Vayikra 1:1 – The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra

When the Jewish people were living in the desert/ wilderness for forty years they constructed a special building which contained cultic furniture and had a surrounding courtyard. The Torah generally uses three terms to refer to the building and complex, the mikdash, mishkan and the ohel moed. I believe that most (all?) people understand the terms mishkan and ohel moed as being synonyms, which sometimes refer to just the special building and sometimes to the entire complex. In our discussion on Shemot 25:8,9: 27:21, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Shemot,” I argued that in the book of Shemot, the term mikdash refers to special cultic furniture, the term mishkan refers to the walls of the special building and the first and maybe second covering of the walls, and the term ohel moed refers to the entire complex. I will now try to show that this identical distinction exists in the book of Vayikra.

The book of Vayikra begins, 1:1, by recording that G-d called to Moshe from the ohel moed. This verse continues the end of the Shemot 40:34,35 that the cloud of G-d filled the ohel moed, and my understanding is that the cloud of G-d was in the entire special complex. 1:1 then means that the voice of G-d called out to Moshe from the complex, and Moshe heard this voice when he was outside the entire complex. Possibly Moshe entered the complex after hearing G-d’s voice, but this is not recorded.

1:3 then records that the first stage in bringing a cow as an olah sacrifice is to bring the cow to the petach ohel moed, the entrance to the ohel moed. Which entrance? There are two possibilities. One, the opening to the courtyard from the special building, which is the popular opinion, or two, the opening to the courtyard from the area outside the complex. Note the opening to the courtyard from outside the complex is referred to as shaar ha-hatzer in Shemot 38:31 and Shemot 40:33, but this is the actual line that marks the opening, while the petach ohel moed would have some depth from the entrance towards the courtyard. While some verses, Shemot 26:36, Shemot 38:30 and Bemidbar 3:25, 4:25, suggest that the opening is from the special building to the courtyard, I think that Bemidbar 25:6 and 27:2 refer to the entrance from outside the complex.  In our discussion on the terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Shemot, we concluded that this entrance can refer to both places depending on the context. It is not clear which possibility is being referred to here in 1:3. An additional question, with regard to both of these possibilities, is how far into the courtyard from either direction does the term, entrance, refer to?

1:5 then refers to the outer altar that was petach ohel moed, and again this phrase could be referring to either of the two possible entrances mentioned above on 1:3. Note, since it is likely that the altar was in the middle of the courtyard (see picture in Sarna, 1986, p. 192), then the two possible entrances would be roughly equal distance from the altar.

3:2 refers to this entrance, petach ohel moed, by the slaughtering of a cow that is brought as a shelamim sacrifice. Again, this entrance could be either of the two places discussed on 1:3, though here my inclination is that the reference is to the entrance to the courtyard from the outside since otherwise there would numerous animals being killed immediately before the special building.

3:8,13 then refer to a new area, lifnei ohel moed, by the sheep and goat shelamim sacrifices. This area is most likely different than the petach ohel moed since it is labelled differently. Milgrom (1991, p. 209) argues that from Bemidbar 8:9,10 we see that the phrase lifnei ohel moed means outside the courtyard of the ohel moed, and that the phrase lifnei ha-Shem means in the courtyard. I agree with his point about the term lifnei ohel moed, but I think the phrase lifnei ha-Shem is not only the area in the ohel moed, but also the area near the ohel moed, as in 3:7. (One can even say that the whole world is considered as being lifnei ha-Shem.) Similarly, the phrase lifnei ohel moed in Bemidbar 3:7,38 seem to refer to the area outside the courtyard of the ohel moed.

4:4 records that when a priest, who had been anointed, accidentally sins, then he brings a bull to the petach ohel moed, which again can be the two possibilities we discussed on 1:3. 4:5,6 then record that the blood from the bull was to be brought to the ohel moed, where the priest would dip his fingers in the blood, and then sprinkle the blood on the parokhet within the special building. This bringing of the blood to the ohel moed, might imply that the ohel moed was just the special building, but if the ohel moed is the entire complex, then it includes the special building. Once 4:6 refers to the parokhet then we know where in the ohel moed, the entire complex, the priest was to sprinkle the blood. Note, it could be that the priest dipped his hands outside the special building and then entered the building with bloody fingers to sprinkle the blood. With either possibility of where the priest was to dip his fingers in the blood, the phrase to ohel moed in 4:5 is a movement from the petach ohel moed, that the priest moved either from the entrance to the special building to the special building or from the entrance to the complex to the main area in the courtyard or to the special building.

4:6 notes that the incense altar, which was in the special building, was located in the ohel moed, as the ohel moed refers to the entire complex. The verse ends by referring to the altar which was petach ohel moed, and this is similar to 1:5.

4:14 records the law when the entire congregation sinned by accident that the people are to bring a bull, lifnei ohel moed. As in 3:8,13, lifnei ohel moed is outside the complex, and this is very appropriate in this case since this would give more people the ability to see the elders, the representatives of the people, when they would lean on the bull, 4:15. 4:16 then records that the blood of the bull was to be brought to the ohel moed, which is similar to 4:5, though here the movement is more obvious since one is coming from the area outside the complex to the ohel moed, either to the special building or to the courtyard. 4:18 has two references to the ohel moed and is similar to 4:6.

The next reference is 6:9, which records that Aharon and his sons should eat the matzot of the minhah sacrifice in the courtyard of the ohel moed. The ohel moed is the entire complex, and the Torah is specifying where in the complex the matzot should be eaten. Similarly, 6:19 records that the priest who does the korban hatta’t eats part of the sacrifice in the courtyard of the ohel moed.

6:23 records that a hatta’t, whose blood is brought to the ohel moed to le-khapper the kodesh, cannot be eaten. This verse seems to refer to some of the cases of the hatta’t from chapter four. While one can understand the term ohel moed here as just referring to the special building, it can also be understood as referring to the entire complex, that a hatta’t, whose blood is brought into the complex to be used le-khapper the kodesh, i.e., to be sprinkled on the parokhet, cannot be eaten.

The next mention of one of the three terms is in 8:3,4 by the initiation of the priests, that the ceremony is to begin by the petach ohel moed, the entrance to the ohel moed. Again, as by 1:3, this could mean two different areas. My guess is that here the reference is to the entrance to the entire complex since the entire nation is to gather around the entrance and this could not be if the petach ohel moed is the entrance to the special building.

