Bemidbar 6:11 - The nazir: In the danger zone

Bemidbar 6:11 records that after a nazir accidently came into contact with a dead body, then he/she has to bring an olah and a hatta`t and these sacrifices are le-khapper for the nazir who sinned al ha-nefesh (nafesh). This verse raises at least two questions. 

One, what was the nazir's sin? The nazir is forbidden to come into contact with a dead body, but 6:9 records that the case is where the nazir accidently came into contact with the dead body, as the dead person died suddenly. Two, what does the phrase al ha-nefesh in 6:11 mean?

Rashi (on 6:11) first quotes that the nazir's sin was that he/ she was not careful about not coming into contact with a dead body. With this approach, the phrase al ha-nefesh refers to the dead person that the nazir sinned due to the dead person. However, 6:9 states that the person died suddenly. How can the nazir be considered a sinner when he/ she accidentally came in contact with the dead body? Is the nazir supposed to live secluded with no human contact to protect him or herself from not coming into contact with a dead body?

Rashi also quotes a second approach from R. Eliezer Hakappar (Talmud, Ta'anit 11a) who argued that the phrase al ha-nefesh, refers to the nazir and not to the dead body, and the nazir's sin was becoming a nazir since he/ she was then denying him/ herself the enjoyment of wine. This approach is also difficult. If it was a sin not to drink wine, then the Torah could have made the laws of nazir to only involve two items, not to cut one's hair and not to become tamei. Also, the context of 6:11 is referring to the dead body and not to the prohibition of wine which is mentioned in 6:3,4. Furthermore, if it is really a sin to abstain from wine, then the Torah should have stated this idea in reference to all people. (My inclination is that R. Eliezer Hakappar's explanation is because he was bothered by the contradiction between the laws of nazir for whom part of becoming kadosh requires one not to drink wine, and our practice of using wine to me-kadesh Shabbat, festivals and people.)

It must be that the sin in 6:11 refers to the nazir coming into contact with the dead body since that is the context of the verse, but what can be the sin if it was a complete accident? The answer is from the similar word nafshotam in reference to the 250 people who joined with Korah to rebel against Moshe and Aharon, 17:3. What is the connection between these two cases? A possible answer is that in both cases, the nazir and the 250 people, wanted to serve G-d more. The phrase al ha-nefesh by the nazir would then signify this desire of the soul (person) to serve G-d more. Yet, still what was the nazir's sin by the unexpected death?

The answer is that while coming into contact with the dead body was an accident the person did not have to declare himself a nazir. If a regular person comes into contact with a dead body, then there is no prohibition and no sin. The sin of coming into contact with a dead body by the nazir is because the person made himself into a nazir and that was a voluntarily act. Thus, the sin was al ha-nefesh, due to the soul's desire to serve G-d more. A person can choose to become a nazir, which is not a sin, but then the person is responsible for anything that happens even if it is not his/her fault. The person by making him or herself a nazir is putting him/ herself in the "danger zone."

This explanation of 6:11 relates to the larger question of should everybody become a nazir? Or, to phrase the question differently, is becoming a nazir a desirable act? The answer to this question has been debated through the years.

As mentioned above, R. Eliezer Hakappar viewed being a nazir negatively but a second opinion in the Talmud (Ta'anit 11a), R. Eleazar argues that being a nazir is a positive act. This argument continued in the Middle Ages. Rambam (Laws of Opinions 3:1) argues that one should not be ascetic based on the view of R. Eliezer Hakappar. However, Ramban (on 6:14) views the nazir positively. As N. Leibowitz (1980, p. 56) points out, according to the Rambam it is sin to become a nazir while according to the Ramban it is a sin to stop being a nazir.

This argument between the Rambam and the Ramban relates to the different approaches to G-d, whether through mysticism or rationalism. The mystic approach, the Ramban, would be that one can get closer to G-d by subjective experience and thus the more experiences or here more restrictions, the more religious one is. The rational approach, the Rambam, would be that one can only get closer to G-d by following the laws that were commanded, and thus one would not add on what was not required.

N. Leibowitz claims that the positive approach to the nazir follows the simple sense of the text since Bemidbar 6:8 states that the nazir is kadosh. She seems to follow the idea that the word kadosh means holy or exalted, but the word kadosh just means separated, as the nazir has partially separated him/ herself from the world by not being able to become tamei, by not drinking wine, and by not cutting his/ her hair. According to our explanation of 6:11 this separation is not necessarily good since the nazir is more prone to sinning, even for events that are not his/her fault, like accidently coming into contact with a dead body. The end of 6:11 records that after bringing the olah and hatta`t sacrifices, the nazir is kadosh again, but this is not indicative of his/ her desire to be close to G-d, but that since he/ she failed the first time, then he/ she has to separate him/ herself again.

Why are the laws of nazir optional? According to the positive approach these laws should be obligatory. According to the negative approach, why are people given the chance to increase their chance of sinning?

The answer according to the positive approach is that while a being a nazir is a good thing, it would be too difficult to require all people to follow these extra prohibitions, and it can increase the sins of people. However, according to the negative approach, why can one become a nazir?

Rambam (Moreh, 3:48, 1963, pp. 599,600) writes “the reason for nazaritism is to bring about abstinence from drinking wine, which has caused the ruin of the ancients and the moderns…All of the high esteem for the nazir is because he abstains from drink.” The idea would seem to be that while being a nazir is not praiseworthy still it is better to be a nazir than a drunk. Thus, the Rambam, in the end of the Laws of Nazir, 10:14, writes that if one becomes a nazir for bad reasons then being a nazir is bad, but if one does it for sincere religious reasons, then it is a positive action. (See statement by Shimon ha-Tzaddik quoted in Nazir 4b, and Rama quoted by N. Leibowitz, 1982, p. 58.) Yet, according to this reasoning, the law of the nazir should only have involved an abstenence from wine.

A different answer is that the ability of a person to become a nazir is an opportunity for a person, usually the mystically inclined person, who feels a need to do more than required, the chance to do more. This feeling is very common in the religious persona. Thus, within the framework of the Torah, there is the opportunity to do more than one is commanded if one feels so compelled. If this outlet was not allowed, then possibly the person would end up creating new laws, which is prohibited, Devarim 4:2 and 13:1. Thus, while the nazir put him or herself in the "danger zone," the alternative is that the nazir would actually begin to worship G-d in an inappropriate manner, which would be a worse outcome. Yet, according to the adherents of the negative approach, it would have been better if the person never had any feeling to do more than required since according to this approach one should worship G-d as commanded by G-d without "extras."

