Commentary on Haggadah 2019 version is now available

Hello,

The 2019 version of my commentary on the Haggadah (70 pages) is now available. It has some additions/ corrections/ revisions from the previous versions.  Below is the table of contents to enable people to check how this version differs from previous versions.  The numbers are the page numbers in the file. If you are interested in receiving the commentary, please send me an email, ajayschein@gmail.com, and I will send you the file.  I wish everybody a chag kasher ve-samaech.

Andrew Schein  

Introduction to the Haggadah  p.    3

Bedikat hametz p.             3

Two systems: Burning and annulling p.       3

Hiding bread in the house before doing the bedikat hametz p.       4

The blessing on bedikat hametz p.             5

The Seder plate p.             6

The history of the Seder plate  p.    6

How many matzot? p.        11

The mnemonic of the Seder p.       12

Kiddush p.             13

The four cups of wine  p.    13

The four words or verses of redemption (parshanut) p.     14

Leaning p.             15

Karpas p.   17

Why is karpas part of the Seder? p.            17

How much karpas is one to eat?  p.             18

Dipping the karpas  p.         19

Yachatz and ha lachma anya  p.       20

Maggid  p.  23

The obligation to re-tell the story of the exodus from Egypt p.        23

Structure of the Maggid  p.             25

Mah nishtanah: Covering the matzah by the mah nishtanah  p.       25

Mah nishtanah: Popularity and source  p.    26

Mah nishtanah: Who says the mah nishtanah?  p.   27

Mah nishtanah: How many questions compromise the mah nishtanah? p.  28

Mah nishtanah: The order of the mah nishtanah?  p.           29

Mah nishtanah: The answers  p.     29

Lowly states: We were slaves and our forefathers were idolaters  p.           31

The four sons: Why four? p.           32

The four sons: How can one identify the traits of each son? p.         33

The four sons: The answers to evil son’s question  p.          33

The four sons: The answer/ statement to the son who cannot ask a question p.     34

The four sons: Two plus two p.      34

The drush: Introduction p.             35

The drush: Connections between the mikra bikurim and other verses in the Torah p.         35

The drush: Arami oved avi (parshanut) p.   36

The drush: Va-yered Mitzraymah  p.           37

The drush: And the Egyptians with evil intent treated us harshly (parshanut) p.      37

The drush: We cried to G-d (parshanut) p.             39

The drush: And G-d saw our affliction and our burdensome suffering (parshanut) p.          40

The drush: And G-d took us out Egypt (parshanut)  p.         41

The drush: The plague of the firstborn (parshanut)  p.         42

The drush: Sixteen drops  p.           42

The drush: The ten plagues  p.        44

The drush: Dzakh adash beachav (parshanut) p.     44

R. Yosi ha-Galilee, R. Eliezer and R. Akiva  p.            46

Dayenu  p.             46

Rabban Gamliel  p.             47

Matzah (parshanut)       p. 48

Maror p.    49

Dividing Hallel p.    51

Differences between Hallel all year round and by the Seder p.       52

The blessing at the end of the Maggid p.    52

Matzah  p.  54

How much matzah does one need to eat by the Seder?p.             54

Shemurah matzah p.         55

Charoset p.           57

Eating eggs by the beginning of the meal p.            59

Afikoman p.          60

The history of the term afikoman p.           60

Eating the afikoman before midnight p.     62

Shefokh hamatcha p.         63

Conclusion of Hallel in the Haggadah p.      65

Songs at the end of the Seder p.    66

Bibliography p.      68

Vayikra Chapters 13,14 - Tsara`at by a person

Vayikra chapter 13 records the details of the tumah of the person (and clothing) with tsara`at. Regardless of the exact definition of the term tsara`at, why or how is this phenomena related to tumah? And, why does the Torah record a process of a person becoming tamei and then tahor by this ailment more than other sicknesses that people have?

One understanding of tsara`at is that it was a disease, which required quarantine to stop the spread of the disease. Similarly, tsara`at of clothing required the clothing to be either washed or burnt (13:47-58) since this disinfects the clothes from the disease (see Hertz, 1960, p. 459). With this approach, the tumah is due to the person or the clothing having this disease. Following this approach, Dunin and Sutcliff write (1992, p. 15) that “Hebrew medicine excelled in the area of public health,” see also Rambam (Moreh 3:47) and Ralbag's interpretation of chapters 13 and 14.

Many commentators were bothered by this approach because it makes the Torah into a health manual. S. R. Hirsch (1989, comments at the end of chapter 13) has a lengthy discourse against this public health approach. Amongst the questions he raises is that 13:12,13 record that if the entire body has tsara`at then the person is tahor. Yet, if the reason for the tumah is because tsara`at is a disease so if the person has tsara`at on all the body he should certainly be tamei. Also by tsara`at in the house, 14:36 record that one is to empty the house before the priest declares it tamei. Yet if tsara`at is due to disease, why allow the house to be emptied if the items might contain the disease?

Accordingly, it has been suggested that tsara`at is punishment for some sin. The Talmud (Arakhin 16a) quotes Rav Shmuel ben Nachmani in the name of Rav Yochanon that there are seven sins that are due to tsara`at: loshen hara (slander) murder, perjury, sexual immorality, pride, robbery and unkind selfishness. Preuss (1993, pp. 337,338) notes that even more sins have been proposed in the Talmud and the Midrash. Of all the sins, traditionally the most prominent was that tsara`at occurred because a person spoke loshen hara, slander (see Sifra 5:7 and Talmud Arakhin, 15b, 16a). The Talmud (Arakhin 16b) explains that just as slander causes people to separate, the slanderer must also be separated from people.

Why is slander usually singled out as the cause of tsara`at? Avot de-Rav Natan (9:2,3) has an extensive discussion of the negative consequences of loshen hara. First, it notes that the people had many sins in the desert, but they were only punished for the sin of the spies, which was because the spies slandered the land of Israel. Afterwards, it discusses Miryam's and Aharon's slander of Moshe, and Miryam was punished with tsara`at, Bemidbar 12:1-10 and Devarim 24:9. Afterwards, it quotes Rav Shimon Ben Elazar who notes the connection between tsara`at and slander from the story of Gehazi (Kings II, 5:27). One other case, not in Avot de-Rav Natan, is that Rashi (on Shemot 4:6) writes that Moshe had temporary tsara`at as a punishment because he spoke ill of the Jewish people, Shemot 4:1,6.

Meir Gruzman (1998) notes that there are other cases in Tanakh (Shmuel I 22, Kings 1,19 and Isaiah 6) where he believes there is also slander but no mention of tsara`at. He suggests that tsara`at occurs because of slander, but not all the time is slander punished with tsara`at. He argues that slander is only punished with tsara`at when a person speaks a complete falsehood. Thus, he argues Moshe said the people would not listen, when in reality this was false since the people would listen to Moshe.

Notwithstanding the popularity of this explanation for tsara'at, I have never liked it for several reasons. One, I assume that people today are pretty much like people of yesteryear, and if in modern times, loshen hara, slander is rampant, so then in olden times there would have been a large number of people with tsara`at. More people could have been outside the camp, than inside the camp! Maybe people would have realized the consequences of loshen hara and then not spoken it, but from Jeremiah 9:3,4 and Psalms 12:3-5 it seems that slander was as common in olden times as it is today. Two, even though slander is a terrible sin, I cannot accept that it is worse than murdering a person. Why would G-d choose to intervene in the world for the sin of slander but not for murder? If tsara'at would be for murderers, then the murderer's skin would change, and then murderers could easily be identified and apprehended. Three, why does the priest not warn the person to repent from his ways instead of just telling him to wait another seven days to see if the tsara'at spreads (13:4,5)? Four, the case of the person who is completely covered with tsara'at but is considered as being pure, 13:12,13, remains inexplicable, as according to this approach that tsara'at is due to sin, this person should certainly be tamei.

In a fascinating article, Rav Soloveitchik (1981) argued that Miryam was punished with tsara`at because Miryam was denying the uniqueness of Moshe as a prophet, when she claimed equal status with Moshe. One of the fundamental ideas in our faith is that Moshe received the Torah from G-d and was able to transmit the Torah to the Jewish people since he was the greatest prophet, see Shemot 14:31 and 19:9. Miryam was then punished for contributing to a lack of faith in G-d and the Torah and not due to slander.