8:10 records the first mention of the mishkan in the book of Vayikra, as the verse records that Moshe anointed the mishkan and everything that was in it. This means that Moshe anointed the walls, and maybe the ceiling covering the walls of the special building. The phrase “everything that was in it” refers to the special cultic ritual items that were located within the walls of the special building.

Chapter eight concludes that Aharon and his sons were to cook and eat meat and bread from the sacrifices by the petach ohel moed and that they had to remain by the petach ohel moed for seven days, 8:31,33,35. While this phrase could be referring to the entrance to the special building since Aharon and his sons would have had to sleep in that spot this strikes me as not being respectful to the special building, and then my inclination is that the area being referred to in the verses is the entrance to the entire complex, which is where Aharon and his sons would have slept.

9:5 has the phrase, penei ohel moed, which is the first time this phrase appears in the Torah (also later in Bemidbar 17:8 and 19:4), and means in the direction of ohel moed, from outside of the entire complex. This cannot be referring to the courtyard of the complex since the entire congregation were standing in this place and they could not all fit in the courtyard.

9:23 then records that during the special ceremony of the eight day, Moshe and Aharon went into the ohel moed and then they came out. To understand this verse, one must ascertain where Moshe and Aharon were before they came into the ohel moed. Previously, Aharon had been in the courtyard working on the sacrifices, and then 9:22 records that he blessed the people. Was this blessing in the courtyard? If yes, then 9:23 must mean that Moshe and Aharon went into the special building. However, since the people were outside of the complex (see above on 9:5), it is more likely that when Aharon blessed the people, he went outside the complex to bless them, and then 9:23 means that Moshe and Aharon went into the courtyard area of the ohel moed, see our discussion on 9:22,23, “The double blessings by the ceremony of the eighth day.”

10:7 records that after the tragic deaths of Nadv and Avihu, Moshe told Aharon, Elazar and Itamar to remain in the petach ohel moed, which is similar to the law in 8:33,35.

10:9 then records that G-d told Aharon that he and his sons cannot drink wine when they are in the ohel moed. If a person thinks that the ohel moed means only the special building, then the priests would be permitted to drink wine in the courtyard of the ohel moed. This would seem to contradict the point of 10:10, the following verse, that the wine should not cause a priest to make a mistake by something which is kodesh. Rashi (on 10:9), who follows the idea that the ohel moed is just the special building, is uncomfortable with this implication that a priest could drink in the courtyard, and hence he quotes a drasha to negate this implication with regard to the outer altar. On the other hand, 10:9,10 accord very well with the understanding that the term ohel moed means the entire complex, and then the priests could not drink wine in any area in the complex.

12:4 records for the first time in the book of Vayikra, the term mikdash, that a new mother, cannot go in the mikdash even when she has tahor blood. I believe that the term mikdash means the collection of special cultic furniture, and then 12:4 is forbidding the new mother for going amongst these items. Maybe, the Torah did not use the word ohel moed since she was forbidden for going amongst these items, even if for some reason they were not being housed in the special complex.

12:6 then records that after the period of tahor blood is completed, the new mother is to bring a sacrifice to the petach ohel moed, which could refer to either of the two possibilities discussed on 1:3.

The phrase petach ohel moed appears next by the sacrifices of the metsora, 14:11,23, and then again by the sacrifices of the zav and zavah, 15:14,29. Again these verses can refer to either of the two possibilities discussed above on 1:3. However, my inclination is that there would be a goal to limit the number the people standing right in front of the special building, and then the reference to petach ohel moed in these verses would be to the entrance of the special complex from the outside.

The end of chapter 15, 15:31 records that the Jewish people were to be careful not to make G-d’s mishkan tamei. This is referring to the walls and covering of the special building and the area enclosed by the walls and the ceiling. The fact that the verse does not refer to the ohel moed indicates that the crucial problem of tumah in the complex is with regard to the special building and not to the courtyard.

The phrase petach ohel moed next appears by the selection of the goats in the ceremony on Yom Kippur, as the goats were to be brought petach ohel moed, 16:7. Again, this phrase could refer to either of the two possibilities discussed on 1:3.

Later in the ceremony, 16:16 records that Aharon was to kipper (purify?) the ohel moed. If one understands that the ohel moed refers just to the special building, then the verse means that Aharon was to sprinkle blood within that building, while if the term ohel moed means the entire complex, then 16:16 can mean that he was to sprinkle blood in the courtyard, see our discussion on 16:16-20, “Was the outer altar or the inner altar or both purified on Yom Kippur?”

The following verse, 16:17, records that no person was to be in the ohel moed when Aharon was in the kodesh, the inner room of the special building. If one believes that the ohel moed means just the special building, then 16:17 is stating that no one could be in the outer room of the special building when Aharon was in the inner room of the special building. I think this is obvious. Was a person going to be following Aharon when he was bringing the coals and blood into the inner room from the outer room? Also, with this understanding people could be in the courtyard when Aharon was going in the inner room, but then maybe a person in the courtyard could see the aron in the inner room when Aharon was going in, which is very dangerous, see Bemidbar 4:20. Instead, it is simpler to understand that when Aharon was in the inner room of the special building, no one could be in the entire complex until he completely finished needing to be in the inner room. This would remove the small possibility that a person could have seen the inner room from the courtyard when Aharon was going into the room. This would also mean that the people/ person watching the goat to be sent to Azazel would leave the complex until Aharon would need the goat in 16:20.

16:20,33 record that on Yom Kippur, Aharon’s action was to me-khapper the kodesh, the ohel moed and the altar. Depending on how one defines the term ohel moed in 16:16 determines how one understands the term ohel moed in these two verses, either the outer room of the special building or the entire complex.

16:23 then records that Aharon went to the ohel moed to change his priestly clothing. It is incredible to think that Aharon changed his clothing within the special building. Instead, Aharon had gone towards the exit of the complex or even left it to accompany the sending away of the goat to Azazel, and then in 16:23, he was to go in the courtyard in a relatively hidden place to change his clothing. 

16:33, a summary verse to the Yom Kippur ceremony, records that in the ceremony, the mikdash ha-kodesh was kipper. The term mikdash would refer to the aron, the special cultic furniture in the kodesh, inner room of the special building, as on Yom Kippur the high priest was to sprinkle blood on the kapporet, the cover of the aron and the base for the keruvim.