My understanding of the nazir would be an intermediate position between the positive and negative approaches, as becoming a nazir would not be a sin, and can be viewed positively if a person truly feels this need to worship G-d more than what he/ she is commanded. However, since 6:11 refers to the nazir as having sinned even by an accident, the nazir would not be considered as being more exalted or praiseworthy than a person who did not become a nazir. Furthermore, since becoming a nazir makes a person more exposed to sinning, even unintentionally, it can be a mistake to become a nazir, and then if a person does not have the need to do more than what is commanded, a person should not become a nazir.

Bibliography:

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

Vayikra 16:16-20 – Which altar was purified on Yom Kippur: the outer altar, the inner altar or both?

As part of the instructions for the avodah, service on Yom Kippur, 16:16 records that Aharon was to do the same thing to the ohel moed as he did to the inner room of the mishkan. This means that he was to sprinkle blood in the ohel moed, but where exactly was he to sprinkle the blood? 

Rashi (on 16:16) explains that 16:16 means that Aharon was to sprinkle blood on the parochet, which was the veil that separated the two rooms of the mishkan, when Aharon was standing in the outer room of the mishkan. This explanation follows the idea that the ohel moed is the same area as the mishkan.

16:17 then records that no person was to be in the ohel moed when Aharon was in the kadosh (the inner room of the mishkan) until he left and that Aharon was to me-khapper for himself, his family, and the entire nation. Why were these instructions for the people not to be in the ohel moed recorded at this point in the description of the worship of Yom Kippur?

16:18 then records that Aharon was to purify (sprinkle blood on) the altar on Yom Kippur, but there were two altars in the ohel moed, the inner altar in the outer room of the mishkan, and the outer altar in the courtyard of the mishkan. Which altar is being referred to in 16:18?

Ibn Ezra (on 16:18) writes that 16:18 is referring to the altar in the courtyard of the mishkan. He does not provide a reason for this comment, but there are two possible reasons for this understanding. One 16:12 uses the same phrase the "altar before G-d" as in 16:18, and in 16:12 many claim that the reference is to the outer altar (see Rashi on 16:12). However, this reason is not conclusive since it could be that in 16:12, the verse is referring to the inner altar.  Also, since both altars could be considered as being before G-d, then it could be that 16:12 is referring to the outer altar, while 16:18 is referring to the inner altar.

The second reason for understanding that 16:18 is referring to the outer altar is much more convincing. 16:18 records that Aharon was to go out to go to the altar, and the implication is that he went out of the mishkan, which means that he went out to the outer altar which was situated in the courtyard of the mishkan. If the altar being referred to in 16:18 was the inner altar, then 16:18 would have stated either that Aharon was to go into the mishkan or the verse did not have to refer to any movement from Aharon.

Notwithstanding this apparent proof from the phrase in 16:18 that “Aharon was to go out,” Chazal argue that 16:18 is referring to the inner altar, see Mishnah Yoma 5:5, Rashi on 16:18, David Hoffman on 16:18, 1953, p. 309, and Levine, 1989, p. 105. 

Chazal understand that the instructions for Aharon to go out in 16:18 was for him to move from the curtain that separated the two rooms in the mishkan, the parokhet, to the side of the inner altar that was near the entrance of the mishkan since then Aharon was in the process of going out of the mishkan, even if he did not actually leave. The reason why they understand 16:18 in this manner is because of Shemot 30:10, which records that the inner altar was to be purified on Yom Kippur. There is no other reference to purifying an altar in Vayikra chapter 16, hence, 16:18 must be referring to the inner altar. With this understanding, only the inner altar was purified on Yom Kippur, and not the outer altar.

Most likely, in response to the need to find the fulfillment of Shemot 30:10 in Vayikra 16, Ibn Ezra (on 16:16) writes that the phrase in 16:16 "and (Aharon) will also purify the ohel moed" means that the high priest would sprinkle blood on both the curtain in between the two rooms of the mishkan, the parochet, and on the inner altar which was in the ohel moed. Maybe Ibn Ezra's understanding is that the phrase "and the high priest will also purify the ohel moed" in 16:16 means that just as the high priest was to purify the central item on the inner room of the mishkan, the aron, so too he was to purify the central item of the outer room of the mishkan, the inner altar. According to Ibn Ezra, both of the altars were sprinkled with blood on Yom Kippur.

I do not like either approach for several reasons. One, Ibn Ezra seems to be correct that the term going out in 16:18 means that Aharon was to leave the mishkan or some area and not just for him to go towards the exit. On the other hand, I doubt that the sprinkling of the blood in 16:16 is the fulfillment of Shemot 30:10 since due to Shemot 30:10 this was an important part of the service. This sprinkling should have been mentioned explicitly but it is not mentioned at all in 16:16.

In addition, I think the term ohel moed refers to the mishkan and the courtyard of the mishkan (see our discussions on Shemot 25:9, 27:21, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and the ohel moed in the book of Shemot” and on 1:1 “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra”), the entire complex, and then 16:16 means that Aharon was to sprinkle blood on the courtyard of the mishkan to purify the courtyard. This could have been on the outer altar, or the curtains on the outside of the courtyard or even symbolically on the ground in the courtyard of the mishkan. 16:17 is then a warning that nobody, including priests, who usually could be in the courtyard of the mishkan, to be in the courtyard of the mishkan and certainly not in the mishkan itself, when Aharon was purifying the inner room of the mishkan.

With this understanding, when Aharon fulfilled the instructions of 16:16 to purify the ohel moed, he was not in the outer room of the mishkan to move either towards the exit or to sprinkle blood on the inner altar.

My guess is that after Aharon was to sprinkle blood in/on the courtyard of the mishkan, as recorded in 16:16, he was to go back inside the inner room of the mishkan to take out the pan with the burning coals, where he had left them in 16:13. It is never recorded when the coals were removed from the inner room of the mishkan since this was not a major part of the service, the cleaning up, but the coals had to be removed at some point since the burning coals were a fire hazard because if they were left in the inner room then a wind could cause the aron with the luchot and the mishkan to burn. It should be remembered that the mishkan was a tent structure made of wood and cloths, which could burn easily, and many times there are very strong winds in the desert, which could cause the coals to start a fire even if the structure was sturdy enough to withstand the winds. Aharon could not have removed the coals before 16:15 since he needed the coals to make a smoke cloud when he went into the inner room of the mishkan to sprinkle the blood from the hatta’t of the people. When were the burning coals removed?

According to Chazal (Mishnah Yoma 7:4), this action of removing the coals occurred after Aharon sent away the goat to Azazel, and offered his olah and the olah of the people, meaning after 16:24. With this understanding, Aharon had to switch twice into the special simple clothes for Yom Kippur since he was only able to enter the inner room of the mishkan, where the coals were located, with the special simple clothing, 16:3,4. However, the simple reading of chapter 16 is that Aharon only put on the special simple clothes once on Yom Kippur. More likely, he was to remove the burning coals before he was to remove his special clothes, which is recorded in 16:23.

