lobashamayim

Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) 3:1-8 – To everything there is a season

2026-09-17T15:49:48.284+03:00

Ashkenazim have a custom to read the book of Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) on Sukkot (Rama, Orah Chayyim 490:9) and this is a “late” custom as compared to the reading of the other four Megillot. Masechet Soferim (8th century?, 14:3,18 and 18:7) refers to reading the other Megillot but does not mention reading the book of Kohelet. (In my edition of Masechet Soferim, Slotki, 1965, p. 276, footnote 6, records that the Gra (18th century) added in the text of Masechet Soferim to read Kohelet on Sukkot.)

It seems that by the Middle Ages, Ashkenazim were reading Kohelet on Sukkot. Most likely this delay was because the message of Kohelet is very troubling and for a long time it was thought not appropriate to be read. However, eventually it was added probably just for the reason that once the other four Megillot (Esther, Shir ha-Shirim, Rut and Eicah) were read, then it was thought appropriate to read the fifth Megillah, Kohelet.

One of the most well-known set of verses in Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) is 3:1-8. 3:1 records, “To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the shamayim” (translation from Reichert and Cohen, 1946, p. 123). Note, many (all?) people translate the word shamayim as the heavens which I think they think is some undefined place that G-d and angels live, but I think it is the air starting from above people, animals and vegetation.

The next seven verses, 3:2-8, elaborate on 3:1 with regard to the words everything, time and purpose mentioned in 3:1. Each of these seven verses refer to a time to do four actions. The four actions in each verse are split into two groups of opposite actions, and the four actions relate to each other. Overall, there are 28 actions, 14 actions to do something and 14 actions which undo or end the previous action.

The first action mentioned in 3:2 is the first possible action, a time to be born, (1a) and the opposite action is a time to die (1b), which ends the life that was born. The second half of 3:2 continues this theme but by vegetation. First there is a time to plant (2a) vegetation, which from the plant’s perspective is like being born, and then the opposite action is that there is a time to uproot (2b) the plant, which is dying from the perspective of the plant.

The next verse 3:3 is problematic. It begins by stating that there is a time to kill (la-harog) and a time to heal (lirpoah), but healing does not undo or end the killing as the person is still dead. In addition, the second half of 3:3 refers to opening (liphrotz) and building (livnot), which seemingly have nothing to do with killing or healing. Furthermore, killing is prohibited (Bereshit 9:6; Shemot 20:13), how could Kohelet write that there is a time for killing? People have told me that the killing is by a war, but this is mentioned in 3:8, and does not explain how the killing relates to opening/ building and how the healing undoes the killing. Instead, based on Melachim I 18:30, which records that on Mount Carmel (near Haifa) Eliyahu repaired (va-yirapeh) the altar which had been demolished (he-harus), Arnold Ehrlich (1848-1919, quoted by Ginsberg, 1963, p. 49) has suggested that the word la-harog in 3:3 should really be la-haros switching the gimmel in the end of the word for a samaech. With this change, 3:3 would refer to demolishing (3a) and repairing (3b), opening (4a) and building (4b), and 3:3 then accords with the structure of 3:2-8. The repairing (3b) ends or stops the demolishing (3a) and all four actions in the verse refer to one process, the building process, as almost inevitably when a person builds something, first the person needs to demolish and open things up to rebuild it. (When we did renovations in our house in Modiin, the work began by demolishing walls and making openings in the house before the house was re-built.)

The next verse, 3:4 refers to a time to cry (5a), a time to laugh (5b), which ends the crying, a time to mourn (6a) and a time to dance (6b), which ends or signals the end of the mourning.

The next verse 3:5 refers to a time to throw stones (7a), to gather stones (7b), to hug (8a) and to refrain from hugging (8b). This reference to throwing and gathering stones is odd. This action does not appear to be a significant action in a person’s life and how can it relate to hugging? The answer is that Kohelet Rabbah (3:3) explains that the phrase refers to marital relations when the wife is not a niddah (when sexual relations are permitted) and when the wife is a niddah (when sexual relations are prohibited). Reichert and Cohen (1946, p. 124) explain that the term stones in the verse is a euphemism for the testes, and the throwing of the stones is a euphemism for sexual intercourse. Note also in Rut 3:4,8,14 there is a euphemism, albeit a different word, margelotav, for the same male anatomy. It could be that Kohelet is not referring to the laws of niddah, but instead he (?) means there is time for sexual profligacy and a time for sexual restraint (see Machinist, 2004, p. 1607). With either possibility, the first half of 3:5 then relates to the hugging and not hugging in the second half of the verse.

The first half of the next verse, 3:6 refers to a time to seek/ demand (9a), and a time to lose something (9b), as when a person acknowledges that something is lost, then this stops one from seeking or demanding the item. The second half of 3:6 records that there is a time to keep/ store (10a, li-shmor, not the definition of the word shamor in the Torah, which is to remember, see our discussion on Devarim 4:6, “The definition of the word shamor in Moshe’s speeches in the book of Devarim - To remember”) and a time to discard (10b), and the discarding ends the keeping of an item. While these four actions could be referring to material items, I think that all the actions refer to a person seeking a partner/ friend, losing a partner/ friend, keeping the partner/ friend and separating from one’s partner/ friend.

The next verse 3:7 refers to a time to tear (11a), a time to sew (11b), as the sowing ends or removes the tear, and a time to keep quiet (12a) and a time to speak (12b), as the speaking ends or stop the person from being quiet. It is not clear how these four actions are connected. Hartom (1999, p. 76) suggests that all of these actions refer to mourning. The tearing was the common way for a person to express his/ her grief, and then after the mourning was over, the tear was sewn. (Today we still tear our garments at the funeral, but it has become a formal act and I think very few people sew their clothing which they tore.) Similarly, initially when a person is in mourning, they are quiet and pensive, and then when the mourning ends or become less intense, they start to talk.

The last verse in this set of verses, 3:8 records that there is a time to love (13a), a time to hate (13b), as the hate ends the love, and a time for war (14a) and time for peace (14b), as the peace ends the war. This verse breaks the pattern of the previous six verses since in 3:2-3:7 the first action (the “a” action) in the first half of the verse corresponds to the first action (again the “a” action) in the second half of the verse. For example, in 3:2, action 1a is being born and action 2a is being planted. However here the first action in the verse, to love (13a) does not correspond to the first action in the second half of the verse, to fight a war (14a). One would have thought that the first action in 3:8 would be to hate which corresponds with fighting a war or that the second action in the second half of the verse would be to fight a war. Maybe Kohelet did not want to put to hate before to love since while it happens that people who hate each other fall in love (Beauty and the Beast?), the more common occurrence is that people who hate each other initially loved each other (most cases of divorce?), and hence hate would be mentioned after love. (Note this does not imply that all cases of love lead to hate or that hate only happens after love, but that it is more likely that hate will happen after love, then love will develop from hatred.) A different idea is that maybe Kohelet did want to list to hate before to love to not be too rose-colored to imply that all cases of hate lead to love in the end. In addition, maybe Kohelet did not want to end this series of verses on fighting, so he ended with there is a time for peace. Or maybe Kohelet wanted to end the series of verses with a verse that has a chiastic structure, 13a with 14b and 13b with 14a.