This understanding of Miryam's sin suggests that maybe tsara`at is a religious punishment when someone says something that might reduce other people’s faith in G-d or the Torah. With regard to Moshe getting tsara’at, it is not clear that Moshe was being punished since the tsara`at was only a demonstration and very temporary. Yet, if one believes that Moshe was punished by the tsara`at, then maybe it was because by refusing to take the people out of Egypt, Moshe was contributing to a lack of faith in G-d. (This idea could also explain why Gehazi was punished with tsara`at since his actions could have reduced Naaman’s faith in G-d.)  

According to this idea, maybe a person with tsara`at has to leave the camp in order to isolate the person so that he/ she could not influence other people’s faith in G-d and the Torah or to give the person time to contemplate and return to G-d. Also, this idea accords with the idea that tumah represents a potential estrangement from G-d, which in this case would be due to the person's issues of faith.

A different approach to tsara'at is to recognize that while some people are punished with tsara'at, this does not mean that everybody who has tsara'at has sinned. Thus, the tsara'at is not a sign that a person has sinned, but that a person has a physical ailment that his/ her skin is marked somehow. These marks are probably not contagious or a sign of any sickness. What then can be the reason for this tumah? Maybe the purification process of the metsora suggests a way to understand the metsora's tumah.

The purification process of the metsora involves two stages. The first stage is that two birds are taken, and the blood of one bird is sprinkled on the metsora, while the second bird is sent free, 14:4-7. After this ritual the person is tahor, 14:8, but he/ she undergoes another ritual the following week. In the second ritual, blood is sprinkled on the person just like what was done with Aharon and his sons when they were invested as priests, 14:14 and 8:23,24. Afterwards, oil is poured on the same spots on the former metsora as was the blood, and then more oil is poured on the former metsora's head, 14:17,18. This appears to be more oil than was done with Aharon whose his head was poured with oil when he was invested as the high priest, 8:12, and more than when Aharon and his sons with their priestly clothing were sprinkled with oil, 8:30. Furthermore, before the oil was poured on the former metsora's head, the oil was sprinkled before G-d, 14:17. This pouring of oil on the former metsora's head is surely very significant, and generally oil is sprinkled as a way to consecrate the item or person. This sprinkling of oil suggests that the end of the process, the former metsora has a superior status, equal or even greater than the high priest!

With this understanding, we can view the metsora process in a positive perspective. A person has various skin ailments, which are not harmful physically, but psychologically the person could feel alienated from society and/ or from G-d. For example, Luzzatto (on 12:2) writes that in ancient times, a bodily disfigurement was considered a sign that G-d was angry at the person.

The person with these spots then goes before the priest, the religious representative, who either tells the person that he/ she is tahor or tamei. If the person is tahor, then that should improve his/ her self-confidence, even if he/ she still has tsara’at as when the tsara’at just stopped from spreading, 13:6. On the other hand if the person is tamei, then he/ she goes through a difficult process of moving outside the camp and shaving the body, but he/ she returns as a new person with a status equal or higher than the priests. This should certainly boost the person’s self-confidence and should move the person to be closer to G-d.

This positive approach might explain the case where a person is completely covered with tsara’at but is considered tahor, 13:12,13. In this case, there is no way to make this person tahor later on if he/ she is declared tamei because how can one say the tsara’at has not spread? Instead, if the idea is that tsara`at is meant to be helpful to the person, then this person is told that he/ she is tahor.

This lesson by the metsora would apply to all people that a person's look are not important with regard to their relationship with G-d. All people, even people who think of themselves as being unattractive can be closer to G-d than the high priest.

Bibliography:

Dunin, Nancy and Dr. Jenny Sutcliff, 1992, A History of Medicine, New York: Barnes and Nobles Books.

Gruzman, Meir, 1998, The opinions of our sages on leprosy as a punishment, in A divinely given Torah in our day and age: Studies on the weekly Torah readings from Bar Ilan University, anonymous editors, Jerusalem: Laser Pages Publishing, pp. 269-274.

Hertz, J. H. (1872-1946), 1960, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, second edition, London: Soncino Press.

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

Preuss, Julius (1861-1913), 1993, Biblical and Talmudic Medicine, translated and edited by Fred Rosner, Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc.

Soloveitchik, Rav Yosef, 1981, Reflections of the Rav, vol. 1, edited by Abraham R. Besdin, Ktav Publishing House

Shemot 35:4-40:33 – The repetition of the details of the building of the mishkan

Shemot 35:4-40:33 record the details of the construction of the mishkan. These details were already recorded by the instructions to build the mishkan, 25:1-31:11. Why was it not sufficient for the Torah to simply say the people did as Moshe commanded?

Nehama Leibowitz (1976a, pp. 644-653, see also Josipovici, 1988) reviews various answers to this question. She quotes the Ramban (on 36:8) that the repetitions “reflect the love and esteem with which the mishkan was viewed by G-d, the numerous recapitulations being designed to increase the reward of those engaged in (the study of) it.” However, she is not satisfied with this answer, and she wonders, “Why should this particular narrative be more highly valued than those conveying the very fundamentals of Judaism?” For example, was the mishkan more esteemed than the korban pesach? By the korban pesach, the Torah records all the instructions and afterwards just records that the people did as commanded, 12:28, without detailing all of their actions. A second approach is from the Ralbag (comments after chapter 40) and Cassuto (1967, p. 453) that the repetitions are just following the literary style of ancient times. N. Leibowitz is not satisfied with this approach and instead she prefers Moshe Mendelssohn’s approach in the Biur, who suggests that just as man dedicates his first fruits to G-d, so too the work in the mishkan represents the Jewish people’s “first fruits of their thoughts and abilities.” N. Leibowitz concludes that the repetition “was done in order to stress the symbolic significance of each detail, the dedication of each labor to G-d in preparation for life in the Promised Land.”

A different approach is that the repetitions have two messages and this can be seen by dividing the repetitions into two sections. The first section is from 35:4-36:7, and focuses on the donations to the mishkan, while the second section is from 36:8-40:33, and focuses on the actual construction of the mishkan.

The first section, 35:4-36:7, can be further divided into four smaller sub-units. The first of these sub-units, 35:4-19, records Moshe’s request to the people to donate materials to the mishkan, and includes a repetition of the list of the components of the mishkan including a mention of the priests’ clothing, 35:11-19. The Ramban (on 35:5) points out that the people had to be told this information before they were asked to make donations, as otherwise they would not have known what to donate, and usually when people know what the donations will be used for they give more generously.

The second sub-unit of the first section is 35:20-29 records in detail all the donations of the people. The third sub-unit of first section is 35:30-36:1, records the appointments of Betzalel and Oholiav to be in charge of building the mishkan. This seems to essentially repeat 31:1-11, but this is the first time the people are hearing about Betzalel and Oholiav. The people had to hear that G-d selected Betzalel and Oholiav in order that they would accept them as being in charge, and 36:1 records that everybody worked together. The fourth sub-unit is 36:2-36:7, which records that Moshe found out that the people had donated more materials than were needed for the mishkan, and he told them to stop donating.

The point of the section from 35:4-36:7 is the bigheartedness of the people in their donations to the mishkan. As noted by the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 48:6, see also N. Leibowitz, pp. 666-668) through these donations the people expiated their sin by the golden calf. The people had donated gold to the make the golden calf, and the people redeemed themselves by donating much greater quantities of metals and other materials to the mishkan. This lesson was so important that the Torah had to dwell at length on the donations, as it does by the donations of the people after the war with Midyan, Bemidbar 31:25-54. This lesson might have been missed if the Torah simply stated that the people donated what they had been asked to donate. (Note even though the donations to the mishkan expiated the sin of the golden calf, this does not mean that the mishkan itself was because of the sin of the golden calf, see our discussion on 30:1-10, "The barriers arise," https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2011/02/shemot-301-10-tetsavveh-barriers-arise.html)

The second large section is from 36:8-40:33 and can be further divided into five sub-units. One, 36:8-38:20 records the construction of the items and the walls of the mishkan. Two, 38:21-31, gives an accounting of the metals used in constructing the mishkan. Three, 39:1-32, records the making of the priests’ clothes. (Note, 39:1 is a connecting sentence between the accounting section of 38:21-31 with the making of the priest’s clothing, as it gives an accounting of the dyes used to make the priests’ clothing.) Four, 39:33-43 records that after all the items of the mishkan were finished the people brought them to Moshe. (Are 39:32 and 39:43 bookends?) Five, 40:1-15 records, for the first time, G-d’s instruction to Moshe to assemble the mishkan and 40:16-33 records that Moshe fulfilled these instructions. Note, 40:16 functions both as a concluding sentence to the instructions that they were fulfilled and as an introduction to 40:17-33, which records in detail how Moshe followed the instructions. Also, 40:16-33 does not record that Moshe fulfilled all of G-d’s instructions in 40:1-15, as some of this fulfillment is recorded in Vayikra chapter 8 and some in Bemidbar chapter 7, see our discussion on 40:1-33, “The anointing of the mishkan” (https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2010/03/shemot-401-33-pekudei-anointing-of.html).