My guess is that the removal of the burning coals occurred after the sprinkling of blood in 16:16, and this is hinted to in 16:17, which records that nobody should be in the ohel moed from when Aharon was to purify the inner room of the mishkan until Aharon left the inner room of the mishkan. Independent as to how one defines the term ohel moed, still this reference to Aharon leaving the inner room of the mishkan is recorded in 16:17 after Aharon had left the inner room of the mishkan to purify the ohel moed in 16:16. Why was he leaving the inner room of the mishkan again? Evidently, Aharon entered the inner room of the mishkan after he purified the ohel moed, and my guess is that this entering was to get the pan with the coals.

This understanding gives a simple explanation of the term “going out” in 16:18. The going out in 16:18 is that Aharon left the inner room of the mishkan with the coals, went to the altar in the outer room of the mishkan (and maybe put the coals on this altar), and purified the inner altar as recorded in Shemot 30:10. Later the coals could have been removed from this altar or from the room. The going out in 16:18 is then the same going out referred to in 16:17, Aharon leaving the inner room of the mishkan. The point of 16:17 is then to tell the people not to be in the ohel moed until after Aharon left the inner room of the mishkan for the last time, which was to take the coals out. Even if this action was a minor part of the ceremony of the day, nobody could be in the ohel moed until Aharon was no longer going to be in the inner room of the mishkan. With this understanding, on Yom Kippur, Aharon was to purify the inner altar of the mishkan, and maybe also the outer altar of the mishkan depending on where he sprinkled the blood in 16:16. 

Vayikra 16:20 concludes the three types of sprinkling blood: First in the kodesh, the inner room of the mishkan, then in the courtyard of the mishkan/ the ohel moed and then the altar, which I believe was the inner altar in the mishkan. Possibly, the inner altar in the mishkan was purified last since the instructions to build this altar (Shemot 30:1-10) are recorded after the instructions to build all the other parts of the ohel moed, Shemot chapter 25-27, and it might have had a different purpose than the rest of the ohel moed, see our discussion on Shemot 30:1-10, “The barriers arise.”   A different possible reason is that from 15:31 we see that the crucial problem of tumah in the special complex was in the mishkan, the special building, and with the order of purification suggested here, this was purified first, the kodesh, and last, the inner altar, while the courtyard was purified in between. Thus, the process of purification both began and ended with the more important areas.

Bibliography:

Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1953, Leviticus, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Levine, Baruch A., 1989, Leviticus: The JPS Torah Commentary, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society

Commentary on Haggadah 2020 version is now available

Hello,

I hope all the readers of this blog are feeling healthy in these trying times. The 2020 version of my commentary on the Haggadah (73 pages) is now available. It has some additions/ corrections/ revisions from the previous versions. Below is the table of contents to enable people to see what topics are discussed in the commentary. The numbers on the right of each topic are the page numbers in the commentary. If you are interested in receiving the commentary, please send me an email, ajayschein@gmail.com, and I will send you the file. Also, if you would like to read my commentary on the Torah (five separate files), on Pirkei Avot, on Jewish festivals and customs, please send me an email, and I will send you the files you are interested in. I wish everybody a chag kasher ve-samaech and good health.

Andrew Schein

Table of Contents:
Introduction to the Haggadah 3
Bedikat hametz 3
Two systems: Burning and annulling 3
Hiding bread in the house before doing the bedikat hametz 4
The blessing on bedikat hametz 5
The Seder plate 6
The history of the Seder plate 6
How many matzot? 11
The mnemonic of the Seder 12
Kiddush 13
The four cups of wine 13
The four words or verses of redemption (parshanut) 14
Leaning 15
Do women need to lean at the Seder? 17
Karpas 18
Why is karpas part of the Seder? 18
How much karpas should a person eat? 19
Dipping the karpas 20
Yachatz and ha lachma anya 21
Maggid 24
The obligation to re-tell the story of the exodus from Egypt 24
Structure of the Maggid 25
Mah nishtanah: Covering the matzah by the mah nishtanah 26
Mah nishtanah: Popularity and source 27
Mah nishtanah: Who says the mah nishtanah? 28
Mah nishtanah: How many questions compromise the mah nishtanah? 29
Mah nishtanah: The order of the mah nishtanah? 30
Mah nishtanah: The answers 30
Lowly states: We were slaves and our forefathers were idolaters 32
The four sons: Why four? 33
The four sons: How can one identify the traits of each son? 34
The four sons: The answers to evil son’s question 35
The four sons: The answer/ statement to the son who cannot ask a question 35
The drush: Introduction 35
The drush: Connections between the mikra bikurim and other verses in the Torah 36
The drush: Arami oved avi (parshanut) 36
The drush: Va-yered Mitzraymah 38
The drush: Va-yagar sham 38
The drush: And the Egyptians with evil intent treated us harshly (parshanut) 38
The drush: We cried to G-d (parshanut) 40
The drush: And G-d saw our affliction and our burdensome suffering (parshanut) 41
The drush: And G-d took us out Egypt (parshanut) 42
The drush: The plague of the firstborn (parshanut) 43
The drush: Sixteen drops 43
The drush: The ten plagues 45
The drush: Dzakh adash beachav (parshanut) 45
R. Yosi ha-Galilee, R. Eliezer and R. Akiva 47
Dayenu 48
Rabban Gamliel 49
Matzah (parshanut) 49
Maror 50
Dividing Hallel 52
Differences between Hallel all year round and by the Seder 53
The blessing at the end of the Maggid 54
Matzah 55
How much matzah does one need to eat by the Seder? 55
Shemurah matzah 57
Charoset 59
Eating eggs by the beginning of the meal 61
Afikoman 62
The history of the term afikoman 62
Eating the afikoman before midnight 64
Shefokh hamatcha 65
Conclusion of Hallel in the Haggadah 67
Birkat ha-Shir 67
Hallel ha-Gadol 69
Songs at the end of the Seder 69
Bibliography 71

Video of short lecture on Pirkei Avot 3:21

Hello,

Below is a link to a short presentation (12 minutes) that I made at Netanya Academic College on March 5, 2020 at the launching of the book Torah V’Kemach by Yehoshua Liebermann. The presentation is in Hebrew. In the presentation I spoke on the topic of Torah and Madda.

To see the presentation, you need to double click on the link below.

I hope all the readers of this blog are healthy and pray for the health of everybody who is sick for whatever reason.