Looking at the eight verses as one unit, excluding the first verse, 3:2, which is the totality of life, being born and dying, there is an approximate chiastic structure to the verses. 3:3, the demolishing and building of physical structures roughly matches with 3:8, the forming and ending of human relationships, 3:4 is similar to 3:7 since both relate to mourning and 3:5 and 3:6 both relate to a person and his/ her partner, which, other than the fear of G-d (12:13), is the pivotal part of a person’s life.

Bibliography:

Ginsberg, H. L. 1963, The quintessence of Kohelet, in Biblical and other studies, edited by Alexander Altmann, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Hartom (Artom), Elia Samuele (1887-1965), 1999, The five Megillot, Tel Aviv: Yavneh Publishing House.

Machinist, Peter, 2004, Kohelet/ Ecclesiastes, in the Jewish Study Bible edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1603-1622.

Reichert, Victor and A. Cohen, 1946, Ecclesiastes, in The Five Megilloth: Hebrew text, English translation and commentary, edited by A. Cohen, Hindhead, Surrey: The Soncino Press, pp. 103-191.

Slotki, Israel W., 1965, Masseketh Soferim, translated, in The Minor Tractates of the Talmud, Vol. 1, edited by A. Cohen, London: Soncino Press.

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 24:1-4 – Marriage, divorce, marriage to a second husband, divorce/ death, re-marriage to first hubby, not

2026-08-18T01:42:34.647+03:00

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 24:1-4 records that if two people get divorced and the woman subsequently remarried, then the initial couple cannot remarry if the woman becomes single again either through divorce or the death of the second husband. 24:4 refers to this second marriage to the first husband as a toevah, an abhorrence (Alter, 2004, p. 996) or an abomination to G-d. Why should the couple not be able to remarry again? If the wife had not married a second time to another man, then the couple would be able to remarry, why should the second marriage, which was perfectly legal, stop the couple from re-marrying after the second marriage ended?

Ramban (on 24:4, also see Seforno, Luzzatto and Hoffman on 24:4) explains that the reason for the prohibition is the Torah does not want people to swap wives by being able to freely divorce and then remarry again. Hirsch (1989, p. 480) varies this idea slightly as he writes, “The Torah evidently sees, and wishes to forestall, the possibility of a reprehensible misuse of the seriousness of legal marriage and divorce to hide and gloss over an intended adultery, which by the connivance of all the parties could be accomplished under the cloak of complete legality.” Tigay (1996, p. 220) notes that such a course of action would be similar to practices in some Islamic countries (Iran) that allow temporary marriages as a cover for prostitution. Yet, he rejects this idea since he notes that 24:3 states that the reason for the divorce is because the second husband disliked the wife, which means that he did not intend for a temporary union as by the case of wife swapping.

Instead, Tigay writes, “Perhaps, the law was prompted by a concern that if husbands take their wives back after the wives had voluntary sexual relations with other men, adultery might begin to seem less objectionable.” While this is possible, 24:4 implies that the re-marriage itself is problematic and not some future action. Raymond Westbrook (1986) reviews various suggestions for the law and offers his own interesting theory.

One suggestion he quotes is from Philo who seems to imply that the second marriage was adulterous. Yet, how can this be if the first marriage ended in divorce? It seems that Philo is suggesting that the fear is that the wife committed adultery with the second husband during her first marriage. However, this idea is also problematic since the law applies to all second marriages and not just to cases where there is a fear that the women committed adultery with the second husband.

A second suggestion, from S.R. Driver (1902, p. 272), is that the prohibition is to deter people from a hasty divorce. Westbrook rejects this idea since it is unlikely that the first husband when divorcing his wife is going to be concerned that his wife might remarry, become single and then he might want to marry her again. Furthermore, again the strong language of 24:4 which refers to restoring the first marriage as an abhorrence indicates that the second marriage is the source of the problem, and not some fear of people divorcing too quickly.

A third idea, from Yaron (1966), is that the prohibition is to stop the wife from breaking up her second marriage in order to return to her first husband. Westbrook rejects this idea since he notes that the initial couple cannot remarry even if the second husband died, but according to Yaron, in this case the wife did not end the second marriage and she should be free to remarry her first husband.

Instead, Westbrook focuses on the different reasons for the divorce of the first and second marriages. With regard to the first divorce, the Torah records that the divorce was due to a finding of ervat davar, 24:1, suspicious behavior of the wife, while with regard to the second marriage, the Torah records that the divorce was because the husband began to hate his wife, 24:4. Westbrook suggests, based on other Ancient Near East law codes, that when a wife was divorced for suspicious behavior, she did not receive any divorce money (her dowry), while if she was divorced because the husband hated her or was widowed, she would receive divorce money. Thus, he suggests that the fear is that the first husband desires to remarry his wife since she became wealthy from the divorce settlement from the second husband, and hence the law is then to stop the first husband from profiting twice, “first by rejecting his wife and then by accepting her.”

While Westbrook’s idea is interesting, I am not convinced due some of the same problems mentioned above. Westbrook himself notes that the statement in the Torah that the second marriage to the first husband is an abhorrence (abomination) “seems somewhat harsh for a case of unjust enrichment,” but he notes the term abomination is also used for a falsifier of weights, (24:16). However, a falsifier of weights is a thief, while here the first husband is not a thief. Secondly, according to Westbrook, the whole law is when the wife would become wealthy from the second marriage, which is not necessarily the most likely outcome of the second marriage. Finally, I am not sure if the rationales for divorce are a crucial issue in this case. It could be that the rationale for the first divorce, the suspicious behavior of the wife as opposed to the hatred of the husband is to explain how it could happen that the first husband wanted to remarry his wife. He never hated her, and once he resolved his suspicions to his satisfaction, then he would want to remarry his wife.

My hypothesis (variation on Philo?) is that the restoration of the marriage to the first husband retroactively abrogates the divorce from the first husband, which means that the second marriage would then be considered a form of adultery. This idea explains the use of the term abhorrence since the case involves a form of adultery. Also, 24:4 uses the word hutama, which Westbrook notes literally means “she (the wife) has been caused to be tamei,” and this could mean that the restoration of marriage to the first husband causes the wife to be tamei due to the marriage to the second man. Yet, how can one say the first divorce is abrogated by the marriage to the second husband?