17:4,5,6,9 refer to the petach ohel moed, and again these verses could mean either possibility discussed on 1:3. 17:4 also refers to the mishkan, and here the idea is to the tent of G-d, which I understand means the walls and ceiling of the special building.

19:21 refers to the bringing of the asham sacrifice to the petach ohel moed, and, again, this could be referring to either possibility discussed on 1:3.

19:30 records that a person should fear G-d’s mikdash, and this means to fear (respect?) cultic items dedicated to G-d.

A reference to G-d’s mikdash appears in 20:3, and again it refers to the cultic furniture that is dedicated to G-d.

The next reference is that 21:12 records that a high priest cannot leave the mikdash to mourn for relatives since if he left, this would profane the mikdash. This means that he cannot leave the area where the special cultic furniture is situated since this would profane this furniture. A similar idea occurs in 21:23 which records a law not to profane G-d’s mikdash, and two of the special cultic items are mentioned in the beginning of the verse.

Skipping some chapters, 24:3, records that the menorah was to be lit outside the parokhet in the ohel moed. This designation outside the parokhet informs us where in the ohel moed, the entire complex, the menorah was to be lit, namely in the outer room of the special building.

Towards the end of the book of Vayikra, 26:2 refers to the mikdash of G-d, which again is to the cultic furniture, that people should fear the special furniture relating to G-d, similar to 19:30.

26:11 refers to G-d’s mishkan, as in 15:31, but here the verse appears to be referring to a future mishkan and not to the mishkan in the desert.

26:31 records how G-d will destroy the mikdash of the people if they sin, and here the reference is to the cultic furniture that the people made.

This concludes our review of the three terms, mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra, and we need to continue examining the terms in the books of Bemidbar and Devarim.

Bibliography:

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

Sarna, Nahum, (1923-2005), 1986, Exploring Exodus, New York: Schocken Books.

Shemot (Exodus) 25:8,9; 27:21 - The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Shemot

Shemot (Exodus) 25:8 records that G-d told Moshe that the people should build a mikdash, and then 25:9 records that G-d would show Moshe the pattern of the mishkan. What do the words mikdash and mishkan mean? Are they referring to different things or are they synonyms? 27:21 refers to a third term, the ohel moed that Aharon and his sons should light the menorah in the ohel moed. Is the ohel moed different than the mikdash and the mishkan? Do all three terms refer to the tent/ building that housed the special cultic furniture, such as the aron, the menorah, the inner altar, and the table? Do the terms also refer to the courtyard, where the outer altar was situated and was around the tent/ building that housed the special cultic furniture?

With regard to the terms mishkan and ohel moed, I think that most people think that they are synonyms, and that both words refer to the tent/ building which housed the special cultic furniture, see for example Ibn Ezra on 25:22 and Sarna, 1991, pp. 158,176. One problem with this approach is that 39:40; 40:2, 6, 29, 34, 35; Bemidbar 3:25 and 4:25, record the terms ohel moed and mishkan in the same verse, which would be redundant according to this understanding. A second problem is, why would the Torah repeatedly use different terms if the ohel moed and the mishkan have the same exact meaning?

Another possibility is that the terms mishkan and ohel moed refer to different areas in the special complex, but then the question is which areas? There are many possibilities. Rashi (on 25:22 and Bemidbar 7:89) seems to believe that the mishkan was the building with the two rooms and the ohel moed only consisted of the outer room of the mishkan. There are many more possibilities, as theoretically, the mishkan could refer to the walls surrounding the special furniture, and then the ohel moed refers to the walls and the ceiling of the building with the special furniture.

My hypothesis is that the term mikdash refers to the collection of the items (special furniture) that are used to worship G-d, the aron, the two altars and the menorah, not including the surrounding walls and ceilings. The idea being that a mikdash could exist without walls. The basis for this understanding is that Bemidbar 10:21 records that the Levite family of Kehat carried the mikdash, and they only carried the special furniture, see Bemidbar 4:1-15. 25:8 refers to the mikdash, and the remainder of the chapter refers to the special cultic furniture of the aron, the table and the menorah. The term mikdash only appears in the book of Shemot one other time by the song of Moshe, 15:17, where it would also refer to special furniture, but it is not clear if Moshe was referring to the special furniture described starting from chapter 25 onwards or some other items that are to worship G-d. Similarly, the Bet ha-Mikdash, the house of the mikdash, means a house that contains special items to worship G-d. 

25:8 ends that G-d would “dwell” amongst them, and the word dwell, shachanti, has the same root as the word mishkan, which could be a source for the term mishkan, but I am not sure, as 25:8 refers to the mikdash and not the mishkan. Note, the word “them” in 25:8 is usually understood to be the Jewish people, but it could also mean that G-d would “dwell” amongst the special furniture, which was more than one item.

The mishkan then refers to that enclosed area made by the walls around the special furniture, and the first covering, ceiling, of the special furniture. This would exclude the furniture within the enclosed area. The walls and ceiling would be a tent, and the word mishkan in Bemidbar 16:24,27 appears to be referring to a regular tent.

With regard to the definition of the term ohel moed, I will discuss it when the term first appears in the Torah in 27:21. Until then, I will examine/ discuss the term mishkan in 25:9-27:19 (parashat Teruma).

25:9 refers to the pattern of the mishkan, and the pattern of the cultic furniture, which shows that the mishkan is not inclusive of the furniture. Instead, the pattern of the mishkan means the pattern of the walls and the first ceiling (also the second ceiling?), which connected these walls, and these details are recorded in chapter 26. The word mishkan does not appear in the remainder of chapter 25 since the chapter is recording the making of the cultic furniture.

26:1-6 records that the making of the curtains of the mishkan, which is the first covering of the enclosed area.  After the Torah finishes describing the first covering/ ceiling of the enclosed area, 26:7 refers to a second covering made from goat’s hair which was to tent, ohel, on the mishkan, and this means that the covering of the goat’s hair was a second cover to be like a tent over the first cover/ ceiling recorded in 26:1-6. This second cover was not part of the mishkan since the mishkan was already a tent with one cover, see Shemot 36:14 and 40:19 and Rashi on 26:14, 35:11, and on Bemidbar 3:25 and 4:25. This second cover was a little larger than the first cover, 44 (11*4) by 30 amot as opposed to 40 (10*4) by 28 amot.