Best wishes,

Andrew Schein

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E6ZZBHL9Oc&list=PLyD9d-D6KQ6s3xap5SjlX0maES_07bssA&index=4&t=0s

Megillat Esther, the story of Yosef and the absence of G-d's name from the Megillah

Many have noted that Megillat Esther has numerous connections with the story of Yosef in the book of Bereshit chapters 37-50. (For example see Gavriel Chayyim Cohen, Introduction to the book of Esther, in Megillat Esther, Hamesh Megilot: Da'at Mikra, 1990.) Both stories occurred outside of the land of Israel and in both cases, a person, Yosef and Mordechai, who was initially in the "outs" rose to become the virtual rulers of the country. Both Mordechai (Megillat Esther 2:5) and Yosef are descendants of Rahel (Bereshit 30:22-24), and both of them saved Jews and non-Jews. Yosef saved his family and all Egyptians from the famine, while Mordechai caused Esther to save the Jewish people, and saved the life of Achashverosh.

In addition, for both Yosef and Mordechai, their rise to power relates to two servants of the kings, the kings’ sleep or attempt to sleep, and there was a delay when Yosef and Mordechai received recognition from the king. Pharaoh had two dreams in his sleep, and because of his desire to understand the dreams he learned of Yosef due to Yosef’s interpretations of the dreams of two of his servants, the steward and the baker, two years beforehand, Bereshit 40:23, 41:1. Similarly, Achashverosh could not sleep and this led him to learn how Mordechai saved his life by overhearing the plot of two of his servants, but as noted by Achashverosh’s servant initially nothing was done for Mordechai, Megillat Esther 2:21-23; 6:1-3. After their rise to power, both Mordechai and Yosef got dressed up, rode through the streets, and people called out to them, Bereshit 41:42,43 and Megillat Esther 6:11. In both stories, the clothing of the protagonists demonstrates both their fall and rise.

In both stories the attainment of power is a turning point in the story. After Yosef rose to power this enabled him to meet his brothers again. Similarly, Achashverosh's knowledge of Mordechai’s good deed was crucial to the salvation of the Jewish people from Haman, see our discussion above on Megillat Esther 6:1, “Sleepless in Shushan” (https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2009/03/megillat-esther-sleepless-in-shushan.html) In addition, the dramatic moment in the story of Yosef and his brothers occurs when Yosef revealed himself to his brothers (Bereshit 45:3) and similarly in Megillat Esther (7:3,4) the dramatic moment is when Esther revealed her true identity to Achashverosh. Other linguistic connections between the stories are Bereshit 39:10 with Megillat Esther 3:4, Bereshit 44:34 with Megillat Esther 8:6, and Bereshit 43:14 with Megillat Esther 4:16 (Maybe also Bereshit 45:1 and Megillat Esther 5:10).

Is anything to be learned from the connections between Megillat Esther and the story of Yosef? Is this just an example of history repeating itself? A possible lesson is that both stories teach an important lesson about faith in G-d, and this idea relates to the question why is G-d's name not mentioned in Megillat Esther.

Avraham Korman (2001, p. 20) notes various explanations for why G-d's name is not mentioned in Megillat Esther. One answer is from Ibn Ezra (1089-1167) who suggests that Mordechai and Esther thought that the Megillah would be translated by non-Jews who would insert names of pagan gods by the name of G-d or instead of G-d's name in the Megillah. Thus, they thought it was best to leave G-d's name out of the Megillat Esther. A second answer is from R. Yitzhak Arama (1420-1494) who suggests that the Megillah was first written by non-Jews and only later copied by Mordechai and Esther. Hence G-d's name was not mentioned in the Megillah since the non-Jews did not include G-d's name when they wrote the Megillah. Korman suggests a third answer that initially Mordechai and Esther wrote the Megillah in a foreign language (Greek or Persian) and they did not want to write G-d's name in a foreign language. All these answer are technical since with all the approaches really G-d's name should have been included in Megillat Esther, but maybe G-d's name was not included in the Megillah as part of the message of the book.

Returning to the parallels between Megillat Esther and the story of Yosef, both stories occurred after G-d's presence became much less apparent. G-d spoke to the patriarchs, but G-d did not speak to Yosef. Similarly, Megillat Esther takes place after the destruction of the first Bet ha-Mikdash, (Megillat Esther 2:6) which also signaled a reduction in the presence of G-d in the world. The greatness of Yosef is that he constantly mentioned G-d, even when he was before Pharaoh, Bereshit 41:16, as he never lost his faith in G-d. Similarly, while G-d’s name is not mentioned in the Megillah, it is clear that the people had faith in G-d. For example, Mordechai told Esther that if she did not act to save the Jewish people, the people would be saved in another manner, Megillat Esther 4:14. Also, when Esther and the people fasted for three days (Megillat Esther 4:16) this fasting was their prayer to G-d. (Many understand that the Jewish people prayed when they fasted, which could be true, but the fasting itself was a form of praying.)

A lesson to be learned from both stories is that even if G-d’s presence is not apparent as it had been previously, still one must keep having faith in G-d. This lesson is enhanced due to the absence of G-d's name in Megillat Esther since this absence indicates a lack of G-d's presence in the world and still the people showed their faith in G-d.

In addition, both stories teach us what it means to have faith. Yosef did not depend on miracles but asked the steward to remember him to Pharaoh and this is how he rose to power, see our discussion on Bereshit 40:14,15 "Help." Similarly, Mordechai and Esther did not just rely on fasting, but Esther devised a very clever plan to reverse Achashverosh’s agreement with Haman. Her idea of a double banquet made Achashverosh inquisitive and then G-d arranged that in the middle of the two banquets, Achashverosh learned of Mordechai’s good deed. We learn from both stories that while we must believe in G-d, faith also means that we also must act in a rational manner to help ourselves without relying on miracles.

Shemot 11:5; 12:29 – The deaths of the firstborn Egyptians in the tenth plague

Shemot 11:5 records that Moshe warned Pharaoh that in the tenth plague all of the firstborn Egyptians including the firstborn Egyptian animals would die, and Shemot 12:29 records the fulfillment of this plague. Why were these people and animals killed? Was there a need for the tenth plague?

The tenth plague was not necessary to free the Jewish people from slavery since G-d could have continued each of the nine plagues until the people left Egypt. For example, during the plague of darkness, the people could have walked out when the Egyptians could not see anything. Or, G-d could have continued the plague of locusts until the people left. However, G-d always stopped the plagues without freeing the people and then after a plague ended, Pharaoh refused to let the people go. What was the reason for the tenth plague?