Possibly the idea is that once the husband desires to remarry his wife, then he is admitting that the basis for the initial divorce was in error and hence the divorce was unwarranted. The restoration of the first marriage makes it as if the couple were always married, and then the second marriage would be considered a form of adultery. This same idea of retroactivity exists by the annulment of vows that in some cases when vows are annulled the initial vows are viewed retroactively as having never been made, Bemidbar 30.

(Note, my understanding does not accord with the halakhah, Shulchan Arukh, Even ha-Ezer 10:1, see also Yevamot 11b, that if wife had sexual relations after the first divorce, then she can re-marry her first husband. Yet, according to my understanding that the second marriage to the first husband retroactively abrogates the first divorce, then the sexual relations with a different man would be a type of adultery, if the woman would be able to remarry the first husband, just like the marriage to the second husband, and hence the first marriage should not be allowed to be restored. My guess is that the Torah only refers to the case where the wife marries again, 24:2,3, not to exclude the case where the woman had sexual relations with a second man, to make the point that even in the woman marries, the woman cannot re-marry the first husband.)

Bibliography:

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

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

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

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

Westbrook, Raymond (1946-2009), 1986, The prohibition on restoration of marriage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, in Scripta Hiersolymitana, Studies in Bible, edited by Sara Japhet, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 31, pp. 387-405.

Yaron, Reuven, 1966, The restoration of marriage, Journal of Jewish Studies, 17, pp. 1-11.

דברים טז: כב - ולא תקים לך מצבה

2026-08-14T01:49:32.562+03:00

For this discussion in English, see our discussion on Asherot and Matzevot in the Torah. I thank my daughter Talia for translating the English discussion to the Hebrew below.

בפרשת שופטים, לאחר רצף של מצוות שנוגעות לשלושת הרגלים ולאחריו מינוי שופטים ושוטרים, אנו מצווים במצווה שמעלה שאלות רבות:

"לֹא תִטַּע לְךָ אֲשֵׁרָה כָּל עֵץ אֵצֶל מִזְבַּח ה' אֱלֹקיךָ אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה לָּךְ. וְלֹא תָקִים לְךָ מַצֵּבָה אֲשֶׁר שָׂנֵא ה' אֱלֹקיךָ" (דברים טז, כא-כב).

מצווה זו, שלא לבנות מצבה, היא מתמיהה במיוחד, לא רק מצד מיקומה בסדר המצוות בפרשה, אלא גם ניכר על פני הדברים שהיא עומדת בניגוד לפרקטיקה של בניית מצבה שבוצעה לא אחת בתורה. כך, אברהם אבינו נטע אשל בבאר שבע (בראשית כא, לג), יעקב אבינו הקים מצבת אבן בבית אל והכריז כי היא תהיה "בית האלוקים" (בראשית כח, יח; לה, יד), ואפילו משה רבנו עצמו הקים שתים עשרה מצבות למרגלות הר סיני בעת כריתת הברית (שמות כד, ד). גם יהושע הקים מצבה בשכם, וזאת למרות שכבר ניתן הציווי האמור שלא להקים מצבה (יהושע כד, כו-כז).

חריגות המצווה נלמדת גם מהשפה הקשה שמאמץ הפסוק: "אשר שנא ה'". זהו ביטוי יוצא דופן שמופיע שוב רק לעניין הקרבת הילדים בעבודת המולך: "כִּי כָל תּוֹעֲבַת ה' אֲשֶׁר שָׂנֵא עָשׂוּ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם, כִּי גַם אֶת בְּנֵיהֶם וְאֶת בְּנֹתֵיהֶם יִשְׂרְפוּ בָאֵשׁ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם" (דברים יב, לא). נראה כי התורה מעמידה את המצבה בקו אחד עם הקרבת ילדים, ועוד כאשר האבות השתמשו בפרקטיקה זו.

עלינו להבין אם כן מהי חומרתה הגדולה של הקמת מצבה ואיך חומרת האיסור מתיישב עם כך שדומה שהאבות כן הקימו אותן.

הפרשנים הציעו הסברים שונים לשוני שחל ביחס של הקב"ה להקמת מצבות. על פי רש"י (על ט"ז: כב) בזמן האבות המצבה הייתה אהובה לפני ה', אך לאחר שהכנענים אימצו אותה לחלק מרכזי בפולחן האלילי שלהם, היא הפכה לשנואה. על כך יש לשאול האם הכנענים באמת לא עשו שימוש במצבות ובאשרות לפולחן עבודה זרה כבר בימי אברהם ויעקב. לא נראה כי זוהי פרקטיקה חדשה שהתפתחה בין זמן האבות ועד למתן תורה.

הרמב"ן (על ט"ז: כב) מפתח את הפירוש של רש"י, אך מבחין בין עבודת הקורבנות שעל פניו הייתה גם היא חלק מעבודת האלילים הכנענית, ובכל זאת המזבח הינו מרכזי בעבודת ה', לבין המצבות שנאסרו לכאורה בשל המרכזיות שלהן בעבודת האלילים הכנענית. הוא מסביר שבעוד המזבח הוא כלי הכרחי ובלתי נפרד מהקרבת הקרבנות ולכן לא ניתן לבטלו, המצבה אינה חיונית להקרבה – ולכן, ברגע שהושחתה על ידי הכנענים, נאסרה. גם פירוש זה מניח שחל שינוי מסוים לאורך השנים בעבודת האלילים, אך סיבה להניח שהתפתחות שכזו אכן התרחשה.

האבן עזרא (על ט"ז: כב) עומד על השוני בין המצבות של האבות למצבות שנאסרו, ומציע שהאיסור על מצבה חל רק כאשר היא נעשית במטרה לעבוד עבודה זרה. אם היא נבנית לשם עבודת ה' – היא מותרת. אלא, שנדמה שפירוש זה אינו מדייק באיסור, שלא מופיע בו רמז להבחנה בין מצבה "טובה" למצבה "רעה". ההבחנה הזו כלל אינה מצויה בפסוק, ואין כל מקור המבסס אותה.

כדי ליישב את הסתירות הלכאוריות נציע שיש לערוך אבחנה יסודית בין שני תפקידים שונים ששימשה בהם המצבה:

מצבת הנצחה וזיכרון (אנדרטה): מצבה שנועדה לציון אירוע היסטורי, כריתת ברית או זיכרון על קבר. דוגמאות מובהקות לכך הן המצבות שהקים משה למרגלות הר סיני (שמות כד:ד), המצבה שהקים יעקב לרחל (בראשית לה:כ) והמצבה הגדולה שהקים יהושע בן נון בשכם לאחר כריתת הברית עם העם (יהושע כד:כו-כז). מצבות ממין זה אינן מיועדות לביצוע אקט דתי או פולחני, ולכן יש לחלק ולומר שהן למעשה לא נאסרו מעולם.