One phrase that appears repeatedly in the section 36:8-40:33 is "he built" or "they built." This suggests that the crucial aspect of the repetition is to stress the work that was done. This section focuses on the work of the people, and the last sub-unit even records that Moshe, the man who came closest to G-d of any human being, also participated in building the mishkan. The fact that the Torah records with such details the building of the mishkan must surely indicate the importance the Torah attaches to this activity. Thus, Ramban (end of comments on 36:8) explains that the Torah recorded the details of the people’s work to show how much G-d desired their work.

Rabbi Tarfon (end of 1st century) made this same point regarding the importance of work from a different perspective. He stated (Avot de-Rav Natan, 11:1) "Even the Holy One, blessed be He, did not cause His Presence to dwell in Israel until they had performed some work (translation from Cashdan, 1965, p. 67). Yeshayahu Leibowitz (1990, pp. 85,91) explains that the “dwelling” of G-d came about as the result of the work of men since there was no overt Divine intervention or miracles in the construction of the mishkan.

Furthermore, there are several literary connections between the mishkan and the creation of the world both by the instructions to build the mishkan and by the conclusion of the building of the mishkan. With regard to the instructions, they can be divided into seven sections based on the opening phrase, G-d spoke to Moshe, 25:1, 30:11, 30:17, 30:22, 30:34, 31:1 and 31:12, see Sarna, 1999, p.201. The seventh section discusses the laws of Shabbat and references the creation of the world, 31:17. The sixth section records the appointment of Betzalel and Oholiav to build the mishkan, and this corresponds to the sixth day of creation since in both cases the focus is on humankind. There is even a similarity between the blessings, as on the sixth day man is created in the image of G-d, Bereshit 1:27, and 31:3, within the sixth section, records that G-d filled Betzalel with the spirit of G-d.

With regard to the completion of the mishkan, Cassuto (1883-1951, pp. 476, 477, 483) points out four parallels between the mishkan and the creation of the world. One, 39:32 records that all the work of the mishkan was completed and this is similar to Bereshit 2:1 which records that on the seventh day, the world was completed. Two, 39:43 records that “Moshe saw all the work” and this seeing is reminiscent of the seeing of G-d by creation, Bereshit 1:31. Three, 39:43 also records that Moshe blessed the people, which parallels that G-d blessed the seventh day after the creation of the world, Bereshit 2:3. Four, 40:33 records that Moshe completed the work, which is parallel to Bereshit 2:2 that on the seventh day G-d completed His work in creating the world.

The creation of the world and the building of the mishkan are the two great creative acts in the Torah, the first by G-d and the second by mankind. These literary connections between these two acts indicate the importance of the work of the Jewish people in building the mishkan.

Accordingly, maybe the point of the section, 36:8-40:33, is to emphasize the importance of working and creating. The mishkan is the great building project of the Torah where the people took all the different materials and fashioned them into a purposeful construct. The building of the mishkan was a fulfillment of the prime directive to humankind to conquer the world in Bereshit 1:28. The building of the mishkan is the only, or the best opportunity, in the entire Torah to stress this point, and this lesson would have been lost if the Torah had merely stated the people did as they were commanded without recording all the details of the work.

Shemot 20:21 (Yitro) – It’s G-d's decision

The second half of Shemot 20:21 (24) records that G-d would "azkir his Name, come to the people and bless the people." Azkir means literally that G-d would "remember" his Name, but Sarna (1991, p. 116) notes, "This construction, with both subject and object referring to G-d, is unparalleled. G-d would not be expected to call on Himself or evoke His own name in worship, and hence the medieval Jewish commentators (see for example Rashi on 20:21) understood akzir to be causative," that G-d would allow or require the people to mention G-d's name, see also Netziv on 20:21. Yet, this understanding of the word azkir is problematic since this is not the meaning of the word azkir. Sarna (1991, p. 251, footnote 69) also notes that, "it cannot be denied that a reading of tazkir, "you pronounce My name," would be preferable," and Pirkei Avot 3:7 seems to have this understanding. However, the word is azkir and not tazkir.

The word azkir is teaching an important lesson about the worship of G-d. The first half of 20:21 records that one is permitted to make a dirt altar, and this permission might lead one to believe that G-d has to respond to these sacrifices in some way. The second half of 20:21, the word, azkir, teaches us that G-d does not have to respond. G-d decides when to call out His Name, appear and bless the people. On some occasions, G-d will respond, on most occasions G-d will not respond, and on some occasions G-d will respond when no sacrifice is offered. The law of offering sacrifices on a dirt altar is one of the first laws of sacrifices (excluding the korban pesach, the first?), and this same idea occurs by the first sacrifice in the Torah, G-d's non-acceptance of Kayin's sacrifice, Bereshit 4:5. This same message is also relevant to prayer, which has much less of a biblical basis than sacrifices, that the word azkir in 20:21 is to teach people that G-d decides when to respond to prayers and people cannot "force" G-d.

Bibliography:

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1991, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Shemot 3:11-4:24 - Moshe’s hesitancy to take the Jewish people out of Egypt

Shemot 3:11 records that Moshe did not jump on G-d’s offer to take the people out of Egypt, and instead Moshe stated that he was not worthy of being the emissary. G-d did not take no for an answer and told him not to worry since G-d would accompany him, 3:12. Moshe continued with three other questions, which G-d answered, 3:13-4:12. However, Moshe continued in his refusal and stated that G-d should send whoever He wanted, 4:13. Moshe was no longer giving any excuses, but declining the mission. G-d was now angry and Moshe was not given a choice, 4:14-24, see our discussion on 4:24-26, “Moshe and Tzippora by the inn”  It is interesting that Moshe never officially agreed to go on the mission, just like the people had to be forced to leave Egypt, 6:1,12:33.

Why did Moshe not want to go on the mission to free the Jewish people from Egypt? Was he just being modest? Or, did he not want to be the leader of the Jewish people?

The answer is that Moshe was atypical of leaders of nations. Leaders are self-motivated to become leaders. This drive comes about due to their ego or because of their belief in their particular cause. Moshe initially did not have this self-motivation, but why did he not respond more positively to G-d’s request? Was it just his sense of humility? Why was he not concerned about the fate of the Jewish people? Also, one would also have thought that the honor of being chosen by G-d and the opportunity to be G-d’s messenger would be enough of a reason to accept the mission. Yet, Moshe clearly did not want to go on the mission. Here goes for some speculation for why Moshe did not initially accept G-d’s request for him to take the Jewish people out of Egypt.

One possibility is that initially Moshe did not fully comprehend G-d’s power, and he might have thought that the mission would fail, as he stated after his first encounter with Pharaoh, 5:22,23. Also, afterwards G-d told Moshe that the people who were seeking his life were dead, 4:19, which indicates that Moshe was worried that he could die from the mission, though maybe this was just an excuse for Moshe. With this approach, the miracles of the burning bush (3:2) and the three signs (4:2-9) were not enough to convince him of G-d's powers. Could this be?

A second possibility is that Moshe's hesitancy was due to his feelings for the Egyptian royal family, if not to Pharaoh. We see from the reason for the name of Moshe’s son, Gershom, that Moshe thought of Egypt as being his home, 2:22. With this approach, Moshe would have realized that taking the Jewish people out of Egypt would have meant using force against Egypt (3:20), and maybe he did not want to destroy the people and the home where he had grown up.

Also, with this approach, Moshe was not sure of his ultimate loyalty: To the Jewish people or to the Egyptian royal family? I once suggested this in a class, and my daughter Talia and Annie Rosen suggested, that maybe because of this problem, G-d responded that Aharon your brother was coming to meet you, 4:14, to stress that his true identity was with the Jewish people, his family. In addition, the actions of the Jewish taskmasters who yelled at Moshe (and Aharon, 5:20,21) might have helped sway Moshe to identify with the Jewish people and not the Egyptians. 