The tenth plague was a punishment for the Egyptians killing the male Jewish children, Shemot 1:22 (see Seforno on Shemot 8:12), and we see from the story of Moshe being hidden in the reeds of the Nile that Pharaoh’s decree to kill the male Jewish children was implemented, Shemot 2:1-6. This punishment accords with the verse in Bereshit 9:6 that people who murder are supposed to be killed. In addition, the Egyptians severely mistreated the Jews without any order from Pharaoh because they loathed the Jewish people, Shemot 1:12-14, see our discussion on Shemot 1:7-22, "Population dynamics" (https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2009/01/shemot-18-22-population-dynamics.html).

If all the Egyptians (except Pharaoh’s daughter and the midwives(?)) killed the Jewish male children, why was tenth plague limited to the firstborn male Egyptians? Bekhor Shor (on Shemot 4:23, quoted by Hizkuni on 4:23) writes that the tenth plague was a measure for measure, midah keneged midah, since Shemot 4:22 refers to the Jewish people as the firstborn of G-d. Yet, for some period of time all the Jewish male children were killed by the Egyptians, and then a punishment that was measure for measure would have been that all the Egyptian males should have been killed.

Rashi (on Shemot 11:5) tries to explain why the firstborn non-Jewish slaves, the firstborn of the poor Egyptians and the firstborn animals were killed. He writes that the firstborn non-Jewish slaves were killed since they should not say that their gods had caused the plague and the firstborn of the poor Egyptians were killed since they too had made the Jews slaves. This latter explanation accords with our understanding of Shemot 1:12-14, but there is no reason to assume that the poor Egyptians and non-Jewish slaves did not participate in the murder of the Jewish male children. With regard to the firstborn animals, Rashi writes that they were killed since these animals had been worshipped.

My understanding is that based on Bereshit 9:6 all the Egyptian men should have been killed in the tenth plague since the Egyptians killed the male Jewish children, and this would follow the idea of a punishment being measure for measure. However, the punishment was limited to just the firstborn male Egyptians to reduce the number of people who were punished. 

Why were the Egyptian firstborn males killed as opposed to some other criteria as for example, the youngest child in each family? My guess is that the firstborn males were selected since this would establish the law of the firstborn males by the Jewish people that they are kadosh, Shemot 13:1,12-15, independent of the fact that they are born first, as from the book of Bereshit we see that the Torah does not believe that being born first is a reason for a person to receive special privileges. This idea also explains why the firstborn animals were killed in the tenth plague since they too were killed to generate the source of the future law of the kedusha of the firstborn animals.

Bereshit 44:18 – 45:3 – Almost the end of the game between Yosef and his brothers: Yehuda’s great speech

Bereshit 44:18-34 records Yehuda’s great speech which prompted Yosef to reveal himself to his brothers. It is rare that a speech alone can get a determined person to change their views but this is what happened. Yosef had been determined to keep Binyamin in Egypt and Yehuda’s speech got him to change his mind.

Yehuda’s speech was in response to Yosef’s messengers finding Yosef’s goblet in Binyamin’s pack, 44:12, and then Yosef’s rejection of Yehuda’s offer that all the brothers would be slaves, as Yosef had insisted that only the "guilty" person, Binyamin, be a slave, 44:16,17. Yehuda knew that Binyamin had been framed that Binyamin had not stolen the goblet, but he did not argue that Binyamin was innocent. Instead, Yehuda made a counter proposal that he would be a slave instead of Binyamin, 44:32-34. Yet, how could this be a counter-offer since it was less than the previous offer that all the brothers would be slaves? Furthermore, this counter-offer only accounts for the end of Yehuda's speech, 44:32-34, what is the point of the rest of the speech, 44:18-31?

The point of Yehuda’s speech was to make Yosef realize that if Yosef would keep Binyamin in Egypt then Yosef would kill Yaakov. Yehuda states this point before his counter-offer, 44:30,31, and then at the very end of the speech after he made his counter-offer, 44:34. Why should Yehuda have thought that a ruler of Egypt would be concerned about the father of a thief? Do judges give lenient sentences because the father of a criminal would feel bad if their son is punished?

Seforno (on 44:16-18) explains that as Yosef had said that only the guilty person should be punished, then Yehuda followed this logic and argued that Yosef was also punishing Yaakov an innocent bystander. Yet, families always suffer when a family member who is a criminal is punished, why should Yosef, a supposed Egyptian official, be considered about an innocent bystander and a foreigner to boot?

Netziv (on 44:17) explains that once only Binyamin was to be punished, Yehuda realized that the punishment was not due to the brothers throwing Yosef into the pit, and accordingly, he tried everything in his power to change the punishment.

Luzzatto (on 44:18) notes that Yosef in his response in 44:17 seemed to be speaking in a kind manner since he said to them go in peace, and this suggested to Yehuda to appeal for mercy.

While these suggestions are possible, the simplest idea is that Yehuda knew that Yosef would care about Yaakov since Yehuda knew that he was speaking to Yosef. This knowledge was learned from their meal the night before when Yosef seated all of the brothers according to their age, 44:33, Yosef’s statement about Binyamin in 43:29, Yosef’s actions towards them as for example demanding to see Binyamin even though this had nothing to do with his accusation of them being spies, Yosef’s concern about their father and the usual curiosity of people to investigate people who are tormenting them, see our discussions on 43:23-34 "The middle of the game between Yosef and his brothers: Know thy enemy," 

The one and only “proof” that Yehuda and the brothers did not know it was Yosef is that it is claimed that 45:3 records that the brothers were surprised when Yosef revealed himself. This surprise would only make sense if they did not know that it was Yosef. However, the word translated as surprised, nivahlu, really means scared as in the only other occurrence of the word in the Torah, Shemot 15:15. (This is also the usual translation of the word in Neviim and Ketuvim, and one wonders if the translation here as surprised is because people think that the brothers did not know that Yosef was speaking to them.)

Thus, as explained by the Bekhor Shor (on 45:3), 45:3 should be understood that the brothers were scared that Yosef was going to take revenge on them after he had revealed himself to them. This would be similar to the idea of cat playing with a mouse before the cat eats the mouse. Here Yosef had been playing with the brothers, and then once he revealed himself to them, the brothers were scared that literally the gauntlet was going to come down on them for trying to kill him. Sadly they were still scared even seventeen years later, 50:15, that Yosef would take revenge on them.

Once we understand that Yehuda knew that he was speaking to Yosef, then we can understand what prompted his great speech, and why he did not make this speech previously. At the end of Yosef's response to Yehuda's first offer that all the brothers would be slaves, Yosef said that the brothers, except for Binyamin, should "go in peace to your father," 44:17. Yehuda's response was that if you really care about peace with (y)our father, then I will tell you that your actions will kill our father, and this was the point of his speech. Yehuda was hoping that if Yosef would understand what he was doing to Yaakov then either Yosef would release Binyamin or he would reveal himself and end the charade.