מצבת פולחן: אבן או עץ המשמשים כחלק מן הטקס הדתי עצמו (לניסוך, הקרבה או עבודה רוחנית ישירה). רק קטגוריה זו, גם אם היא נעשית כחלק מעבודת ה', היא שנאסרה מפורשות בספר דברים.

אבחנה זו חיונית במיוחד: בלעדיה, מעשהו של יהושע בן נון בשכם – שהקים מצבה לאחר מתן תורה ואיסור ספר דברים – היה עומד בסתירה ישירה לחוק המקראי. ההבחנה מבהירה שיהושע הקים מצבת זיכרון מותרת, ולא מצבת פולחן.

אך אין בהסבר זה די, מאחר והדבר אינו נותן מענה למקרה שבו הקמת המצבה משמשת לעבודת ה', למשל בראיית יעקב את המצבה כבית ה' וכשער השמיים. לפיכך יש לחדד מדוע בימי האבות איפשר ה' את השימוש במצבות ואשרות לשם עבודתו, ואילו בערבות מואב בספר דברים אסר אותן כליל ואף הגדירן כדבר שהוא "שונא"?

כדי לתת מענה לכך ניעזר בגישתו של הרמב"ם במורה נבוכים בנוגע למוסד הקרבנות (חלק ג', פרק לב). לעניין עבודת הקורבנות, הרמב"ם מסביר שאלוקים אינו משנה את טבע האדם בבת אחת, ואינו גומל חברה מהרגלים תרבותיים מושרשים ביום אחד. כאשר ניתנים ציווים הנוגעים לעבודה פולחנית, ה' מתייחס לפרקטיקות הנהוגות בעולם העתיק, ונלקח בחשבון כי התודעה האנושית לא מסוגלת הייתה לתפוס עבודת אלוהות ללא קרבנות ופרקטיקות פיזיות. על כן, ה' הסכים לעבודת הקרבנות מתוך התחשבות ביכולת הקליטה של האנושות באותה עת.

בדומה, יש להסביר לעניין איסור האשרות והמצבות, שיחסו של הקב"ה לא השתנה למצבות, וגם בתקופת האבות "שנא" את הפרקטיקות הללו. ואולם, כיוון שאברהם ויעקב פעלו מתוך כוונה טהורה לעבודתו, ובשל נורמות הפולחן שהיו נהוגות בזמנם, ה' לכאורה קיבל והכיל פרקטיקות אלו. אלא, שעם התפתחות התודעה הרוחנית של עם ישראל ובעקבות קבלת התורה, משה מודיע לעם כי מה שהיה נסבל בעבר מתוך התחשבות במצבם הראשוני – אינו נסבל עוד. -השימוש בלשון החריפה "אֲשֶׁר שָׂנֵא" נועד לזעזע ולהבהיר כי המשך השימוש בתודעה פולחנית מיושנת לאחר מתן תורה נתפס כמעוות ומאוס.

יש עדיין לשאול מדוע אפוא הקרבנות נותרו מותרים, ואילו המצבות והאשרות נאסרו כליל. התשובה נעוצה בפסיכולוגיה החברתית של בני האדם שנאמרה בפרשנותו של הרמב"ן, שהציבור בתקופה המקראית תפס את הקרבנות כליבת עבודת האלוקים שאי אפשר בלעדיה. איסור גורף על הקרבת קרבנות היה נתפס בעיניהם כביטול עצם הדת והקשר עם ה'. על כן, הקרבנות הושארו, אך תוחמו ורוכזו במזבח ובמקדש. לעומת זאת, המצבות והאשרות נתפסו כאלמנטים משניים ונלווים בלבד לעבודה הדתית. כיוון שהעם לא ראה בהן מרכיב קיומי והכרחי לעבודת ה', הציבור יכול היה לעמוד בגזירה זו ולספוג את איסורן המלא.

The kinah Eichah yashva havezelet haSharon - איכה ישבה חבצלת השרון

2026-07-22T16:26:44.919+03:00

This kinah, again from R. Elazar haKalir, also follows the aleph bet, as the first word of each stanza is the first word in the verses in chapter one of Eichah, and these verses follow the order of the aleph bet. In addition, the kinah has 24 stanzas to match with the twenty-four priestly families, whose names are recorded in Divrei Ha-Yamim I 24:7-18 and the end of each stanza in the kinah refers to a city/ town/ village in the Galilee, where apparently priestly families were living. The rhyme of each stanza, with the possible exception of the fourth stanza, is based on the name of the place in the Galilee. Since there is a need for twenty-four stanzas, the letters shin and taf each have two stanzas. Goldschmidt (2002, p 52) notes that really there are two more stanzas to this kinah, one which has an acronym of R. Elazar haKalir’s name, but theses stanzas are usually skipped. It is believed that R. Elazar haKalir was a priest, cohen, since in this kinah he shows great knowledge of the families and an affinity to them. Maybe, he based the kinah on the first chapter of Eichah since Eichah 1:4 refers to the suffering of the priests.

This kinah raises a historical question concerning the 24 priestly families. These families existed in the time of the second Bet ha-Mikdash as evidenced from the verses in Divrei Ha-Yamim, but did they continue to exist after the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash? Shmuel Klein (1909, in German) used this kinah and other piyyutim to create a baraita that states that the 24 families left the area from around Jerusalem and moved to the Galilee either after the destruction of the first Bet ha-Mikdash or after the Bar Kokhba revolt. According to this idea, the 24 priestly families remained intact after the two tragedies, and many people have accepted this historical recreation. However, in a fascinating article Trifon (1990) notes that there is no evidence for this movement of families at those times or for the continuation of the families, except for two statements in Yerushalmi Ta’anit chapter 4 (see below) which refer to two of the priestly families, but it is from the third century. Instead, she suggests that in the middle of the third century or later, priests who were living in various cities/ town/ villages in the Galilee either associated themselves with the priestly families from the second Bet ha-Mikdash or other people made this association.

This historical question is crucial for how one understands this kinah. If one believes that there was a movement of the priestly families around the time of the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash or after the end of the Bar Kokhba revolt from the center of the country to the north of the country, then one can understand the kinah as lamenting this change of location (within the land of Israel) of the priestly families. However, if this movement never happened, then the references to the 24 places in the kinah should be understood as a way or prayer to re-institute the families.