A third possibility is that while Moshe did not have much feelings for the Egyptian royal court he also did not have enough feelings for the Jewish people. All decisions are based on cost/ benefit analysis and maybe Moshe thought that the cost of the mission was greater than the benefits. The costs were a huge amount of work, separation from his family for a long period of time, and possibly the loss of a comfortable life in Midyan. The benefits would be the feeling that he helped save the Jewish people from slavery. However, that feeling would only be powerful enough to overcome the costs involved if Moshe felt a strong connection with the Jewish people. Did Moshe initially have this strong emotional bond? Maybe not. Moshe had been raised separate from the Jewish people and had lived outside of Egypt for many years. Also, maybe his bad encounter with the two Jewish men fighting, 2:13,14, soured him on his feelings towards the Jewish people. Therefore, for Moshe to want to be the leader of the Jewish people it was necessary for him to develop an emotional attachment to the Jewish people, and this is what occurred in chapter five through the intentional failure of his first mission to Pharaoh and the criticism by the taskmasters. 

Bereshit 34:25-35:5 - The brothers of Dina go amok

Bereshit 34:2 records that Shekhem took (raped?) Dina, Yaakov’s daughter. Afterwards, he decided that he loved Dina, and his father Hamor made a deal with Dina’s brothers (also Yaakov?) that they would agree to the marriage if the all the men in the town of Shekhem would circumcise themselves, which they did, 34:3-24. 34:25-28 then record that on the third day after the men of Shekhem circumcised themselves, Shimon and Levi massacred the male population of the town and Yaakov’s sons pillaged the town. Note, as I discuss on 34:1-35:5, "How old was Dina when Shekhem wanted to marry her?" I believe that Yosef and probably also Yehuda were not living with the family at this time, and hence they were not involved in the plunder of the town.

A side point: 34:29 adds that as part of this plunder of the town, the sons of Yaakov took many captives from the town, but we never hear of these captive again. Could this mean that Yaakov forced his children to let the captives go?

How can one understand this massacre and plunder? 34:7 records that Shekhem the son of Hamor had done a nevelah be-Yisrael, a deplorable act, by having sex with Dina. Thus, the Torah condemned his action whether it was technically rape or not, but did he and the men of Shekhem deserve to die and the city be plundered especially after they had made a deal with the sons of Yaakov to circumcise themselves (34:18-24)? Many answers have been suggested to understand the behavior of Shimon, Levi and the other sons of Yaakov.

One: Rambam (Laws of Kings 9:14) writes that the people of Shekhem were guilty of not following the seven laws of Noah, and thus they deserved to die. Their guilt was that Shekhem the son of Hamor had kidnapped Dina (34:26, see below argument by Sternberg) and the people did not act as judges to punish him.

Two: Ibn Kaspi (1278-1340, quoted by N. Leibowitz, 1976, p. 387) argues that 34:27, which records “they (Yaakov’s sons) looted the city which defiled their sister,” implies that all the population of Shekhem were guilty of raping Dina. He writes, “This ends any moral objection since the Lawgiver Himself testifies they all had a hand in the crime.” Furthermore, the fact that the rapist had the same name as the town, Shekhem, also highlights the guilt of the town. Yet, at most the people of Shekhem were accomplices to the rape and kidnapping, did they deserve to die after they agreed to circumcise themselves? Also, the penalty for rape in the Torah is for the rapist to marry the victim, Devarim 22:28,29, which is what Shekhem offered to do, 34:12. It is interesting that this phrase, “which defiled their sister” in 34:27 is stated in reference to the plunder of the city but not in reference to the massacre. This might imply that the plunder of the town was justified since the people of the town were accomplices in some way to Shekhem’s (the son of Hamor) deplorable act but the defilement of Dina did not justify the killing of the men of Shekhem.

Three: The Gur Aryeh (on 34:13, Maharal of Prague, see also Ramban on 34:13) criticizes the Rambam’s approach since the people of Shekhem could not have been responsible for not judging their leader when presumably they were in no position to have done so. He suggests that the episode should be viewed as a war between the people of Shekhem and the brothers of Yaakov, and once there is a war, then the entire population of the town, even those who were not directly involved in the rape were responsible since they were part of the town. This idea might explain why Yaakov’s sons decided to plunder the town, but this war seems to be one-sided since the people of Shekhem thought they made a treaty with Yaakov and his family.

Four: Meir Sternberg (1985, p. 445) notes “that mass slaughter does not balance against rape according to conventional normative scales,” but the goal of the narrative is to make the punishment fit the crime.

One argument for this idea is that 34:26 records that after Shimon and Levi massacred the town, they took back Dina. Sternberg claims that this shows that Dina had also been kidnapped, and by placing this information after the massacre, we see that the people of Shekhem “largely brought down that violence on themselves by seeking to impose their will on Jacob’s family” (p. 468). Yet, as pointed out by Fewell and Gunn (1991) all 34:26 states is that Dina was staying in Shekhem’s house, but we cannot know conclusively that she was detained, as maybe she agreed to stay with him. Or, maybe after the people of Shekhem circumcised themselves, then she went to live with Shekhem following the deal that the brothers of Yaakov made with Shekhem and Hamor.

Sternberg's second argument is from the last verse of chapter 34, 34:31, which records that after Yaakov accused Shimon and Levi of endangering the family, Shimon and Levi defended their actions by claiming “should our sister be treated like a whore?” Sternberg argues that Shimon and Levi acted out of idealism to defend their sister’s honor, and as they are given the last word “- and what a last word!-” (p. 475), this shows that the Torah believes that their action to redress the wrong done to their sister was justified. Yet, how does this idealism accord with their plunder of the city?  Also, as I argue below, they do not have the last word since the last word is Yaakov’s statement in 35:3.

Five: Leon Kass (2003, p. 481) argues that Shimon and Levi were claiming that “their failure to defend their sister’s honor would be tantamount to regarding her as a harlot," as he notes that Roman law did not recognize rape of a harlot as a punishable crime. Yet, defending their sister’s honor did not necessitate killing the male population of Shekhem. Thus, Kass writes (p. 497) that “fair minded readers of the story are left with nagging questions... The potential – in this case - actual extremism to which proper vengeance can grow troubles us." However, he concludes (p. 498), “we are moved by the suggestion that a community culture that will make war to defend the virtue of its women, against a community that dishonors other people’s women, proves itself- by this very fact of its willingness to fight and die for its daughters and sisters- to be not only more fit to survive and flourish but also superior in justice.” This is at best a relative defense of Yaakov’s sons, and going to war when the people of Shekhem agreed to the deal of Yaakov’s sons to circumcise themselves does not seem to be “superior in justice.”

Six: The sons of Yaakov were acting based on the culture of their times. The best proof for this approach is that, as noted by many, this story has many parallels to the Greek story of the sack of Troy by Agamemnon, which was because Paris, the prince of Troy, took/ abducted Helen, the wife of Agamemnon’s brother Menelaus.

Seven: A completely different approach is that there was no justification for the massacre. S. R. Hirsch (1989, p. 523, on 34:25) writes:  "Now the blameworthy part begins, which we need in no wise excuse. Had they killed Shekhem and Hamor, there would be scarcely anything to say against it. But they did not spare the unarmed men who were at their mercy, yea, and went further and looted, altogether made the inhabitants pay for the crime of the landowner. For that there was no justification."

Hertz (1960, pp. 128,129, see also N. Leibowitz, 1976, p. 385) also follows this approach and writes, “the sons of Jacob certainly acted in a treacherous and godless manner.” 

This seventh approach vilifies the brothers, and exonerates Yaakov because he criticized Shimon and Levi both here, 34:30, and in his final testament, 49:5-7.

However, in 34:30, Yaakov only gave a practical reason for why Shimon and Levi should not have murdered the men of Shekhem that their actions had endangered the entire family: “You have stirred up trouble for me, making me stink among the land's inhabitants, among the Canaanite and Perizzite, when I am handful of men. If they gather against me and strike me, I shall be destroyed, I and my household,” (Altar, 2004, p. 193, translation).  Why did Yaakov only give a practical reason when he criticized Shimon and Levi and why did he not respond to their declaration in 34:31?

Prior to trying to understand Yaakov’s statement, it should be kept in mind that even if Yaakov was not sufficiently critical of Shimon and Levi this still would not justify their actions. With that proviso, the most reasonable reason why Yaakov gave a practical reason was because he hoped that this reason would make Shimon and Levi and the rest of his sons understand that they were wrong. Maybe, he thought that if he called them murderers, then for sure they would not listen to him. In addition, maybe he thought that Shimon and Levi would try to justify their killing of the town since they might have claimed that if they just killed Shekhem, then the people of the town would have come after them. Thus, Yaakov was pointing out that this logic did not solve their problem since still the neighboring people could come after them and the family. Also, it could be that while Yaakov was directing his fury at Shimon and Levi, the worst culprits, he still wanted to reproach his other sons who also nullified the agreement with the people of Shekhem by plundering the town. Thus, his statement that “you made me stink amongst the land’s inhabitants” included all of his sons who had participated in making and then breaking the deal with Shekhem, Hamor and the people of Shekhem.