I will now go through the speech verse by verse to point out clues that Yehuda knew he was speaking to Yosef.

44:18 records that Yehuda began his speech by approaching Yosef, apparently getting very close since before he had been standing before Yosef. How could he have been so bold? David Barett (personal correspondence) suggests that because Yehuda knew that it was Yosef, he knew that Yosef would allow him to approach. Yehuda approached Yosef to speak to him personally, brother to brother, in an attempt to awaken within Yosef his feelings towards his family.

44:18 also records that Yehuda began his speech by noting that Yosef was equal to Pharaoh, 44:18. This was to acknowledge Yosef’s dream that he had become a ruler. This was the hope that if the Yosef would realize that his dream was realized then Yosef would reveal himself.

Afterwards, Yehuda quoted Yosef, that Yosef had asked the brothers if they had a father or brother, 44:19. This quote is not recorded in the Torah by the first meeting between Yosef and his brothers in Egypt, 42:10-13, but later Yehuda told Yaakov that such a conversation ensued, 43:7. Was Yehuda embellishing here and in 43:7 or did 42:10-13 not record all the particulars of the conversation? (See Hizkuni and Radak on 44:19.)

In any event, the question, do you have a father, makes no sense since everybody has a father. However, this question introduces the theme of the speech to make Yosef aware of what he was doing to his father, Yaakov. Yehuda was trying to wake Yosef up that by not revealing himself he was acting as if he had no father that he did not care about Yaakov.

Yehuda then told Yosef that the brothers had responded to Yosef's supposed question by stating, "We have an old father and a young child, yeled, of his old age, zekunim, whose brother is dead, so that he alone is left of his mother and his father who loves him," 44:20 (Fox, 1995, translation). This verse raises several questions.

One, there is no record in the Torah of the brothers telling Yosef all this information. Would the brothers have mentioned to Yosef all this information?

Two, Yehuda refers to Binyamin as a yeled, a child, but Binyamin was then 33 years old. Also, in the remainder of the speech Yehuda refers to him as a na'ar, which in the Torah can mean adult, as by Yehoshua, Shemot 33:11, so why in 44:20 did Yehuda refer to Binyamin as a child instead of as a na'ar?

Three, Yehuda referred to Binyamin as zekunim (see Rashbam on 35:18), which is translated as the child of Yaakov's old age, but we know from 37:3, that the term ben zekunim was referring to Yosef and not Binyamin. It could be that after Yosef was sold, Binyamin became the ben zekunim, but this is unlikely since Binyamin was eleven when Yosef was sold and the designation of a ben zekunim is at the time of the birth of a child, see our discussion on 37:3, "The anticipated child,"  

Four, Yehuda said that the brothers told Yosef that Binyamin's brother, Yosef, was dead, but not only did Yehuda not know that Yosef was dead, but also throughout the story and later during the speech Yehuda said that one brother was gone, 42:13,32, and 44:28, and not dead. Rashi (on 44:20) writes that Yehuda said this out of fear that if he said Yosef was alive, then Yosef would have demanded that the brothers bring this brother. Yet, Yehuda had already told them that the "other brother" was missing, why now would Yehuda say that the "other brother" was dead?

Five, Yehuda said that the brothers had told Yosef that he, Binyamin, alone was left of his mother, and he repeats this idea in 44:27. Was Yosef supposed to have known that the brothers were from different mothers? All along, the brothers referred to Binyamin as their brother, and there is no indication that they ever called him a half-brother. Was it so obvious from looking at Binyamin, that he had a different mother than the other brothers?

Six, why did Yehuda refer to Binyamin's mother in 44:20? It appears that Yehuda was quoting Yaakov's statement from 42:38, but Yaakov had not referred to Rahel, Binyamin's mother, in 42:38. Why would a stranger have cared about the mother of a criminal?

Seven, the last word in the verse, “who his father loved,” also seems to refer to Yosef, as 37:3 records that Yaakov loved Yosef, and there is no mention in the Torah that Yaakov had a special love for Binyamin.

One might answer all these questions by claiming that Yehuda was stumbling at the beginning of his speech, and hence he made minor errors. Yet, there are so many “errors” in 44:20 and afterwards the speech is so well crafted that it is difficult to accept that 44:20 is full of errors. More likely, while Yehuda was ostensibly talking about Binyamin, he was also talking about Yosef since he knew he was speaking to Yosef.

Yehuda used the term child, yeled, in 44:20 since this was how the brothers referred to Yosef. When Reuven came back to the pit after the brothers had put Yosef there, he told the brothers, the child is gone, 37: 30, also see 42:22. Also, when Yehuda used the term zekunim, this again was referring to Yosef since he was the ben zekunim and not Binyamin. In addition, Yehuda referred to Binyamin's mother, since she was also Yosef's mother.

Why did Yehuda in 44:20 refer to the other brother as being dead? Who is the other brother? Was Yehuda referring to Yosef as being dead? If yes, maybe the idea was that Yehuda was suggesting that Yosef was acting as if he was dead to the family. Or, if Yosef is the subject of the term zekunim, then the other brother is Binyamin, and then maybe the term dead can mean before Binyamin was born since both situations are when somebody is not alive. Yehuda was then trying to recall to Yosef the time before Binyamin was born, when Yosef was alone with him mother. With this reading, the ensuing phrase, he alone is left of his mother and father, could refer to Binyamin, that the brother who was not born then, was presently the only one left of his mother. Or, the phrase of being left alone, could also refer to Yosef before Binyamin was born, when Yosef was alone with his mother. (Note, the similar phrase in Bereshit 32:25 means that Yaakov was left alone.)

Maybe the point of 44:20 is that Yehuda told Yosef to remember the times when your brother was not alive (before Binyamin was born) and you, Yosef, was alone with your mother and father who loved you. If this is correct, then Yehuda made up this verse to remind Yosef of his early childhood. Yehuda wanted to return Yosef to his family, and he did this by trying to recall to Yosef what surely were Yosef's best memories of his family when his mother was alive and doting on him along with Yaakov. Once Yehuda could bring Yosef back to the family, then Yehuda could impress on Yosef the harm he would cause Yaakov if he did not let Binyamin return home.

The following verse, 44:21, records that Yehuda said that Yosef wanted the brothers to bring Binyamin to Egypt so that Yosef could see him. This idea of Yosef wanting to see Binyamin is not mentioned when the brothers first came to Egypt, but maybe this was not recorded previously or maybe Yehuda inferred this from Yosef when Yosef made the request/ demand for the brothers to bring Binyamin to Egypt. In any event, maybe Yehuda mentioned this idea of Yosef seeing Binyamin to point out that if Yosef’s goal was to see Binyamin, then you saw him, so now you can let him go.