In my reading of the kinah I follow the second approach, not just because of Trifon’s arguments, but if the priestly families had really continued, then it is odd that R. Elazar haKalir does not refer to the names of the 24 families from Divrei ha-Yamim only to places in the Galilee. Also, the kinah ends on a positive note (stanza 24), so this suggests that the mention of the 24 areas where the priests lived is part of this prayer to re-institute the families. Also, in each stanza there is a rhyme based on name of the place in the Galilee, but there are five words that rhyme in each stanza, when one would have thought that four rhymes would form the stanza. The fifth rhyme in the stanza is the name of the place in the Galilee, which suggests that the name of the place is independent of the four previous lines in the stanza, and then unrelated to the sorrows that are hinted to or mentioned in the first four rhymes of each stanza. In fact, there seems to be almost no connection or a tenuous connection at best between most of the ideas in each stanza with the particular priestly family, with the possible exception of the first stanza. For example, many of the stanzas do not refer to the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash, which means that R. Elazar haKalir is not lamenting events from the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash and then R. Elazar haKalir is not referring to some sad events that occurred to the priestly families at that time. I will now explain some of the different stanzas.

The first stanza is based on the town of Maron, and in theory the priestly family of Yehoyariv, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:7, but as mentioned above the name is not mentioned in the stanza. The line with the fifth rhyme and the name Maron is based on a cryptic statement from R. Levi in the Yerushalmi Ta’anit, chapter 4, law 5, that refers to the place Maron, the priestly family Yehoyariv and another person, Mersarbei, who is referred to in the kinah before the place Maron. It could be that R. Levi was stating that the family of Yehoyariv was the priestly family working in the Bet ha-Mikdash when it was destroyed and that is what R. Elazar haKalir means when in write in the fifth line of the stanza, kinimsar ha-bayit, they gave over the Bet ha-Mikdash.

The idea of the first stanza is state how good everything was at the start, that the people and/ or the Bet ha-Mikdash were like a rose, but then all was lost as the singers of the people or of the Bet ha-Mikdash were silenced and the priests stopped working in the Bet ha-Mikdash.

The second stanza is based on the town of Tzipori, and in theory the priestly family of Yedayah, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:7. This town and the priestly family are also referred to in Yerushalmi Ta’anit, after the quote from R. Levi, by an even more cryptic statement by R. Berekhia about how the people rebelled against G-d. This rebellion might be why R. Elazar haKalir referred to the people sinning by killing a cohen and a prophet on Yom Kippur in the second line of the stanza.

It is very confusing which prophet was killed and when. The popular understanding is that the incident being referred to is that the people killed Zechariah ben Yehodaya (Divrei ha-Yamim II 24:21), who was both a cohen and a prophet. Note, Zechariah ben Yehodaya is not the prophet Zechariah from the book of prophets, see Blank (1937-38). It is also claimed that this killing is referred to in Eicah 2:20, but as noted by the Ibn Ezra on the verse, the simple reading of Eicah 2:20 is that the verse is saying how terrible it was that the Babylonians killed priests and prophets in the Bet ha-Mikdash. If Zechariah ben Yehodaya is the correct reference in this kinah, then the killing happened in the kingdom of Jehoash (Joash) around the years 796 BCE to 835 BCE, many years before the destruction of the first Bet ha-Mikdash. This killing is mentioned in other kinot, as for example the kinah “Yom achpi hikbadeti” (not by R. Elazar haKalir) and in the kinah “Im tochalnah nashim” (from R. Elazar haKalir) in the nun line, the ayin line and the last line of the kinah. Presumably, R. Elazar haKalir mentioned the killing in this kinah since it relates to the priests.

The third line of the stanza refers to people killed because of the killing of the cohen. These deaths are mentioned in the Yerushalmi, Ta’anit chapter 4, law 5, that quotes R. Yochanon that 80,000 young priests were killed after Zechariah (ben Yehodaya) was killed. It is hard to believe that so many priests died at that time.

The third stanza of the kinah is based on the town of Mafsheta, and in theory the priestly family of Harim, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:8. The first line in the stanza refers to the exile from the land, which means that R. Elazar haKalir is referring to the events after the destruction of the first Bet ha-Mikdash where most of the population was exiled, and would not refer to the priests after the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash, where there was no forced exile of the priests or the general population to outside of the land of Israel.

The third line in the stanza refers to four judgments on the people since they did not follow the laws of shemitta and ma’aser. Goldschmidt (2002, p. 48) notes that the connection between these punishments and the sins is mentioned in Pirkei Avot chapter five, and that these four punishments are plague (dever), war (herev), famine and captivity. Is this similar to the symbolism of the four horsemen in the Book of Revelation 6:1-8, which most likely was written by a Jew.

The fourth stanza is based on the town of Ayatah, and in theory the priestly family of Seorim, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:8. This stanza might be unique in the kinah since the place name, Ayatah, is the second to last word in the stanza, not the last word in the stanza, and the rhyme of the stanza is based on the following word, lo. However, maybe the name of the town is really Ayatahlo.

The fifth stanza is based on the town of Beth Lehem (in the Galilee, not south of Jerusalem), and in theory the priestly family of Malciyah, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:8. In this stanza, R. Elazar haKalir refers to sins, thought it is not clear if R. Elazar haKalir is referring to the sins of the people or the sins of the priests. In any event, this means that R. Elazar haKalir is also placing the blame for the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash on the people or the priests.

The sixth stanza is based on the town of Yodfat and in theory the priestly family of Meyamun, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:9. In the second to last word of the stanza, it could be that R. Elazar haKalir is referring to the fall of Yodfat to the Roman army in 67 prior to the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash after a 47-day siege. Josephus was the commander of the Jewish forces. In the end of the battle, all the soldiers committed suicide, while Josephus surrendered to the Romans and went on to be a chronicler of the battles against the Romans. Rav Soloveitchik (2010, p. 280) makes an interesting point about Josephus:
It is interesting that Josephus is not mentioned at all in the Gemara, although Rashi does refer to him (Baba Bathra 3b)... It is hard to know what the attitude of our sages was, but I suspect that while they disapproved of what Josephus did (at Yodfat), they felt that they did not have the right to condemn him. As a result, they ignored him. The Gemara would have mentioned him if they considered him a traitor.

The seventh stanza is based on the town of Elvu and in theory the priestly family of Hakotz, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:10. In the third rhyming word in the stanza there is a possible reference to the name Hakotz, and in the fourth rhyming word, there is a reference to the town, Elvu. In this stanza, R. Elazar haKalir contrasts the change in the people from Mount Sinai where they willingly agreed to follow the Torah to when the people sinned.