26:9 refers to the opening or the front of the tent. While Rashi (on 26:9) writes that this verse refers to the opening of the mishkan that the second cover was to extend two amot in some fashion (folded?) over the opening to the enclosed area, more likely it refers to the tent structure made by the parochet that was a pavilion, see our discussion, on 26:9, 31-33, 36; 27:21, 36:35,36; 40:3, 21, "The parochet: A pavilion and a screen."  On the other hand, the references to the term ohel in 26:11,12,13 refer to the second covering/ ceiling of the mishkan.

26:12 records that this second covering would overhang the back of the walls of the mishkan, apparently by two amot. 26:13 then records that the second cover, which was two amot wider than the first covering (30 vs. 28), was to have an amah on each side of the mishkan.  26:14 then refers to one or two covers to this second covering, which again is called the ohel, the tent or cover of the mishkan.

26:15-30 then refers to the wooden planks that were the walls, which constituted the mishkan, besides the first covering of the enclosed area. 26:30 concludes this section by recording that G-d told Moshe to make the mishkan, which again is for Moshe to make the first cover/ ceiling and the walls. After a discussion of the parokhet, divider, 26:31-33, 26:33-35, record how the special furniture was to be placed within the enclosed area, as for example, the table and the menorah were to be placed by the north and south sides of the mishkan, meaning by the north and south walls of the enclosed area.

26:36 refers to a screen by the opening of the ohel. This ohel is the pavilion made by the paraochet just like in 26:9.

27:1-8 discuss the outer altar and does not use the term mishkan since the outer altar was not in the building which housed the special furniture. 27:9 refers to the chatzer of the mishkan, the courtyard of the mishkan, and this would be the courtyard around the walls which enclosed the special furniture. This the only time in the Torah this term is used, though 40:33 uses a similar term, the courtyard around the mishkan.

27:19 refers to the vessels or utensils of the mishkan, then pegs (pins?) of the mishkan and of the courtyard that all these items were to be made from bronze (copper?). Hertz (1960, p. 336) and Sarna (1991, p. 175) write that in this verse, the term mishkan means the entire compound, but following Rashi (on 27:19) the vessels here are the tools used to set up and dismantle the planks that made the walls of the enclosed area (the mishkan). With this understanding, the tools used to set up and dismantle the poles of the courtyard did not have to be from bronze, as they could have been stones. The extra vessels/ tools for setting up and dismantling the mishkan were from bronze to separate them from the aron, table and the menorah that were necessary items that were made from gold and silver. In addition, there were two sets of pegs, one for the walls of the mishkan and one for the poles in the courtyard. 35:18 and 39:40 will record that there were ropes to attach the pegs to the walls of the mishkan and the poles of the courtyard. Note, the double reference to pegs in 27:19 indicates that the poles of the courtyard are not part of the mishkan.

27:21 records that Aharon was to light the menorah in the ohel moed. This is the first mention of the term ohel moed in the Torah. This verse might suggest that the ohel moed is just the outer room within the enclosed area since this is where the menorah was situated, 26:35, as Rashi seems to write on 25:22. While this is possible, it would mean that in 40:34,35, the cloud of G-d that was in the ohel moed was in a smaller area than the glory of G-d, which filled the mishkan, but it is more logical that the cloud of G-d was more expansive, which means that the glory of G-d was within the cloud. Also, if the ohel moed is just the outer room of the enclosed area, then the high priest would change his clothes on Yom Kippur in this room, Vayikra 16:23, and that the Levites would be able to work in the room, Bemidbar 8:22. I doubt both of these possibilities.

My guess is that the ohel moed encompassed the entire special complex of the courtyard and the tent/ building which enclosed the special cultic furniture, see Levine, 1993, p. 159. With this definition, the term ohel, tent, in the phrase ohel moed, would be based on the main area in the complex, the tent/ building that encompassed the special cultic furniture. In addition, the term moed, in the phrase ohel moed, refers to areas where G-d would meet with Moshe and the Jewish people. This meeting could be the inner room of the special building, 25:22, Bemidbar 17:19, but it also refers to the courtyard. Shemot 29:43 (also see 29:42) records that G-d would meet the Jewish people there. Where is the “there?” Most likely it is not referring to the being inside the special building since the previous verses are referring to the daily sacrifice that was brought in the courtyard. In addition, the people could not go into the special building, and this suggest that the meeting was to be courtyard, where the people sometimes had access to. Thus, the term, ohel moed refers to any area where this meeting between G-d and Moshe and or the Jewish people could take place with regard to the special building and this would be inside the special building and in the courtyard.

To return to 27:21, the menorah was to be lit in the ohel moed, in the complex, and the verse specifies where in the complex, outside of the parokhet, which from 26:35 means in the outer room of the special building. Note the Torah could not have recorded that the menorah was to be lit in the mishkan since that would mean lighting the menorah literally in the walls. Thus, the Torah never has the phrase be-mishkan, in the mishkan. In addition, the lighting of the menorah was a type of meeting between Aharon and G-d, even though the word meeting is not used in the verse, which makes the term ohel moed appropriate for 27:21. Note, also that the Torah only used the term ohel moed after the entire complex was described in 25:8-27:19.

 
The two terms mishkan and ohel moed do not appear in chapter 28.

The word mishkan does not appear in chapter 29, but 29:4,11,32,42 use the term petach ohel moed, the opening or entrance of the ohel moed, to indicate where the priests were to be situated during the ceremony to initiate them. If the ohel moed is the entire complex, then this opening would seem to be the entrance from outside of the complex and going into the complex. The beginning of this entrance is also called the gate of the courtyard, 27:16. However, based on 38:30, Bemidbar 3:25 and Bemidbar 4:25, maybe this opening is going to the courtyard coming from the special building containing the special cultic furniture. This phrase petach ohel moed could then be understood as the opening to the courtyard either from outside the complex or from the special building depending on the circumstance, see our discussion on Vayikra 1:1, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra.” (I believe this second possibility is the standard understanding of the term petach ohel moed and would also be the reference to the opening if the ohel moed was just the outer room of the tent/ building.)

In both cases, the opening to the ohel moed would be referring to being in the courtyard, but there would be a difference where in the courtyard the priests were supposed to be: Close to the entrance to the complex or close to the special building, the mishkan.