Whatever was Yaakov’s logic, his statement seems to have made no impression, as Shimon and Levi responded by claiming that if they had not killed the town, then they would have made their sister Dina into a whore. How did this statement respond to Yaakov’s statement that they had endangered the entire family? Were they claiming that it was more important to protect Dina’s honor than the lives of the entire family? It seems that Shimon and Levi were so fixated on the family's honor that they were unconcerned about the effects of their actions. Were they depending on miracles? Their lack of concern for the consequences of their actions shows that they were acting irrationally.

In addition, the family's honor had not been impinged. Shekhem had agreed to marry Dina and he and the whole town had circumcised themselves to make a deal with Yaakov and his sons (see Luzzatto on 34:31). Accordingly, Dina was not being treated like a whore. While Sternberg and others believe that Shimon and Levi’s justification for murdering the people of Shekhem shows idealism, their declaration in 34:31 indicates that they had become raving lunatics.

The brother’s desire to kill Yosef, 37:20 (except for Reuven), also contradicts the defense of idealism. Not only do we see a consistent pattern of violence (whether the incident in Shekhem was before or after they expressed their desire to kill their brother), but also, here they claimed to be acting for concern for their sister, while there they were trying to kill their brother? Instead, in both cases, they had become enraged (for different reasons) and this caused to murder or express their desire to murder.

Yaakov understood from Shimon and Levi’s response in 34:31 that nothing he could say would make them comprehend the terrible actions that they had done, and then there was no point for him to respond to their ranting. The idea being that when people are screaming irrationally there is nothing a person can do to answer them. (I have seen this behavior in my lifetime.) Instead, Yaakov waited until his death bed when he criticized their actions on moral grounds, 49:5-7.

In addition, it could be that G-d intervened even before Yaakov had a chance to respond, as 35:1 records that G-d spoke to Yaakov, and we have no idea how soon after the conversation between Yaakov and Shimon and Levi this conversation between G-d and Yaakov transpired.

I think most people think that the incident here ended with Shimon and Levi’s statement in 34:31, but the incident did not end until 35:5 which records that the family left the town of Shekhem and went to Bet-El. This misconception that Shimon and Levi had the last word might because there is a parasha petucha after 34:31, and/ or because in the 13th century, Archbishop Stephen Langton decided that 34:31 would be the last verse in the chapter. If one reads the Torah that that incident ended in 35:5, then it is clear that the Torah is not trying to justify the actions of the brothers of Dina.

35:1 records that G-d told Yaakov to go to Bet-El to offer sacrifices to the G-d who appeared to you when you were running away from Esav. While Rashi (on 35:1) claims that this message was a warning to Yaakov that if he did not offer the sacrifices, then he would suffer more, from 35:3 we see that this was not how Yaakov understood the message.

35:3 records that Yaakov told his family that they were to go to Bet-El, and he would offer sacrifices to the G-d who answered him in his troubles, and who was with him in his travels. What is the reference to “his troubles?” Which troubles? Abarbanel (2007, p. 629) suggests two possibilities: One, the time when he had the fight in the middle of the night and meet Esav or two, the incident in Shehkem with Dina. The first possibility is not possible since in 35:3 Yaakov refers to G-d speaking to him in his troubles, and G-d did not speak to Yaakov after Yaakov fought at night and after Yaakov met with Esav. Instead, in 35:3 Yaakov is referring to G-d speaking to him in 35:1 with regard to his troubles with Dina, his sons and the people of Shekhem, which shows that that the conversation in 35:1 was right after Shimon and Levi shouted in 34:31. In addition, the fact that Yaakov referred to G-d answering him means that the conversation in 35:1 was for Yaakov’s benefit that G-d was telling him to go to Bet-El to help Yaakov. Furthermore, the end of the verse connects this going to Bet-El with G-d’s appearance to Yaakov when he was running away from Esav, and just like in that case, the vision at Bet El was to help Yaakov survive, so too in this case the going to Bet El would be to help Yaakov survive.

The following verse, 35:2, records that Yaakov told his family to remove all of their foreign gods, to purify themselves and to change their clothing. These foreign gods are quite a shock, and most commentators (see Rashi on 35:2) claim that these gods were part of the booty that Yaakov’s children took from Shekhem. This could be true, but it could be that they had these idols from before. The purifying and changing the clothing is similar to the preparations of the Jewish people before the Decalogue, Shemot 19:10, but there the people were to me-kadesh themselves, while here the family was to purify themselves. Also, there the people were to wash the clothing while here the people were to change their clothing. What was the need for this change of clothing here? Was it due to their worship of idolatry or because they needed to atone for their terrible actions by Shekhem?

The next verse 35:3 records that Yaakov told the family that they were to go to Bet El, which could be an explanation for why they had to get rid of their foreign gods or it could be that the removal of the foreign gods was independent of the family going to Bet El. In any event, in this verse, Yaakov first begins by stating that everybody was to go to Bet El, but then he states that only he would offer a sacrifice there. We see again that the going to Bet-El and offering a sacrifice was for Yaakov’s benefit, and should not be thought of as a reward for the terrible actions by Yaakov’s sons since they would not participate at all in the sacrifice. Furthermore, in 35:3 Yaakov stresses (four times) how G-d saved him. Yaakov is trying to make clear that G-d’s saving of the family now by telling them to go to Bet-El was because G-d was saving him and should not be interpreted as G-d acting to save his sons. This statement by Yaakov is the last word in the incident of Dina. Alas, the apologetic readers who defend Shimon and Levi seem to ignore 35:3.

The following verse, 35:4, is that the family gave to Yaakov all of the foreign gods, even their earrings, and Yaakov buried these items by Shekhem. This is the first action of the family since the conversation between Yaakov and Shimon and Levi, and everybody bowed to Yaakov’s authority. One curiosity about this verse is the reference to the earrings. It must be that the earrings had idolatrous figures within them, as otherwise why would Yaakov have to bury them (see Luzzatto on 35:4).

Why did the Torah have to mention the earrings? Once the Torah recorded that Yaakov’s family gave him all of their foreign gods, why is there a need to specify that they even gave him their earrings? The answer is that the verse does not only state that they gave him their earrings but also that they took the earrings from their ears. This reminds us of the Jewish people by the making of the golden calf, who also took off their earrings from their ears to make the golden calf, Shemot 32:2,3. This taking of the earrings from their ears by Yaakov’s family shows that even if the foreign gods were from the booty from Shekhem, they had not just taken the idols but that they had adopted them by attaching them to their ears. Even without this reference to the idolatry of the people by the sin of the golden calf, these earrings show that Yaakov’s family worshiped idolatry in some sense.

The following verse, 35:5, the last verse in the incident with Dina and Shekhem, records that in the aftermath of the massacre, G-d stopped the people who lived around Shekhem from attacking Yaakov and his family. Thus, Yaakov’s fear that he expressed in 34:30 did not happen, but could Yaakov have known that G-d would do a miracle to save him and his family? 

Could one understand that G-d did a miracle to support Shimon and Levi and the brothers of Dina? We already saw from 35:1,3 that the going to Bet-El was for Yaakov and hence G-d’s protection of the family when they went to Bet-El was because of Yaakov, and the members of Yaakov’s family were incidentally protected.  Can one claim that Shimon and Levi worthy of G-d doing a miracle for them? The information from 35:2,4 that Yaakov family had idols precludes this possibility. Specifically, the extra information about the earrings in 35:4 indicates that Shimon and Levi and the brothers were not righteous people who acted in Shekhem out of religiosity and who were worthy of G-d doing miracles for them, but idol worshippers who killed and robbed like regular people sometimes do. G-d would not intervene to save people who worshipped idols but G-d intervened to save Yaakov.

Another proof (if needed) that the Torah disapproved of the murder of the men of Shekhem by Shimon and Levi is that afterwards, in the entire Yosef story, Levi is not mentioned at all, and Shimon is only mentioned incidentally when Yosef locked him up to force his brothers to bring Binyamin to Egypt, 42:24. Yaakov referred to Shimon being locked up, 42:36, but he made no effort to free Shimon. Their silence and anonymity are in contrast to chapter 34 where Shimon and Levi stand out amongst the brothers, and suggest that after what they did to the men of Shekhem they were sidelined in the family and lost any power, prestige they might have had. This would mean that the Torah gave Yaakov the last word, and their fall in the family can be the reason why the incident is recorded altogether since it serves as the background for the rise of Yehuda in the family.