The eighth stanza is based on the town of Uziel and in theory the priestly family of Aviyah, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:10. In this stanza, in the first line, R. Elazar haKalir continues the reference from the people in the desert as he seemingly refers to the sin of the golden calf (Shemot 32:4) and in the second line, R. Elazar haKalir states that the people continued to not listen to G-d’s prophets.

The ninth stanza is based on the town of Arbel and in theory the priestly family of Yeshuah, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:11.

The tenth stanza is based on the town of Kabul and in theory the priestly family of Shicnayahu, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:11. Rav Soloveitchik (2010, pp. 282,283) suggests that in this stanza, R. Elazar haKalir is saying that really the people were supposed to all be killed, but instead the Bet ha-Mikdash was destroyed instead of people being killed. He explains that this understanding is the basis for a strange practice that we have that even though according to the Talmud (Ta’anit 29a), the Bet ha-Mikdash only began to be destroyed in the afternoon of Tisha B’av, still we reduce some of our mourning in the afternoon, as for example we sit on chairs after mid-day (Shulchan Arukh, Orah Chayyim 559:3). Rav Soloveitchik suggests that this reduction in mourning is because once the Bet ha-Mikdash was beginning to be destroyed, then it was understood that not everybody would be killed. While it very well could be that R. Elazar haKalir was saying in this stanza that the Bet ha-Mikdash was destroyed instead of all the people being killed, I doubt that this is the basis for this minimization of the mourning in middle of the day of Tisha B’av. More likely this change is due to the influence of the Mourners of Zion, who were probably Karaites, since they (the Karaites) developed the idea of the redemption starting in the afternoon, an idea which is not in the Talmud. The Karaites would split their day of mourning for the Bet ha-Mikdash (the tenth of Av) into two parts, mourning in the morning and then in the afternoon, there was a time of comfort and consolation, see Yaakov Gartner, (1981).

The eleventh stanza is based on the town of Kanah and in theory the priestly family of Elyashiv, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:12.

The twelfth stanza is based on the town of Tzfat and in theory the priestly family of Yakim, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:12.

The thirteenth stanza is based on the town of Bet Maon and in theory the priestly family of Huppah, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:13. In the third line, R. Elazar haKalir refers to the killing of the priests by Nov (Shumel I 22:17-19) and the killing of the Givonim (Shmuel II 21:1) both in the times of King David. Presumably R. Elazar haKalir wanted to mention the killing by Nov since it involved suffering by priests, and possibly he then mentioned Givon since it was around the same time and it fit into the rhyme.

The fourteenth stanza is based on the town of Yeshbeav and in this case the name of the town is the same name in theory of the priestly family of Yeshbeav, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:13. Is that a coincidence?

The fifteenth stanza is based on the town of Mearyah and in theory the priestly family of Bilgah, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:14. In the second line of the stanza, R. Elazar haKalir notes that by the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash, the merit from the akedah did not help the people. In contrast, in the selihot prayers, many of the piyyutim are based on the idea that G-d should answer out prayers due to the merit of the akedah.

The sixteenth stanza is based on the town of Yevanit and in theory the priestly family of Emer, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:14.

The seventeenth stanza is based on the town of Mamlach and in theory the priestly family of Chezir, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:15.

The eighteenth stanza is based on the town of Natzrat (Nazareth) and in theory the priestly family of Hapeetetz, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:15. In the first line of the stanza, R. Elazar haKalir quotes the verse from Eicah 1:18 that G-d is righteous, which he has Yoshiyahu saying when he is dying in the next kinah, “Eicah eli konenu,” and he partially quotes the verse at the end of the kinah, “ve-atah amarta.”

The nineteenth stanza is based on the town of Arav and in theory the priestly family of Hapitchiyah, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:16.

The twentieth stanza is based on the town of Nunia and in theory the priestly family of Yechezkel, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:16.

The twenty first stanza is based on the town of Yochnah and in theory the priestly family of Yachin, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:17.

The twenty second stanza is based on the town of Bet Hoviyah and in theory the priestly family of Gamul, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:17.

The twenty third stanza is based on the town of Tzalmin and in theory the priestly family of Delayahu, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:18.

The twenty fourth stanza is based on the town of Hamat Ariah and in theory the priestly family of Mazayahu, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:18. In this stanza, R. Elazar haKalir prays for the healing and the re-birth of the people and of the Bet ha-Mikdash, which ends the kinah on a positive note. He includes a positive ending also in other kinot such as “Az bemelot safek,” and “Eich tanchamuni hevel.” This type of ending would become standard with later paytanim, but not so much with R. Elazar haKalir.

Bibliography:

Blank, Sheldon H., 1937-38, The death of Zechariah in Rabbinic literature, Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. 12-13, pp. 327-346.

Gartner, Yaakov, 1981, Tefillat Nachem, time of comfort and the Karaites, (Hebrew) Sinai, 89, pp. 157-164.

Goldschmidt, Daniel (1895-1972), 2002, first printed 1972, The kinot of Tisha B’av: Following the custom of Poland and Ashkenazi communities in the land of Israel, 2nd edition, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Klein, Shmuel, 1909, Beiträge zur Geographie und Geschichte Galiläas, Leipzig.

Soloveitchik, Joseph (1903-1993), 2010, The Koren mesorat harav kinot: Commentary on the kinot based on the teachings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, edited by Simon Posner, Jerusalem: Koren Publishers; New York: OU Press.

Trifon, Dalia, 1990, Did the priestly courses (mishmarot) transfer from Judaea to Galilee after the Bar Kokhba revolt? Tarbiz, 59:1-2, pp. 77-93.

Bemidbar (Numbers) 34:16-29 –The significance of the fifth list of tribal leaders in the book of Bemidbar (Numbers)

2026-07-06T20:58:54.936+03:00

The book of Bemidbar has five lists of tribal leaders. The first time is the opening words of Bemidbar, 1:5-15, and these same names are mentioned in chapter two within the count of the four parts of the camp. Afterwards, chapter 7 records the sacrifices of these same people and then 10:14-27 records again the list of tribal leaders. The fifth and last time there is a list of the tribal leaders is 34:16-29. Note there is another list of tribal officials, the spies, 13:4-16, who were not the leaders of the tribe. Also, see Olson (1996, p. 189) who suggests that these five lists can be used to form a literary division of the book of Bemidbar.

The fifth list of tribal leaders differs from the other four lists since it only has ten tribes, as opposed to twelve in the other lists, because the tribal leaders of Reuven and Gad are not mentioned in the fifth list because those tribes were receiving land outside of the land of Israel.