A possible proof that the petach ohel moed is part of the courtyard and not within the special building is that the sockets to the pillars that support the screen between the tent/ building and courtyard are made from bronze and not silver like the sockets of the walls of the enclosed area, 26:19,21,25,37; 38:25-30. The gate of the courtyard was also made from bronze, 27:17, 38:21, which might be to hint, that the petach ohel moed could refer to both entrances. Also, the same fabrics are used for both entrances, and both do not have keruvim on the fabrics, 26:16 and 26:36.

29:10 records a new term, lifnei ohel moed, before the ohel moed. What area is this referring to and how does this term differ from the term petach ohel moed? Milgrom (1991, p. 209) points out that Bemidbar 8:9,10 implies that the phrase lifnei ohel moed means outside the courtyard of the ohel moed. This would be very different than the petach ohel moed, which was inside the courtyard, and would have implications for where the shelamim sacrifice was to be killed, Vayikra 3:8,13, but it accords with the idea that the ohel moed refers to the entire complex.

29:44 records that G-d would mekadesh the ohel moed and the altar. The altar is most likely the outer altar in the courtyard since the inner incense altar had not yet been discussed. However, if the ohel moed refers to the entire complex, then when G-d would mekadesh the ohel moed then this should include the outer altar as well since it was situated in the courtyard. Why then is the outer altar specified in the verse? This verse could be seen as support for the idea that the ohel moed was just the building of the special furniture or the outer room of the building. However, then the courtyard area was never to be mekadesh. Instead, while the ohel moed is the tent/ building with the special cultic furniture and the courtyard of the building, it was not inclusive of the altar in the courtyard. The idea would be that the ohel moed refers to an area, but not to the objects in the area. This would be similar to the idea that the mishkan refers to walls and a ceiling, but not to the items within the walls and ceiling. (Note, 29:44 also did not refer to aron, the table and the menorah since the verse is referring to the ceremony on the eighth day, Vayikra 9, which was with regard to the courtyard.) Or it could be that by specifying the altar even though it is part of the ohel moed, the Torah is trying to teach that the altar has a separate identity from the ohel moed that in theory one could have the altar without having the ohel moed. 

In the following chapter, 30:16 refers to silver that was to be used for the ohel moed. Based on 38:25-28, the verse seems to be referring to silver by the sockets(?) that supported the walls of the enclosed area, the wall that separated the inner room in the enclosed area from the outer room, the parokhet, and hooks which might have been used to connect the curtains to the planks of the enclosed area. In this case, since some of the sockets were for the parokhet, which while situated within the enclosed area was not considered one of the elements of the mishkan, then the term used in 30:16 is ohel moed, which again is the more expansive term referring to the entire complex.

30:18 records that the laver, kiyur, and its stand, kano, were to be placed between the ohel moed and the altar. Where? According to Sarna (1991, p. 155) the laver was directly between the outer altar and the tent/ building with the special furniture. According to Chazal (see Rashi on 30:18) the laver was not directly between the outer altar and the building with the special furniture. Instead, it was a little below an imaginary line that would connect the outer altar and the building, though it was still between the two items. The reason for this view is that 40:6,29 seem to imply that the outer altar was directly in front of the opening of the tent/ building. Both of these views understand that the ohel moed was just the building with the special furniture, synonymous with the mishkan. Yet, then the priests when they entered the courtyard, had to walk almost to the middle of the courtyard, pass the outer altar, to wash their hands and feet. Also, 30:20 records that the priests had to wash their hands when coming into the ohel moed, and if one claims that the ohel moed is just the tent/ building with the special furniture or just the outer room of the building, then this verse would not obligate the priests to wash their hands when they just went into the courtyard.

It is more reasonable to understand that the laver was placed at the entrance to the courtyard, and then priests would wash their hands immediately upon entering the courtyard. (This is implied by 29:4 if petach ohel moed can mean to come into the complex from the outside.) 30:18 would then mean that the laver was to be placed in between the opening or the beginning of the courtyard and the outer altar. With this understanding, the term entering the ohel moed in the verse is referring to entering the complex, which would be the courtyard of the building with the special furniture. This understanding also solves the problem of 40:6,29 since if the laver is on the other side of the outer altar, between the altar and the opening to the courtyard, then there would be nothing between the outer altar and the opening of the tent/ building with the special cultic furniture.

30:20 also records that not only were the priests to wash their hands and feet when they entered the ohel moed, but also when they would approach the outer altar. Again, as we discussed on 29:44, if the ohel moed includes the courtyard of the building with the special furniture, then the reference to the altar in 30:20 would seem to be unnecessary. The answer here might be that the washing for the altar would be the law in a case where there was only an altar without any building with special furniture or a courtyard. Or, it could be that the person had to wash twice, once just for entering the courtyard and once if the person approached the outer altar, as working with the sacrifices to offer them on the altar was quite messy.

30:26-28 records that the ohel moed is to be anointed as well as all the special cultic furniture. While one might claim that the term ohel moed here is a general term, and then there is detailed list of items to be anointed, it seems more likely (the vav in ve-et in 30:26) that the anointing of the ohel moed was a separate act from anointing all of the special cultic furniture. This understanding implies that the ohel moed refers to an area, but not to the items in the area, as we discussed on 29:44.

Based on 40:9 and Vayikra 8:10 this anointing of the ohel moed, meant anointing the walls and ceiling that constituted the mishkan. Why then did 30:26 not use the term mishkan instead of ohel moed? My guess is that because 40:9 and Vayikra 8:10 also has the phrase “everything in it,” which would include the parokhet, and the screen to the entrance to the tent/ building with the special cultic furniture. These two items are not mentioned in 30:27,28, and would not be included in a command to anoint the mishkan, but they would be included within a command to anoint the ohel moed. Note, the Torah could have used similar language to 40:9 and Vayikra 8:10, “anoint the mishkan and everything in it,” but then the Torah would not have signaled out the different items as occurs in 30:27.

30:36 refers to placing incense before the testimony, namely the aron with the luchot, in the ohel moed. Again, the ohel moed is the entire special complex, and the word testimony specifies where in the complex the incense was to be placed.

31:7-11 then record, similar to 30:26-28, that the people were to build/ make the ohel moed, all the special cultic furniture, the priestly clothing, the anointing oils and the special incense. Again, we see that the ohel moed does not include the items within the area of the ohel moed. The building here of the ohel moed would seem to refer to the walls and curtains of the tent/ building and the poles and curtains of the courtyard. Note that if the ohel moed just refers to tent/ building with the special cultic furniture, then the list is missing the building of the poles and curtains of the courtyard.