Bibliography:

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

Fewell, Danna Nolan and David M. Gunn, 1991, "Tipping the balance: Sternberg's reader and the rape of Dinah," Journal of Biblical Literature, 110:2, Summer 1991, pp. 193-211.

Hertz, J. H. (1872-1946), 1960, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, second edition, London: Soncino Press.

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

Kass, Leon, 2003, The Beginning of wisdom, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

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

Sternberg, Meir, 1985, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Camels in the book of Bereshit

Bereshit 12:16 records that Pharaoh gave camels to Avram (Avraham) as a present. Later when Avraham sent his servant to find a wife for Yitzhak, camels are mentioned repeatedly, 24:10-64. Yaakov also had camels, 30:43, 31:17,34, 32:8,16 and camels are referred to when the Yishmaelites took Yosef to Egypt, 37:25. All of these references to camels have been questioned since Albright (1960) claimed that the camel was only domesticated in the land of Israel around 1000-1100 BCE, long after the lives of the patriarchs. This claim has been buttressed by a study from Sapir-Hen and Ben-Yosef (2013) who using radiocarbon dating argue that the first significant appearance of camels in the Aravah Valley (an area a little north of Eilat towards the Dead Sea) was not earlier than the 10th century BCE. How could Avraham, his servant and Yaakov have had camels?

Before reviewing some of the evidence not referred to in the above studies, it should be mentioned that, as pointed out by Sarna (1989, p. 96), in the book of Bereshit, the camel is not the main animal used for travelling, but rather it was a sign of prestige, as for example Avraham’s servant took the camels to impress the family of the prospective bride to Yitzhak. In the book of Bereshit, when an animal is needed for regular work, then a donkey was used: Avraham travelled to the akedah with a donkey, 22:3, Yosef's brothers travelled with donkeys to Egypt, 42:26, and Yosef sent supplies to his father with donkeys, 45:23.

Landa (2016, p. 107) notes that if the camels were added anachronistically to the Torah, then one would certainly have expected camels to be referred to when the brothers went to Egypt to get supplies and when Yosef sent back supplies. One can add that when Avimelekh gives Avraham presents after abducting Sara, he gave sheep and oxen, but not camels, 22:14. Again if camels were added to the Torah anachronistically, then one would certainly have expected that Avimelekh would have given camels to Avraham just like Pharaoh had given camels to Avraham in similar circumstances. Landa also points out that horses are first mentioned in Egypt when the Egyptians were offering their animals to Yosef to get food, 47:17, but Pharaoh did not give Avraham horses since horses seem not to have yet arrived in Egypt. However, if one claims that camels were added to the Torah anachronistically, then why were horses not added as well?

What is the archeological evidence concerning camels? Bulliet (1975) has an extensive discussion on the history of the camel, and he discusses Albright’s dating of camels. Bulliet notes (pp. 45,56) that the camel was most likely in Somalia between the years 2500-1500 BCE, and "that the domestication process first got under way between 3000 and 2500 BCE,” which is before the time of Avraham. Furthermore, he notes (p. 60) that camel hair was found in a cord in an Egyptian gypsum work from around the year 2500 BCE. Also, a bronze figurine from before 2182 BCE which was on a foundation which had "strong Egyptian influence" appears to have a picture of a camel. In addition, he notes (p. 62) that there are drawings of camels on a pot found in Greece and on a seal found in Crete both of which date to around 1500 BCE. Furthermore, (p. 64) in a list of rations found in a northern Syria, Alalakh, from around the 18th century BCE there is a reference to food for camels. Bulliet concludes (p. 65):

The most satisfactory explanation of this circumstance is that the camel was known because it was brought into the area by traders carrying goods from southern Arabia but that it was not bred or herded in the area. It is worthy of note whereas the citations from the Bible associating camels with Abraham and his immediate descendants seem to fit the generalized pattern of later camel use in the area, they could also fit a pattern in which camels were very uncommon. The largest number of animals mentioned in those episodes is ten, and those ten are probably most of what Abraham had since they were sent with his servant with the apparent intention of creating a sufficiently wealthy impression to entice the father of a woman of good family into letting his daughter cross the desert to marry Isaac. No man, incidentally, is described as riding a camel, only women, who seem to have perched atop camp goods instead of riding in an enclosed women's traveling compartment as was later to be the norm.

This does not mean, necessarily, that Abraham or his descendants were mixed up in the Arabian incense trade, although they lived in such great proximity to the main route from Syria to Arabia that such involvement might have been possible. It means simply that in the nineteenth and eighteenth centuries BCE when Abraham and his immediate descendants appear to have lived, camels were already known in small numbers in the northwestern corner of the Arabian desert the western Arabian trade route branched out to go to Egypt or further into Syria. Local tribes in the area may have owned a few of the animals, perhaps as articles of prestige, without being heavily involved in breeding them….

(pp. 66,67) The probable sequence of events seems to have been that by 2000 BCE incense was reaching Syria with some regularity along the western Arabian land route. Some Semitic speaking tribes saw the potential benefits of this trade and became interested in it at its northern extremity. In Biblical parlance these would be the Ishamaelites who appear in the story of Joseph as traders of incense. Other tribes, probably later, undertook to follow the trade back to its source and this became the nucleus of Semitic settlement in southern Arabia. Again in Biblical parlance these would seem to be the children of Abraham's son Jokshan (Bereshit 25:2, Arabic Yuqtan progenitor of the south Arabian tribes). When the Semites had arrived in sufficient numbers, they overwhelmed the indigenous inhabitants of southern Arabia, and became themselves masters of the land and the incense trade.

 

The entire process, it has been argued, took place without the benefit of camel transport, the camels making their appearance only at a much later date from parts unknown. But it has been demonstrated that the camel was already in use during the period in question and that its probable homeland was southern Arabia. It is much more reasonable, therefore, to assume that the camel was the main carrier of the incense route from the very beginning, or nearly so, and the Semitic tribes came to know the camel in this way in very small numbers. In other words, the presence of camels in the Abraham story can be defended and story treated as primary evidence of camel use without disrupting Albright's contention that camel-breeding nomads did not exist in Syria and northern Arabia at that time.

A short time after Bulliet's study, Compagnoni and Tosi (1978) reported finding camel bones, camel dung and camel hair in ruins of a settlement in southeastern Iran, Shahr-I Sokhta (today province of Sistan in eastern Iran) that dates to around 2500-2600 BCE. They also provide a table (p. 98) which lists findings of camel bones in southern Turkmenia and representation of camels in Kashan (central Iran) from 3000-3500 BCE. They also note (p. 100) that in a finding off the coast of Abu Dhabi "representations in relief on tombstones and osteological finds of camels are dated as early as 2500 BCE, have revealed a convergence between Iran and Oman, in the more highly evolved farming communities, in the domestication process of C. bactrianus (two-humped camel) and C. dromedaries (one humped camel)." They write, (p. 99) "In conclusion, in the third millennium all archaeological evidence points to the fact that the dromedary (one humped camel) occupied an area lying between Oman and Sind (eastern Pakistan) to the east and North Africa and Palestine to the west."

Potts (2004) reviews the presence of the two humped camels in the Middle East (Camelus Bactrianus) and he concludes (p. 161), "in view of the ever increasing body of evidence for ties between Central Asia and Elam (western Iran), and between Elam and Assyria and Mari (eastern Syria on the Euphrates) in the early 2nd millennium BCE (between 2000 BCE and 1500 BCE), it is entirely possible that this was the period in which the peoples of the Near East first became aware of Camelus Bactrianus."

These two findings show that camels would have been known in Haran (northern Syria) when Avraham’s servant came and would explain how Yaakov acquired camels.

A more recent finding is from Steinkeller (2009) who discusses a tablet that has been dated to Ur III period, during the reign of Shulgi (approximately 2094-2047 BCE), maybe 100-200 years before Avraham. The tablet records a gift to the King of Ur of various animals, and Steinkeller (p. 416) writes that there is a "strong possibility that the herbivore (on the tablet) in question is the two-humped Bactrian camel." Avraham was from Ur, and we see that camels existed in his locale. Furthermore, the fact that the camel was given as a gift accords with the references to camels as being animals of prestige in the book of Bereshit.