44:22 then records that the brothers told Yosef that if Binyamin would leave his father, then somebody would die. While Rashi (on 44:22) explains that the someone was Binyamin, more likely the person was Yaakov (see Rashbam on 44:22). Yehuda was trying to explain to Yosef what Yosef was doing to Yaakov when he had insisted that Binyamin had to come to Egypt. Yosef understood this, and he would state in 45:3, “Is my father alive?” see our discussion below on 45:3b, “Present danger.”

44:23 then records Yehuda’s recollection of Yosef’s response to the brother’s previous statement that bringing Binyamin could kill Yaakov. While the beginning of 44:23 is the gist of what Yosef told them in their first encounter, the end of the verse, where Yehuda said that Yosef said “lo tosefun lirot panei,” you shall not see my face is never recorded in the Torah. Dorit Friedman (Mekor Rishon, 14.12.2007, Shabbat section, p. 4, perek camos bechayei ha-tatua) points out that the root of the word tosefun, is the name Yosef, and she suggested that Yehuda was hinting to Yosef that he knew that he was speaking to Yosef.

The following verses in Yehuda’s speech, 44:24-29, refer to the discussions between the brothers and Yaakov when the brothers returned from their first encounter with Yosef in Egypt. 44:24, as well as 44:27,30,31, record that Yehuda told Yosef that Yaakov was a servant to Yosef, but this was not true for a person from another land who was not in Egypt or an Egyptian. Again, this statement only makes sense if Yehuda knew he was speaking to Yosef, and then the point was that Yehuda was trying to tell Yosef that Yaakov had also accepted Yosef’s second dream where Yaakov was to bow down to Yosef.

44:25 records that Yehuda uses the plural, our father, 44:25, also in 44:31, when he should have always used the singular my father. Perhaps the plural is to include Yosef.

44:26 records that the brothers explained to Yaakov that they could only go back to Egypt to get food if they took Binyamin and then 44:27 records Yehuda’s recollection of Yaakov’s response to the brothers’ statement that they need to bring Binyamin to Egypt. 44:27 (also 44:20 as mentioned above) is odd that Yehuda claimed that Yaakov had stated that he only had two sons from his wife, but all along, the brothers had claimed that they were one family, 42:13. The only way that Yehuda's statement in 44:27 made sense was if someone knew Yaakov's family, like Yosef. If Yehuda knew that he was speaking to Yosef, then we understand that Yehuda could talk as if it was known that Binyamin was from a different mother, and that Yaakov only had two sons from his beloved wife. I have been told that it was so obvious that people had many wives, but the term “my wife” in 44:27 implies one wife.  Furthermore, as pointed out by Robert Alter (2004, p. 258) in 44:27 Yehuda was accepting Yaakov’s favoritism of Rahel and Yosef. The verse and 44:20 would only make sense if the person hearing Yehuda’s speech knew Yaakov's family.

44:28 continue Yehuda recollecting Yaakov’s response to the brothers' request to bring Binyamin to Egypt. In this verse, Yehuda refers to Yaakov’s statement when the brothers brought back Yosef’s special coat, 37:33. Why would Yehuda mention to Yosef that Yaakov thought that Yosef had been attacked by an animal? Would this information have been relevant to a stranger who did not know the previous interaction between Yosef and the brothers? Obviously, no. However, since Yehuda knew that he was speaking to Yosef, he could mention this information since Yosef had known that the brothers were going to claim that he had been attacked by an animal, as they stated this prior to his arrival to them 37:20, and most likely again when they ripped the special coat off of him, 37:23.

The end of 44:28 records that Yehuda said that Yaakov said “that he had not seen Yosef since then.” Again, was this information relevant to a stranger? No. Instead, Yehuda was trying to tell Yosef that Yaakov had not given up on seeing him,. 

42:29 records Yehuda paraphrasing Yaakov’s statement in 42:38 when the brothers first returned from Egypt. In terms of strict chronological order, Yaakov’s recollection of 42:38 in 44:29 occurred before Yaakov told the brothers to go back to Egypt to get food, 43:2, which Yehuda had already mentioned in 44:25. However, the order of the events was not important to Yehuda since he was building up to the damage that Yosef was going to cause to Yaakov by keeping Binyamin in Egypt. This damage was not just causing Yaakov to die, which Yehuda had mentioned in 44:22, but even worse, that Yaakov would suffer a fate of “evil in Sheol” something apparently relating to either dying in a terrible state or referring to something bad in the afterlife.

In 44:30, Yehuda returns to the present, and he mentioned the special connection that existed between Yaakov and Binyamin. I have always thought that this special connection is true for all parents with their children, but again, as in the end of 44:20, Yehuda is trying to remind Yosef of Yaakov’s love for him.

In 44:31, Yehuda’s ends the background information to his offer to replace Binyamin, by stating that Yosef would not only kill Yaakov but also it would be a terrible death, “sorrow in Sheol” if Yosef did not release Binyamin.

44:32,33 record Yehuda’s offer to replace Binyamin, and while this offer is the official point of the speech, it is anti-climactic in the sense that it does not relate to building up the effect that Yosef was going to have on Yaakov by keeping Binyamin in Egypt. Because 44:32,33 was anti-climactic, in 44:34, the last verse of the speech, Yehuda returns to the main theme of his speech that if Yosef insisted on keeping Binyamin in Egypt, then he would cause Yaakov to have a horrible death. As mentioned above, the speech was so effective that Yosef officially revealed himself to his brothers, 45:1-3.

Bibliography:

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

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

25:19 – The elleh toledot unit of Yitzhak

25:19 records elleh toledot Yitzhak the son of Avraham, Avraham begot Yitzhak. The end of this verse is surprising since after the Torah records that Yitzhak was the son of Avraham in the beginning of the verse, why does the Torah need to record that Avraham fathered Yitzhak in the end of the verse?

Several answers have been suggested to explain the end of 25:19. Rashi (on 25:19, based on Baba Metzia 87a) explains that the end of the verse is to stress that Yitzhak was Avraham’s son since he looked like Avraham, and not Avimelekh’s son as claimed by cynics. Ibn Ezra (on 25:19) quotes this idea and adds that maybe the point of the verse is to tell us that Avraham raised Yitzhak. Ramban (on 25:19) suggests that the end of the verse is telling us that only Yitzhak and not Avraham’s other children should be considered Avraham’s successor.