The next mention of either the term mishkan or ohel moed is that 33:7 records that after the sin of the golden calf, Moshe moved his tent from the camp, and this tent was called ohel moed. It is not clear who called this tent, the ohel moed, as only Moshe had heard the term from G-d. In any event, this ohel moed was different than the ohel moed previously discussed since this was a private tent where only Moshe would speak to G-d and had no known cultic furniture.

After the incident of the golden calf ends, chapters 35-40 record the actual building of the special tent/ building, the special cultic furniture and the priestly clothing. 

35:11-19 records a list of the items that were to be made. The list does not start with the term ohel moed since apparently the Torah wants to specify the various items. Instead, the list begins, 35:11, by referring to the mishkan, to its ohel, the cover (s?) to the ohel, its claps, its boards, its bars, its pillars and its sockets. The term mishkan here again means the walls of the tent, and the first covering of the enclosed area, and in 35:11, the Torah specifies all the items that were part of building the wall and the covering. Note, the term ohel in 35:11 means the second covering made of the goat’s hair that as mentioned above on 26:7 was considered a tent to the enclosed area. The list of items in 35:11 does not mention the first cover, but this is included in the term mishkan at the beginning of the verse.

(I presume that a person who understands that the mishkan refers to the tent/ building and special cultic furniture in the tent/ building, must understand the term mishkan in 35:11 to be a general term, and then the Torah lists the details. Yet, why then does 35:11 use the pronoun its by six items that the Torah is connecting to the mishkan, and then in the ensuing verses, the items mentioned are not connected to the mishkan? This difference implies that the items mentioned in the ensuing verses are not part of the mishkan since the mishkan is only the walls and the first cover of the enclosed area.)

Afterwards, 35:15 refers to making the opening of the mishkan, and this is the opening to the enclosed area which houses the special cultic furniture. Note, this opening might be identical to the opening to the ohel moed, as we discussed on 29:4,11,32,42, but the terms could refer to a person moving in different direction, as the opening to the mishkan would refer to a person going into the enclosed area from the courtyard, while the opening to the ohel moed could refer to a person going from the enclosed area into the courtyard. Also, the opening to the ohel moed could also refer to the entrance from outside of the complex into the courtyard, but the opening to the mishkan would not be referring to that entrance.

35:17 records that pillars and curtains of the courtyard were to be built and they are mentioned separately from the items to build the mishkan since the courtyard is not included in the term mishkan.

35:18 refers to the pegs of the mishkan, and the pegs of the courtyard, like in 27:19, and also to ropes. Again, we see that the mishkan does not include the courtyard.

35:21 then refers to the people bringing the materials to build the ohel moed. Here, the term ohel moed is a general term for the walls of the enclosed area and the poles and curtains of the courtyard. Note, again that if the term ohel moed only means the tent/ building with the special cultic furniture, then the Torah does not record that the people brought materials to build the courtyard. Also, note that the word avodato in 35:21 is probably referring to materials to make all the cultic furniture, the oils and spices.

In the following chapter, 36:8,20,25,27,28,31,32 all record the word mishkan and refer to the making of the first level of curtains of the enclosed area and the walls of the enclosed area. Note, 36:14,18, refer to the second covering, of the goat’s hair, and again this was not part of the mishkan but was a tent, ohel, over the mishkan. 36:19 then refers to the cover or covers to the second covering.

Towards the end of chapter 36, 36:37 refers to the screen for the opening to the ohel, tent, and this verse is similar to 26:36, and refers to the pavilion made by the parochet.

The terms ohel moed and mishkan do not appear in chapter 37, but do appear in the last three chapters of the book of Shemot. 

38:8 refers to the entrance, petach, to the ohel moed since the verse is referring to the laver that was in the courtyard, and the question as what area is being referred to is identical to what we discussed on 30:18. Note, in this verse, the entrance to the ohel moed seems to refer to the entrance from outside of the complex into the courtyard since 38:8 records that many women gathered by the entrance to the ohel moed, and it is hard to imagine that many people, women or men, could be standing around the entrance to the tent/ building with the special furniture.

38:20 refers to the pegs of both the mishkan and the courtyard, again showing that these are different areas, see our discussions on 35:18 and 27:19.

38:21, the first verse in parashat Pekudei, records the word mishkan twice. I believe that most people (see comments of Ibn Ezra on 38:21) understand that this verse is an introduction to the verses 38:24-31, and then the words mishkan in 38:21 could refer to the entire complex. However, really, 38:21 as well as 38:22,23 refers to the previous section from 36:8-38:20, which record the work of the people constructing the walls, covers and furniture of the special building and its courtyard. The word pekudei in 38:21 is usually translated as an account of the items in the mishkan, but it means here the people in charge of the building of mishkan, which 38:21 informs us was Moshe and his nephew Itamar. Moshe and Itamar were in charge of the building of the walls and the ceiling of the special building which is the mishkan. They might also have been in charge of the curtains and poles of the courtyard since Itamar was to be in charge of these items when the people travelled in the desert, Bemidbar 4:28,33. The following verse, 38:22, then delineate that Betzalel was in charge of making the special cultic furniture that G-d commanded Moshe to make, and 38:23 records that Oholiav was in charge of making the fabrics used to make the curtains (and also the priestly clothing?) that were needed for the special building.

The word mishkan appears a second time in 38:21 that the Torah explains that this tent/ mishkan was a structure that was to contain, the witnesses to the covenant, namely the tablets, see 40:21. 

The Torah then lists quantities of metals that were used in constructing the special building and within the list of items made from bronze, 38:30 refers to the opening to the ohel moed. Based on 38:31, the following verse, this opening seems to be referring to the opening to the courtyard from the enclosed area which contained the special cultic furniture, like in Bemidbar 3:25 and 4:25, see our discussion above on 29:4,11,32,42.

38:31 again refers to the pegs of the mishkan and of the courtyard separately, like in 27:19, 35:18, which again implies that the mishkan does not include the courtyard. 