An even more recent finding is Maria Guagnin et al (2023, p. 2) who write:

A tradition of large, naturalistic camel engravings has recently been documented across northern Saudi Arabia. This tradition is represented at sites such as the Camel Site in Jawf Province, where life-sized camels were carved in high relief. Analyses of the reliefs at this site, coupled with archaeological 

surveys and excavation show that use of the site overlapped with the mid-sixth millennium BCE.

These engravings would indicate that camels lived in northern Saudi Arabia several thousand years before Avraham lived, and from the figures in the article, it looks like the camels were one humped camels. 

Accordingly, these new finds show that camels (one humped and probably two humped) were known and used by humans, though probably not on an extensive scale, and not in all places, in the time of Avraham. Avraham could then have received camels as a gift from Pharaoh, and it was from these camels that his servant had camels to take to find a wife for Yitzhak.

Bibliography:

Albright, William Foxwell, 1960 (first published, 1949), The archaeology of Palestine, Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books.

Bulliet, Richard W., 1975, The camel and the wheel, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Compagnoni, Bruno and Maurizio Tosi, 1978, The Camel: Its distribution and state of domestication in the Middle East during the third millennium B.C. in light of finds from Shahr-I Sokhta, in Approaches to Faunal Analysis in the Middle East, edited by Richard H. Meadow and Melinda A. Zeder, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, pp. 91-103.

Guagnin, Maria, Ceri Shipton, Finn Stileman, Faisal Jibreen, Malek Al Sulaimi, Paul S. Breeze, Mathew Stewart, Amy Hatton, Nick Drake, Deepak Kumar Jha, Fahad Al-Tamimi, Mohammed Al-Shamry, Mishaal Al-Shammari, Andrea Kay, Huw S. Groucutt, Abdullah M. Alsharekh, Michael Petraglia, 2023, Before the Holocene humid period: Life-sized camel engravings and early occupations on the southern edge of the Nefud desert, Archaeological Research in Asia, Vol. 36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2023.100483.

Landa, Judah, 2016, Camels in the Bible, Jewish Bible Quarterly, 44:2, pp. 103-115.

Potts, D.T., 2004, Camel hybridization and the role of Camelus Bactrianus in the ancient Near East, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 47:2, pp. 143-165.

Sapir-Hen, Lidar and Erez Ben-Yosef, 2013, The introduction of domestic camels to the southern Levant: Evidence from the Aravah Valley, Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, 40:2, pp. 277-285.

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

Steinkeller, Piotr, 2009, Camels in Ur III Babylonia, in Exploring the longue durée: Essays in honor of Lawrence E. Stager, edited by J. David Schloen, Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, pp. 415-419.

Bereshit 1:20-30 - The description of creation in the Torah and evolution

Day five: 1:20-23: The creation of organisms that move

1:20 records that G-d said that the waters should swarm with sheretz nefesh chaya and ohf that would fly to penei rekia ha-shamayim. This saying by G-d means that G-d created or caused to evolve organisms that lived in the water and organisms that could fly. I believe that the term nefesh chaya implies movement, which means that the first half of 1:21 is recording the creation of creatures that could move in the water. This could be Cnidarians and/ or Deuterostomes which appeared around 500-600 million years ago. 1:20 then means that the Torah skipped many stages in the development of life. Also, the verse indicates that life began in the water, which corresponds to modern science. Note, this verse seems not to be referring to fish since they would not be considered as sheretzim, crawling organisms, though Rashi (on 1:20) labels the fish as sheretzim. Yet, there is no need for the Torah to mention the creation of every organism, as just a select few are mentioned.

The second half of 1:20 refers to ohf that would fly to penei rekia ha-shamayim. This phrase raises at least two questions. One, what is meant by the term ohf, birds or insects, and two, what does it mean that they could fly to penei rekia ha-shamayim?

Aviezer (1990, pp. 85, 127) suggests that insects (and marine animals) were created on day five and that the day corresponds to the time from approximately 635 million years ago to 250 million years ago. He notes (pp. 82-84) that there were giant insects in the period and that one type of dragonfly had a wing span of 30 inches. The end of the period according to Aviezer was the Paleozoic era, which was marked by a very large extinction. Rashi (on 1:20) also writes that ohf here means flies.

Slifkin (2006, p. 185, footnote 3) critiques Aviezer's chronology for day five since he argues that the word ohf in 1:20-22 refers just to birds and not to flying insects, as Vayikra 11:21 uses the words sherets ohf when the reference is to insects. Also, 1:28 records that mankind was blessed to have dominion over the ohf in the sky and it is doubtful that this blessing was to dominate insects.

A clue to understanding what the term ohf means in 1:20 is to compare it with the term winged ohf in 1:21. The added term winged shows that the ohf in 1:20 and the ohf in 1:21 are different. 1:20 is referring to insects which are not referred to as winged organisms, even though most insects have wings, and 1:21 is referring to the creation of birds, where the wings are more prominent. (See our discussion on 1:6,7; 1:11,12 and 1:14,16, https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2014/10/bereshit-11-19-bereshit-some-thoughts.html that when the Torah records that G-d spoke and later that G-d created, as in 1:20,21 this is referring to two different acts of creation. Thus, one has to distinguish between the acts of creation of 1:20 with those recorded in 1:21.)

With this understanding, one could still agree with Slifkin that the blessing in 1:28 is referring to birds, and that Vayikra 11:21 is referring to insects. In 1:21 the Torah modified the term ohf to be winged ohf to distinguish the birds from the insects in 1:20, but afterwards the Torah would not have to use this extra term, winged. Instead, ohf becomes birds and when dealing, relatively rarely, with insects, that term is modified to be sheretz ohf.

What does it mean that the insects (or if one wants, birds) could fly to penei rekia ha-shamayim? Above in our discussion on day two, we explained that rakia means either the galaxy or the solar system, but no insects or birds could fly into either the solar system or the galaxy. However, the word penei qualifies the area of their flying, to be either towards the rakia or before the rakia, but 1:20 does not state that they flew into the rakia.

1:21 then records that G-d bara, created, the tanninim ha-gadolim, the nefesh chaya ha-romeset, which the water had swarmed forth of each kind (Altar, 2004, p. 8), and the winged ohf of each kind. What are the tanninim ha-gadolim and what does it mean the nefesh chaya ha-romeset which the water had swarmed forth?

Rashi (on 1:21) explains that the tanninim ha-gadolim were giant fish. Cassuto (1961, pp. 49-51 and Sarna, 1989, p. 10) notes that people have understood tanninim ha-gadolim as being sea monsters, and then the verse states that G-d created these sea monsters to demonstrate that these monsters were under G-d's control. Yet, it is difficult to argue that tanninim ha-gadolim really means sea monsters, unless one believes that sea monsters actually exist or existed. If one does not accept their existence, then it cannot be that the Torah states that G-d created a non-existent animal, even if it is to correct erroneous beliefs. However, I would agree that the Torah uses the word bara, create, because if a person mistakenly believes in sea monsters, and thinks that tanninim ha-gadolim are sea monsters, then the person should know that the sea monsters were created by G-d. (This would be similar to the use of the term azazel on Yom Kippur, see our discussion on Vayikra 16:7,8, "To azazel" https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2016/04/167-10-aharei-mot-to-azazel.html.)

Aviezer (1990, pp. 81-86) writes that the tanninim ha-gadolim were aquatic creatures in the Ediacaran period (approximately 635 million years ago to 540 million years) which were large relative to the aquatic creatures in the following period the Cambrian age (approximately 540 million years ago to 490 million years ago). Aviezer quotes from Rashi that the tanninim were killed shortly after they were created and he claims this accords with his identification of the tanninim since the Ediacaran creatures became extinct. (Another possibility according to Aviezer's chronology is synapsids, which were the dominant terrestrial animals, up to ten feet in length, in the period up to the massive extinction at the end of the Paleozoic era.)

Schroeder (1997, p. 193) suggests that tanninim ha-gadolim were dinosaurs since he understands that the word tannin is reptiles, and then dinosaurs would be the biggest or the greatest reptiles. Slifkin (2006, pp. 232, 233) disputes this identification for several reasons. One, he claims that tannin are "serpentine creatures" not "the general category of reptiles," and dinosaurs were not serpentine. Two, he claims that 1:20,21 implies that tanninim ha-gadolim were aquatic creatures, while the "overwhelming majority of dinosaurs were terrestrial." These questions are answerable. If the Torah wanted to refer to dinosaurs, then it is unclear what term would have been more appropriate than tannin since the Torah could not use the word dinosaur, which would have been incomprehensible to all people until the 19th century. Thus, once tannin refers to some reptiles, it could refer to dinosaurs. Furthermore, in 1:21, the tanninim ha-gadolim are distinct from the animals that swarm (romes) in the water, and hence the tanninim ha-gadolim need not be aquatic creatures.