While all of these suggestions are possible, my guess is that the phrase, “Avraham begot Yitzhak,” is recorded as part of the elleh toledot structure of the book of Bereshit, see above our discussion "Introduction: The structure of the book of Bereshit" https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2009/10/structure-of-book-of-bereshit.html

Verse 25:19 is an example of a verse that begins a lengthy elleh toledot narrative section of the book of Bereshit, as does 11:27 and 37:2. 25:19 records elleh toledot of Yitzhak, and the section proceeds to recount the story of Yitzhak’s son, Yaakov. This is also the pattern of 11:27, which records the phrase elleh toledot Terah and the ensuing section recounts the story of Terah’s son, Avraham, and 37:2, which record the phrase elleh toledot Yaakov and the ensuing section recounts the story of Yaakov’s son, Yosef.

Even when the phrase elleh toledot begins a lengthy narrative section, still the section is framed from a genealogical perspective. Thus, the lengthy narrative elleh toledot sections begin with a genealogical reference to of a child or children of the person referred to in the heading, and end with the death of the child. For example, 11:27 records elleh toledot Terah, and then records that Terah begot Avram, Nahor and Haran, and fourteen chapters later, the section ends with Avraham’s death, 25:8-11. 37:2 records elleh toledot Yaakov and that Yosef was 17 years old, and the section ends with Yosef’s death, 50:26.

Our elleh toledot section, also begins with genealogical details. It mentions that Yitzhak was the son of Avraham (the first half of 25:19) and then it records the birth of Yitzhak’s children, 25:20-26. The statement that Yitzhak was Avraham’s son, which is known from 21:2,3, was because this was a new toledot section, and genealogical information is repeated in a new toledot section, as for example by Noah’s sons 5:32 and 6:10 and by Terah’s sons 11:26,27. However, in contrast to the other lengthy toledot sections, this elleh toledot section ends with the death of Yitzhak, 35:28,29, and not with the deaths of Yitzhak’s children, Yaakov or Esav. I believe that this anomaly explains the need for the phrase “Avraham begot Yitzhak” in the second half of 25:19.

The elleh toledot section of Yitzhak should have ended with the death of Yaakov following the usual pattern in Bereshit that the section ends with the death of son of the person referred in the elleh toledot phrase. However, Yaakov could not die at the end of the section of elleh toledot Yitzhak since he also plays a crucial part in the story of Yosef, the following section. Accordingly, somebody else had to die at the end of the toledot section to maintain the genealogical framework of the elleh toledot structure, and this person was Yitzhak. Yet, if Yitzhak’s death ended the section, then the section has to start with his birth. Thus, the phrase, “Avraham begot Yitzhak,” is recorded in 25:19 to mark Yitzhak’s birth, which enables his death to end the section.

If the toledot section starts with Yitzhak’s birth and ends with his death, then why was the section not titled elleh toledot Avraham? This would follow the rule that the death of the person who ends the toledot section is the son of the person in the phrase elleh toledot. The answer is that the son of the person in the phrase elleh toledot is also the main character of the section, and Yitzhak is not the main character of the section from 25:19-35:29, as Yaakov is the main character of the section. Therefore, the section begins elleh toledot Yitzhak, which means the main character in the section will be Yitzhak's son, Yaakov, but as Yitzhak’s death ends the section, his birth also begins the section, which is the phrase, “Avraham begot Yitzhak.” Yitzhak’s birth and death are then the genealogical markers to this elleh toledot section from 25:19 through 35:29.

Bereshit 1:5,8,13,19,23,31; 2:2 and Shemot 20:11 - The seven days of creation

Bereshit 1:5,8,13,19,23,31 and 2:2 refer to the seven days of the creation of the world that G-d created the world in six days and “rested” on the seventh day. These days are a literary framework for the description of the creation of the world in the Torah. 

These seven days are difficult for several reasons. One, according to science the world is around 13.8 billion years and not six/ seven days. Two, the days are unnecessary to the narrative. The Torah could simply have recorded the different items created without stating that they were created on particular days. Three, even if it was desired for the description of the creation of the world to have a literary framework, why was it days and not the phrase “G-d saw that X was good?” The phrase “G-d saw that X was good” appears seven times within the description of the creation of the world, 1:4,12,18,21,23,25,31, and would also seem to be a way of dividing the description of the creation of the world into seven groups. Or, as discussed in the Mishnah in Pirkei Avot 5:1, the creation of the word could have been divided by G-d’s statements, which appear nine times in chapter one. (The Mishnah records that the phrase appears ten times, and commentators to the Mishnah attempt to find the tenth statement by G-d.) Finally, one could ask the question of the Mishnah in Pirkei Avot, why was the world not created complete in one instance? Or, why did the Torah just not record, “G-d created the world” without any of the particular details?

The answer to all these questions is from Shemot 20:11, which is part of the Decalogue, and some people recite this verse as part of kiddush on Shabbat morning. The verse records “For in six days G-d made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in it, and he rested on the seventh day; therefore (al ken) G-d gave the seventh day his blessing, and he hallowed it,” Fox translation, 1995, p. 371. This verse is similar to the last verse in the description of the creation of the world in 2:3, though 2:3 does not have the word, therefore. 

Shemot 20:11 is telling us that the division of the creation of the world into seven days was in order that the seventh day, Shabbat, would be special, which occurred by G-d “resting” on the seventh day. In theory, G-d could have created the word without the framework of days, and then told the Jewish people to rest every seventh day. Yet, if this were true, the resting on the seventh day would not be related to the creation of the world. Instead, the seven day literary framework within the description of the creation of the world is to create a connection between a person resting on Shabbat and the creation of the world.

Accordingly, even if scientifically the world is 13.8 billion years, the point of the days within the description of the creation of the world is for people to make the seventh day special. Even if each day in chapter one of Bereshit is really billions or millions of years, still the usage of the word day is for people living after creation to relate the creation of the world to their normal twenty four day and seven day week. The creation of the world could not been recorded by a division of years or even periods since then there would be no connection between Shabbat and the creation of the world. Also, the phrase “and G-d saw that X was good,” could not be used as the literary framework of the description of the creation of the world since it does not relate to people keeping the Shabbat. Possibly to ensure that this phrase is not used as a literary framework, the phrase is not used on days two and seven. For the same reason, the creation of the world could not be framed around G-d’s statements, as again this would not relate the creation of the world to resting on Shabbat. Finally, for the same reason there had to be a division in the description of the creation of the world into seven days and not one instantaneous act or just one verse which stated that G-d created the world. Note this idea might be an example of the principle in the Midrash that G-d looked into the Torah when He created the world, (Bereshit Rabbah 1:1), as the description of the creation of the world in the Torah with regard to the number of days is based on people in the future observing Shabbat.

Bibliography:

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

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.