Towards the end of chapter 39, 39:33-41 record that the people brought the mishkan, and then a list of all the individual items to Moshe. This list is almost identical to the list in 35:11-19, which means that the units serve as a bookend to the actual construction of the special complex. One difference between the two lists is that the end of 39:38 refers to the screen of the entrance to the ohel, while 35:15 refers to the screen to the entrance of the mishkan.    These are the same screens, as the ohel in 39:38 (as in 26:36 and 36:37) refers to the tent made by the parochet that was within the mishkan.

39:33, which refers to the mishkan, means that the people brought the walls and the first covering of the enclosed area which contained the special cultic furniture. Also, the reference to the ohel in 39:33 is again to the second covering of goat’s hair. For more on the implications of the word mishkan and the various items relating to the mishkan in 39:33, see our discussion above on 35:11.

39:40 records that the people bought the items needed to construct the courtyard, the pegs and ropes of the courtyard, and “all the vessels for the work in the mishkan to the ohel moed.” The vessels for the work in the mishkan are again the tools that are to be used in the setting up and dismantling of the mishkan like in 27:19. The reference to pegs and ropes is also similar to 27:19, 35:18 and 38:31, but there are some differences. One, 39:40 does not refer to the pegs and ropes of the mishkan, while the other verses do, though maybe they can be subsumed under the phrase “the vessels for the work in the mishkan.” Two, 27:19, 35:18 and 38:31 do not have the phrase “to the ohel moed.” Does this phrase in 39:40 mean the mishkan which is situated in the ohel moed? Or, can it mean that the people brought tools for the ohel moed, which could refer to tools for setting up and dismantling the courtyard, something which had not been commanded in 27:19. Or, maybe the term to or for the ohel moed is a conclusion to all the items mentioned from 39:23-40 since the ohel moed signifies the entire complex.

In the beginning of the last chapter of the book of Shemot, 40:2 states that G-d told Moshe to set up the mishkan ohel moed. This means that Moshe was to set up the walls and the covering of the enclosed area which was situated in or a part of the ohel moed.

40:5, like in 35:15, refers to the entrance to the mishkan, which is the entrance to the enclosed area, due to the walls and ceiling that constituted the mishkan, from the courtyard.

40:6 refers to placing the outer altar in reference to the entrance of the mishkan (mentioned in 40:5) and the ohel moed. This means that the outer altar was to be placed before the entrance to the mishkan, which means in the courtyard and the courtyard area was part of the ohel moed, see our discussion above on 30:18. Thus, the outer altar was to be situated before the entrance to the mishkan and in the ohel moed.

40:7 refers to the laver being between the ohel moed and the outer altar, and as we discussed on 30:18, it could mean that the laver should be in between the entrance of the courtyard, coming from the outside, and the outer altar, which was in the courtyard.

40:9 records that Moshe was to anoint the mishkan, the walls and the ceiling of the enclosed area, everything in it, and all of the items that were part of building the walls and the ceiling, see the list of items in 39:33. The phrase “everything in it” refers to all the special cultic furniture, enclosed by the walls and ceiling of the mishkan. These items were not components of the mishkan but of the mikdash, and hence their anointing was not covered by the first phrase in the verse “to anoint the mishkan.”

40:12 records that Aharon and his sons were to be washed by the entrance of the ohel moed, which was in the courtyard, see our discussion above on 29:4,11,32,42.

40:16-18 record that Moshe fulfilled G-d’s instructions and put up the mishkan, namely, the walls and the first covering of the enclosed area, which would contain the special cultic furniture. 40:19 records that Moshe put on the second, third (and fourth?) coverings of the enclosed area, and these coverings are on the mishkan but are not elements in the mishkan.

40:21 then records that Moshe brought the aron to the mishkan, which means that Moshe placed the aron within the enclosed area of the walls and covering that constituted the mishkan. This verse differs from the ensuing verses that refer to the special building as the ohel moed, which might imply that the term ohel moed excludes the inner room of the mishkan, but this doubtful, see our discussion on 27:21. More likely, the Torah could not have used the words ohel moed in 40:21since the previous verses, 40:17-19 had just recorded that Moshe had built the walls and placed the cover on the walls, namely he had built the mishkan. Thus, the ohel moed as a distinct entity from the mishkan did not yet exist. Only after Moshe added other structural elements to the special building, could the Torah use the term ohel moed when describing the actual construction of the special building. Thus, after 40:21 records that Moshe placed the parochet in the area enclosed by the walls and covered by the ceiling that constituted the mishkan could the Torah refer to the ohel moed, which it does in the following verse. Note this initial stage of the mishkan existing with the aron before the ohel moed existed as a separate entity might explain why 38:21 refers to the mishkan as a testimony since there was a moment where the mishkan contained the aron without the entire ohel moed complex.

40:22,24 then record that the table and the menorah were put into the ohel moed and on the north and south sides of the mishkan. This placement is mentioned in 26:33-35. Again, the term ohel moed encompasses the entire special complex, and the mention of the north and south sides of the mishkan, namely, the walls of tent/ building, is where in the complex, the table and the menorah were to be placed.

40:26 then records that Moshe put the incense altar in the ohel moed, and this follows the language in 40:20,22 by the table and the menorah, the other two items in the outer room of the mishkan. In the case of the incense altar, as opposed to the table and menorah, it was not placed next to the walls that constituted the mishkan so the mishkan is not referred to in this verse. Instead, the Torah explains that its location in the ohel moed was before the parochet.

40:28 then records that Moshe put up the screen of the entrance to the mishkan, to the enclosed area of the special furniture, which he had just put up in the previous verses. This verse is the fulfillment on 40:5, see our brief discussion on 40:5.

40:29 records that Moshe placed the outer altar, petach mishkan ohel moed, and the meaning of this double phrase is explained in our discussion on 40:6. 40:29 is the fulfillment of the command to Moshe in 40:6. Similarly, 40:30 is the fulfillment of 40:7, and see also our discussion on 30:18. Also, 40:32, which refers to a person coming to the ohel moed, can be understand based on our discussion on 30:18 and 30:20.

40:33 records that Moshe created a courtyard around the mishkan (and the outer altar), which means that Moshe put up the poles and curtains of the courtyard, 27:9-18. This created the courtyard around the walls and ceiling that constituted the mishkan.

40:34 records that the cloud of G-d covered the ohel moed and the glory of G-d filled the mishkan. These were two different though related actions. The cloud of G-d covered the entire complex, the tent/ building which contained the special cultic furniture and the courtyard around the tent/ building while the glory of G-d, which was within the cloud, was in the mishkan meaning between the walls and ceiling of the enclosed area.