Another difference is that within the ten tribes, the order of the tribal leaders does not follow the usual pattern in the other four lists of tribal leaders, as all the other lists are based on the birth order of the progenitors of the tribes and/ or the place in the camp of the tribes. For example, in the fifth list, the leader of the tribe of Binyamin is mentioned before the tribal leaders of Menashe and Efrayim, 34:21-23. Also, in the fifth list, the tribal leaders of the tribes of Zevulun and Yissachar are not mentioned in conjunction with the tribe of Yehuda, who camped together, and Zevulun is mentioned before Yissachar, his older brother (also in Devarim 33:18, maybe for the same reason), 34:25,26. Also, in the fifth list of tribal leaders, Dan is listed separate from the other tribes who descended from Bilha and Zilpa, 34:22.

Instead, as noted by many (see Milgrom, 1990, p. 288) the order of the fifth list of tribal leaders follows the geographical distribution of the tribes in the land of Israel starting from the south and moving northwards. The list does not follow the exact pattern, but if one views each pair of tribes as a group, then the pairs move up in five “levels” in the land of Israel. Note, within each pair, the tribe with the larger population as recorded in Bemidbar 26 is mentioned first. Also, the listing of the tribe of Dan is based on where they were supposed to get land, what roughly today is called Gush Dan, the center of Israel by the coast.

We see from the order of the fifth list of tribal leaders in the book of Bemidbar that before the Jewish people entered the land of Israel, it was known the general area where the tribes would be in the land. This would seem to be obvious since people would need to know where to go when they reached the land and there would not be fights with each person grabbing some particular land. Furthermore, it could be that as part of the investiture of Yehoshua, 27:18-23, the general division of the land was determined with the urim.

This change in the order of the tribes by the fifth list of tribal leaders signals the change in the people that had transpired from the beginning of the book of Bemidbar to the end of the book of Bemidbar. The first four lists of tribal leaders in the beginning of the book of Bemidbar revolved around the camp of the people in the desert/ wilderness, but the fifth list of tribal leaders, based on where the people were going to live in the land of Israel, shows that at the end of the forty years of the people's stay in the desert/ wilderness, the people were primed and ready to take possession of the land of Israel. Note, also the surrounding text of 33:50-36:13 record laws and narrative which indicate that the settlement of the land was imminent.

Bibliography:

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

Olson, Dennis, 1996, Numbers: Interpretation- A Bible Commentary for teaching and preaching, Louisville: John Knox Press.

Bemidbar (Numbers) 27:12,13 – The command for Moshe to go up to Mount Avarim: A short break for Moshe?

2026-06-29T13:38:51.485+03:00

במדבר כז: יב,יג - ויאמר ה' אל־משה עלה אל־הר העברים הזה וראה את־הארץ אשר נתתי לבני ישראל. וראיתה אתה ונאספת אל־עמיך גם־אתה כאשר נאסף אהרן אחיך.

Bemidbar (Numbers) 27:12,13 record that G-d told Moshe to go up to Mount Avarim to see the land of Israel, and then afterwards Moshe would be gathered to his people. This command to go up to Mount Avarim is recorded again in Devarim 32:48-52, prior to Moshe’s ascent and death. Afterwards, 27:14-23 records that Moshe appointed Yehoshua to be the next leader of the Jewish people.

The command for Moshe to go to Mount Avarim is surprising since Moshe did not die until the end of the book of Devarim, which was approximately in another two months. Does 27:12 mean that Moshe was to go up to Mount Avarim two months before he died or, as argued by the Ramban (on 27:12, see also explanation by Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon on 27:12, and comments by Rav Kapach on R. Saadiah’s commentary, 1984, p. 162), the command in Bemidbar 27:12,13 was not for Moshe to go up immediately, but later when he was about to die in approximately two months.

The Ramban also argues that the command to appoint Yehoshua was also only applicable before Moshe died, and not in the book of Bemidbar. Yet, if the command to go up the mountain was only relevant two months later, why is it recorded in 27:12? Why would G-d give this command for Moshe to ascend the mountain at this point in the Torah if it was not relevant to the events in the book of Bemidbar? In addition, the language of 27:12-23, especially with regard to the appointing of Yehoshua, 27:22,23, seems to be referring to some present action and not to the future.

Abravanel (2008, pp. 230-232) differs from the Ramban and suggests that the command to go up on Mount Avarim in 27:12,13 was for Moshe to go up (and down) immediately when Moshe heard the command and, afterwards on several occasions, to give Moshe several opportunities to see the land of Israel. However, Moshe was not to die immediately since 27:12,13 does not state that Moshe would die on the mountain. On the other hand, Devarim 32:50 does refer to Moshe dying, but this is because Devarim 32:50 is referring to the last time that Moshe was to go up on the mountain.

Elhanan Samet (2004, pp. 278-298) rejects Abravanel’s approach for several reasons. One, 27:13 refers to Moshe being gathered to one’s people, which indicates that the verse is referring to Moshe’s death, i.e. the future, and not the present. Two, Samet asks what need was there for Moshe to have several opportunities to see the land of Israel since it was sufficient for Moshe to have one vision of the land? Three, the Torah does not state that Moshe fulfilled this command at this time, as he argues that 27:22 does not state that Moshe went up, only that he appointed Yehoshua.

Samet, following the Ramban and Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon, maintains that Moshe only fulfilled this command to go up Mount Averim two months after he was commanded, but he suggests that the Torah recorded this command in the book of Bemidbar, to help the future readers of the Torah understand why Moshe requested for G-d to appoint Yehoshua as the next leader in the ensuing narrative, 27:15-23. This answer is difficult. If Moshe did not go up on Mount Avarim in the “book of Bemidbar,” as Samet claims, then there was no need to transfer any authority to Yehoshua. One might argue that Yehoshua had to be designated as the heir apparent to Moshe even when Moshe was alive, but it was obvious that Yehoshua was to be the people’s future leader since he had not sinned by the spies and he was Moshe’s top aide. Even if one believes that this was not obvious, and Yehoshua had to be designated as the heir apparent, still there was no need to include the command for Moshe to go up on Mount Avarim (27:12) in the Torah just for the sake of the future reader of the Torah. From 20:12, the reader knows that Moshe was not going to accompany the people into Israel, and hence the reader would not be surprised that a future leader would be designated.

In addition, this “extra information” (27:12-14) for the reader, as argued by Samet, actually confuses the reader as to why Moshe made this request for new leader. According to Samet, the true sequence of events, is that Moshe asked for G-d to appoint a leader before he was told to go on the mountain and die, while from the sequence of events as recorded in the Torah, the reader will think (and rightly so) that Moshe only asked for a leader to be appointed after he was told to go up on the mountain. (Even Samet, footnote 25, acknowledges that his explanation could confuse the reader, though for a different reason, but he claims in the end the reader will not be confused.)

