, and not as a vav consecutive. See also Sokolow, 2008, pp. 103, 104 for a brief discussion of this issue in reference to Shemot 18:22,26, where he notes that the same word, ve-shaftu, can refer either to the future or to the present depending on the context. 

All translations of 27:14 that I saw are problematic. The JPS translation (in Tigay, 1996, p. 253) skips the word ve-anu. Hertz (1960, p. 864), Fox (above), Silbermann and Rosenbaum (1934, p. 130), create a repetition in the verse by translating the word anu to mean speaking that, “the Levites shall speak and say.” Hirsch (1989, p. 553) translates it “And the Levites shall lift up their voices and say,” which is how Rashi translates the word anu on 26:5 but that does not seem to be the simple sense of the word anu, see our discussion on 26:4,10, “Logistics of the bikkurim ceremony.”

27:14 does not mean that the Levites will respond in the future, but that the Levites responded at that particular time to Moshe's speech. 27:14 means that the “Levites responded (to Moshe) and said to all the people in a raised voice.” This understanding removes any repetition in the verse. The Levites were responding to Moshe's instructions to the tribes to go up on Mount Gerizim and Mount Eval when they would come to the land of Israel.

Why would the Levites interrupt Moshe's speech? The answer is that the ceremony on Mount Eval and Mount Gerizim that Moshe was informing the people about was to establish the covenant that was to be sealed with the blessings and curses, 28:69. When the tribes would say the blessings and curses, they would be showing their acceptance of the covenant. This acceptance of the covenant was to occur when the people would enter the land of Israel, a few months later, but the Levites did not want to wait to accept the covenant. Thus, at the moment that Moshe was speaking about how the Jewish people would accept the covenant in the future, the Levites spontaneously shouted out curses, 27:14-26. The Levites could not shout out blessings because only G-d has the power to authorize blessings. In addition, as has been noted by the Ibn Ezra and the Rashbam (both on 27:15), the curses stated by the Levites refer to secret acts because the people were accepting upon themselves not to do even things that ostensibly they could get away with.

27:14 is then recording that the tribe of Levi interrupted Moshe's instructions (27:11-13, chapter 28) about the future ceremony in the land of Israel. The Levites interrupted Moshe by stating twelve curses, 27:15-26, when the people were still on the plains of Moav, and the Levites were in the middle of the people since their encampment was in the middle of the camp. A few months later, the ceremony on Mount Eval and Mount Gerizim would consist of the entire nation including the tribe of the Levites going up on the two mountains. (According to book of Yehoshua, 8:33, only the priests stayed with the aron in between the two mountains, see Yerushalmi Sotah 7:4.) The curses shouted out by the Levites (27:15-26) when Moshe was speaking were not repeated by the ceremony at Mount Eval and Mount Gerizim because these curses were never part of that ceremony.

Bibliography:

Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.

Luzzatto, Shmuel David (Italy, 1800-1865), 1871 (first edition), 1965, Commentary to the Pentateuch, edited by P. Schlesinger, Jerusalem: Horev.

Silbermann, A. M. and M. Rosenbaum, 1985, initial publication 1934, Chumash with Rashi’s commentary, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, Ltd, successors to Shapiro Valentine & Co.

Sokolow, Moshe, 2008, Studies in the weekly parashah based on the lessons of Nehama Leibowitz, Jerusalem: Urim Publications.

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