All these suggestions are possible but there exists a simpler explanation. Tanninim ha-gadolim can be referring to large crocodiles, which is the usual definition of the word tannin, as for example in Shemot 7:9-12. In 2005 there was a finding of a large sea dwelling crocodile that lived 135 million years ago, and who was been nicknamed by scientists, Godzilla, see Chang (2005).

What does it mean in 1:21 the nefesh chaya ha-romeset which the water had swarmed forth?  Does the phrase ha-romeset mean that the animals were swarming in the water? With this understanding, the phrase is referring to larger animals from 1:20, such as crustaceans (lobsters?). Or, does the word remes mean all movement in the water, not specifically crawling, and then the reference would include fish.  A support for this is that the same term in Vayikra 11:46 seems to be referring to fish. Another possibility is that the phrase also refers to animals that came from the water, but now were able to crawl on land. With this third possibility, the phrase could be referring to amphibious animals or even early mammals that evolved from animals that had lived at sea.  The final set of animals referred to in 1:21 is winged ohf, which as mentioned above are birds.  The fact that birds are recorded last in the verse might accord with the idea that birds derive from dinosaurs, though of course the order could not be significant.  In any event, both 1:20 and 1:21 are not referring to all animals, but the verses are describing a gamut of animals that were created, from creatures who swarm to creatures who fly, and maybe including creatures that swim.

With regard to the timing of day five, it could be that 1:20 is referring to the Paleozoic era, 540 million years ago to 252 million years ago, while 1:21 is referring to the Mesozoic eras, 252 million years ago to 66 million years ago.

The following verse, 1:22 records G-d's blessing to the animals created on day five. This verse raises two questions. One, this blessing appears after, the phrase "and G-d saw that it was good" (the end of 1:21), but one would have expected the blessing to be before the phrase "and G-d saw that it was good" as occurs in day six, 1:28-31. Two, who is being blessed to fill the waters?

With regard to the first question, maybe the order of the blessing in reference to G-d’s seeing was changed since many of the animals created on day five became extinct. For example, both the Paleozoic and the Mesozoic eras ended with great extinctions. Possibly then when these animals were alive, G-d said that it was good (the end of 1:21) that they had existed, and then after they died, G-d was blessing the survivors of the extinctions that they would continue to exist.

With regard to the second question, many understand the blessing to fill the water to be to the fish, and this would depend on understating the word romeset in 1:21 to refer to fish or that fish are included within the gamut of animals created on day five. Or if one believes that romeset in 1:21 is only to crawling creatures, then one can understand that the blessing in 1:22 with regard to filling the water was to the crustaceans and/ or amphibians, who might be referred to on day five.

To summarize, day five probably refers to the years from 540 million years ago to 66 million years ago, and the dominant animals in this period were the giant reptiles, the tanninim ha-gadolim. In addition, the Torah also refers to the creation of flying insects, birds, and possibly amphibians and small mammals that were early types of rodents.

Day six: 1:24-31: The creation of modern mammals and humans

Day six records two acts of creation. One, the creation of hayyot, behamot and all remes ha-adamah, 1:24,25, and two, humans, 1:26-30. Both of these creations refer to land animals, and this raises a question with regard to the relationship between days five and six of creation. Carl Feit (1990, pp. 31,32) notes that there is some affinity between science and the description of creation in Genesis since in the Torah "these is a gradual ascent from chaos to order, whether from inorganic to organic matter or from lifeless to vegetable or animal matter." However, he notes there are some inconsistencies, as for example the question of how could plant life precede the sun, which we tried to answer at https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2014/10/bereshit-11-19-bereshit-some-thoughts.html, and how could it be that flying creatures (day five) existed before land animals (day six).

As discussed above, Aviezer attempted to answer this question by claiming that day five only refers to flying insects and flying insects preceded land animals. However, I cannot accept this answer since I think that 1:21 was referring to the creation of birds. There are two other ways to explain how the animals mentioned in day six could have been created after the birds in day five.

One, as mentioned above, 1:21 could be understood to refer to animals that swarmed from the water, and these could be early mammals who left the seas. Thus, mammals would have existed on day five, and birds who are mentioned later in the verse, would have been created after land animals such as those early mammals and other reptiles.

Two, while many understand that 1:24,25 refer to all land animals or all mammals, this is not what the verses state. The verses records that G-d created or caused to evolve chaya nefesh according to its kind: behamot, va-remes and chayot. These are very specific land animals, and the verse is not referring to all mammals that ever existed.

The traditional view (Rambam, Laws of forbidden foods, 1:8, also see Ibn Ezra on 1:24) is that behamot are just ox, sheep and goats. My understanding is that behamot are the class of mammals called ungulates. With either view, the creation referred to in day six is to animals who began to exist way after birds first existed.

With my understating that behamot mean ungulates, 1:24,25 can only be referring to a time when ungulates existed, which was approximately 65 million years ago, the beginning of the Cenozoic era. Furthermore, animals that could eventually be domesticated, such as horses, are even later, approximately 50 million years ago. With the traditional definition of the word behamot, the verses are referring to an even later period, as the Ruminantia suborder, which includes goats and cattle, is estimated to have begun to develop approximately 46 million years ago.

Accordingly, 1:24,25 are then referring only to new types of animals from between 65-46 million years ago until the present. It is not clear what are the other two types of animals in 1:24,25. My guess is that the three categories of creatures in 1:24,25 correspond roughly to the three categories of land animals in Vayikra 11:26-30. One, the behama, Vayikra 11:26, which we just mentioned, two, the chayat ha-aretz is to animals that walk on their paws high off the ground, Vayikra 11:27, and three, the remes would be the types of animals specified in Vayikra 11:29,30, animals that seem to move closer to the ground, like rabbits, shrews, or rodents. These types of animals would be the animals that entered Noah's ark, 7:14, and those that were killed by the flood, 7:21, "modern mammals," as the Torah refers to these animals with the same words used in 1:24. New reptiles could be included in this list as either wild animals or as animals that crawl on the ground, but this would only be reptiles that developed in the last 50 million years. If someone (see Sarna, 1989, p. 11) believes that the word remes in 1:24,25 refers to insects, then still the verse would only refer to new insects from the Cenozoic era.

Consequently, day six of creation refers to the period when mammals became the dominant type of creature on the earth. Mammals existed on day five but their existence is not explicitly recorded or not recorded at all in verses 1:21,22, just like there is no mention of the creation of fish on days five or six, even though fish existed in both of these periods, and their existence is referred to in 1:28. Accordingly, there is no contradiction between the order of the development of animals based on science and that recorded in the Torah on days five and six of creation.

One other question about 1:24,25 is whether the verses are referring to the same act of creation or two separate acts? My inclination is to view the verses as referring to two different events. 1:24, with the word tosei, indicates a more natural process, and would be that G-d caused the natural forces of evolution to work, and then 1:25 refers to G-d intervening in the evolution process since there was a need to ensure that the process would lead to mankind.

1:26,27 refer to the creation of humans, the genus homo, but not specifically to homo sapiens. While mankind is physically similar to all mammals (and all animals) he/ she is intrinsically different since G-d intervened in the evolutionary process to endow him/ her with the image of G-d, "tselem Elokim." The blessings in 1:28-30 are indicative of homo's potential, and it would only be homo sapiens that would later actualize these blessings. This development is recorded in the story of the Garden of Eden in chapters two and three of the book of Bereshit.

We have tried to show that chapter one in Bereshit can be understood to accord with modern scientific theories, modest concordism. The creation of the world could not have been a random process, as based on current scientific theories it is mathematically impossible for the world and humans to have come about randomly. Thus, as some stages G-d intervened in the process to move things along and G-d established the laws of science that enabled the process of evolution to occur. I believe this is what Reuben Gross (quoted in Carmell and Domb, 1978, p. 238) had in mind, when he wrote:

Assuming that the Darwinists have correctly described the mechanism of creation, all they have done is to dis-establish the Creator as mechanic-mason-carpenter of a static world, but at the same time they have unwittingly re-established Him as an engineer-architect, kiv'yochol, of a self-adjusting complex, dynamic world and the Creator or legislator of the fitness standards and rules of adaptability.

A final point is that the interpretations offered here are subject to change based on new developments in parshanut and in science, but it is hoped that they will be persuasive to some of the readers and/ or inspire readers to suggest other interpretations.

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.