40:35 records that Moshe could not enter the ohel moed, the entire complex due to the cloud of G-d that within entire complex, and also because the glory of G-d was between the walls and ceiling of the enclosed area.

40:36-38, the last verses in the book of Shemot, are in reference to a period after the construction of the special complex, that the cloud of G-d would contract to just be over the mishkan, namely just over the walls and ceiling of the enclosed area which contained the special cultic furniture.

This discussion only refers to the book of Shemot, and there is a need to examine the terms ohel moed and the mishkan in the remainder of the Torah see our discussions on Vayikra 1:1 "The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra" and on Bemidbar 1:1, "The terms mikdash, mishkan, and ohel moed in the books of Bemidbar and Devarim."

Bibliography:

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

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

Milgrom, Jacob, 1991, Leviticus 1-16: The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday.

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

Shemot 17:16 - Does the Torah refer to G-d having a throne?

שמות יז:טז - ויאמר משה כי יד על כס קה מלחמה להשם בעמלק מדר דר.

After the Torah records the Jewish people’s victory over Amalek in the desert, 17:16 records a cryptic statement from Moshe. Moshe said, “Because the hand on kes G-d, a war between G-d and Amalek from (for, through?) the generations.” The major difficulty of this verse is, what does the two-letter word kes mean? The word does not appear again in the remainder of Tanakh, and commentators assume that it is a shortened version of a longer word. Another difficulty of 17:16 is what was Moshe saying when he referred to a hand?

Rashi (on 17:16) explains that the word kes is short for the word chair, kiseh, as then one adds an aleph to the word kes. Rashi then explains that the chair is the throne of G-d and Moshe’s reference to a hand refers to G-d swearing on His throne that He would destroy Amalek. This explanation is difficult. It depicts G-d as having a chair to sit in and having a need to raise a hand to signal that He was swearing. Why did G-d have to swear altogether? Why would G-d have to swear on His throne? Where is this throne? In the sky? Why would G-d need a throne? In his comments on Bereshit 1:2, Rashi also refers to the kiseh ha-kavod, the Divine throne, but in the Torah, there is no mention or idea that G-d has or sits on a throne. (Note, Shemot 24:10 does not refer to a throne or a chair.)

Rashi also writes that Moshe was saying that G-d’s name and throne is not complete or perfect, hence the word kes is missing the letter aleph, until the name of Amalek is blotted out. This idea seems to be popular in some circles in Judaism, but is quite odd that G-d’s name depends on the non-existence of Amalek. This idea is also not recorded in the Torah.

Other commentators (see Bekhor Shor and Ibn Ezra on 17:16) also follow the idea that kes refers to a chair and a throne, but they suggest that it could be referring to a human king sitting in his throne. These commentators suggest that Moshe was making a prophetic statement in 17:16 that when the Jewish people would have a king who would assume the throne, then the king would lead the people to attack Amalek. This is also difficult since the reference to a hand is not obviously to a future king and the end of 17:16 refers to G-d fighting with Amalek and not this future king.

Cassuto (1967, pp. 206,207) suggests that the reference to a hand in 17:16 is to a memorial, and the word kes is short for kasas (adding the letter sameach), which means to count or reckon. According to Cassuto, Moshe is saying that the altar that he built in the previous verse, 17:15, should be a memorial to G-d’s plan to obliterate Amalek. I am not sure why a memorial is needed to express this idea, especially as the people were going to be leaving the area where the altar was built, 17:5, 19:2. Maybe the memorial was to stop the people from wanting to continue fighting with Amalek.

My guess is that the word kes is short for the word kesah, which entails adding the letter heh to the word kes. The word kesah appears in Tehillim 81:4 and Mishlei 7:20 where it means at the appointed time. Also, the reference to the phrase “hand on” could refer to G-d’s power being evident, as in 9:3 and 14:31. The meaning of the verse would then be that Moshe was saying that G-d’s power would be evident in its appointed time as in the future at some time G-d would fight with Amalek. This understanding connects 17:16 with 17:14, where G-d had told Moshe that He would destroy Amalek. Also, it might connect with the previous verse, 17:15, which records that Moshe built an altar and called it “G-d is my banner,” since with this interpretation, in 17:16 Moshe was explaining that the evidence for this “banner” would be apparent in its appropriate time in the future.

Note, G-d could have destroyed Amalek on the spot instead of waiting for the future, but maybe G-d chose not to in order not to give the people a feeling of a great victory since the war with Amalek was a punishment for doubting G-d. 

Bibliography:

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1967, A commentary on the book of Exodus, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography:

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

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

Bereshit chapter 36 - The rise and fall of Esav

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Devarim 33:4 – Morasha: A special double inheritance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This kinah has many other connections with Megillat Eicah:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This comparison occurs in each stanza of the kinah, which consists of two lines. In the first line of each stanza, R. Elazar haKalir is referring to what happened bad to the Jewish people, and he uses various terms to refer either to the Romans or to the Babylonians. In the second line of each stanza, R. Elazar haKalir refers to good things that G-d did to the Jewish people, and which it was hoped would have continued. For example, in the first stanza, the first line of the kinah refers to the people suffering at the hands of the Romans, while in the second line, R. Elazar haKalir refers to the covenant between G-d and Avram in Bereshit 15 (the good), which might have been a source for G-d to protect the people from the Romans. In the remaining stanzas most of the references to good things that G-d did to the Jewish people relate to when the people were in the desert after leaving Egypt.

The comparison of what happened bad to the Jewish people, the first line in each stanza, to the good that G-d was supposed to do for the people, (the second line in each stanza), is not equal since each line of the good that G-d had done for the people and was hoped to continue has six words that begin with the appropriate letter, while the line which describes the bad that happened (the first line of each stanza) only has five words with the relevant letter. I wonder if this inequality is a type of prayer for G-d to do more good things for the people since the second line of each stanza (the good) is greater in terms of the number of words than the first line of each stanza (the bad). Some minor support for this idea is that the ending of each stanza has a phrase referring to talking/ praying in reference of the good that was and that was supposed to continue. For example, the end of the second stanza is u-vechen dibarnu, “And so, we spoke,” by the good that was supposed to have continued.

Bemidbar 36:5-9 – The elders of the tribe of Menashe and the daughters of Tzelofhad: Tribalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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