I like Abravanel’s approach. The simple reading of 27:12-14 is that Moshe was to go up on Mount Avarim in the book of Bemidbar immediately when he was commanded since otherwise there is no reason for the command to be recorded in the book of Bemidbar. Also, 27:15-23 implies that Yehoshua was appointed the leader of the people in the book of Bemidbar.

I would change the rationale for Moshe’s ascent of the mountain. The ascent was to give Moshe a short break from being the leader of the people before he died, either because he needed some time to himself before he died, or he needed time to prepare his great speech of the book of Devarim. 27:12,13 refers to Moshe going up on the mountain to see the land of Israel, which might be considered a “cover” for Moshe to separate from the people, but more likely, when a person can see great distances, this can cause a person to reflect and ponder. (This experience has happened to me when hiking by myself to beautiful vistas.) If Moshe did not have this break, then he would have worked up to the last day of his life (Devarim 31:2) without any break.

This break by going up to Mount Avarim was not very long, a week or so, but it was the beginning of Moshe’s separation from the people. While Moshe remained the leader of the people, and he would come down from the mountain when needed, as for example by the war with Midyan (Bemidbar 31) and the case of the children of Gad and Reuven, (Bemidbar 32), he was no longer to be in charge of the day-to-day issues in the camp. Instead, Yehoshua would be in charge of the day-to-day issues, and this gave a small overlap to help Yehoshua become the next leader.

This variation of Abravanel’s approach answers Samet’s questions. One, the phrase “gathering to one’s people” in 27:13 indicates that in Bemidbar, Moshe was starting the process of dying since he was beginning his separation from the people, and starting to step down from his role as the leader of the people. Note the phrase “like you brother Aharon” could be because maybe Aharon also had a short break before he died when he was no longer the high priest, see our discussion on 20:26-29, “Where did Aharon die?” Two, Moshe did not really need many opportunities to see the land. Only when Moshe was commanded to go to the peak of the mountain range, Mount Nevo, Devarim 3:27, 32:49, was he specifically going to see the land of Israel because from the peak he would have the best view of the land. Three, 27:22, which states that Moshe did as he was commanded by G-d, can be understood that Moshe went up on Mount Avarim. Even if one argues that 27:22, refers only to appointing Yehoshua, this appointment implies that there was a transfer of some authority to Yehoshua, which in turn implies that Moshe could take a break. Furthermore, once the Torah records that Moshe did what G-d commanded him and appointed Yehoshua, 27:22, this presumes that Moshe also fulfilled G-d’s other command and went up on the mountain.

This idea that by Moshe going up the mountain he was relinquishing the day-to-day responsibilities of being a leader can explain Moshe’s request to G-d to appoint the next leader of the people in 27:16,17. 27:16,17 records that Moshe wanted a successor to be appointed since otherwise he thought, "the people would be like a flock that had no shepherd." While many commentators understand that Moshe was concerned that the people needed a military leader, I doubt this since the metaphor of sheep does not conjure up military actions. (Friedman, 2003, p. 521, notes that the reference to a shepherd corresponds to Moshe's vocation prior to being the leader of the Jewish people.)

A different idea is that his request for a successor was because he feared that without a leader the people would disperse, just as sheep do without a shepherd. Yet, was it not obvious that the people would need a leader to take them into the land of Israel? Instead, maybe Moshe’s request of G-d should be understood to mean that Moshe was asking for G-d to appoint someone to be the administrative head of the people, while Moshe took his break from the people. Moshe was still the leader of the people, but he was concerned that there would be nobody to take care of the day-to-day issues that might arise. This was not an obvious request since in theory there could have been no leader when Moshe was on the mountain, as Moshe could descend from the mountain when needed. G-d agreed to Moshe’s request, and in 27:18-22 Yehoshua was appointed as the administrative head of the people in the book of Bemidbar. Later, in Devarim 31, when Moshe was just about to die, Yehoshua’s leadership roles were expanded, as then he was appointed as the political and religious leader of the people.

This idea of Moshe taking a break before he dies also suggests a connection between 27:12-14 and the previous verses that record the daughters of Tzelofhad’s request for land in the land of Israel, 27:1-11. My guess is that within the Torah, Moshe’s happiest moment was by the crossing of the Yam Suf, when he sang his song, Shemot 15:1-18. Afterwards, the Torah records complaints and sins of the people, as for example by the golden calf, when he came down with the tablets, and when the people sinned by the spies. Also, when he finished building the ohel moed, the ceremony was marred by the deaths of his nephews, Vayikra 10:1,2. After he finally brought the people to the verge of going into the land of Israel, they sinned with the women of Moav, 25:1. Even when he finishes his speech in Devarim, it ends pessimistically that he knows that the people are going to sin in the future, Devarim 31:29. Moshe might have doubted if the people would ever go into the land of Israel, and then whether his life’s work had been futile. The most positive act that the people were preparing to go into the land of Israel, and wanted to go into the land of Israel, was when the daughters of Tzelofhad requested to have land. This was a brave request since they had to make this request before the leaders of the people and whole assembly, 27:2, and they exhibited this bravery since they wanted to go to the land of Israel. For Moshe, their request might have brought him great satisfaction since he knew that his life’s work would succeed after he died. Thus, immediately after he had this good feeling, G-d told him to go to Mount Avarim to take a break from being the leader of the people. Moshe was then leaving on a “high” which would give him a positive feeling when he would think about his life and prepare for his speech in the book of Devarim.

Bibliography:

Abravanel, Yitzhak (1437-1508), 2008, Commentary on Bemidbar, Jerusalem: Horev Publishing.

Friedman, Richard Elliott, 2003, Commentary on the Torah with a new English translation and the Hebrew text, New York: HarperSanFrancisco.

Kapach, Yosef, 1984, Commentary of Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon on the Torah, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Samet, Elchanan, 2004, Studies in the Weekly Parasha, Mitzpeh Nevo: Machon Maliyot.

Bemidbar (Numbers) 13:2, 15:39 – The definition of the word tur in the Torah

2026-05-31T12:00:02.764+03:00

במדבר יג:ב - שְׁלַח־לְךָ אֲנָשִׁים וְיָתֻרוּ אֶת־אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן אֲשֶׁר־אֲנִי נֹתֵן לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ אֶחָד אִישׁ אֶחָד לְמַטֵּה אֲבֹתָיו תִּשְׁלָחוּ כֹּל נָשִׂיא בָהֶם

במדבר טו:לט - וְהָיָה לָכֶם לְצִיצִת וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם אֶת־כׇּל־מִצְוֺת יְקוָק וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם וְלֹא־תָתוּרוּ אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר־אַתֶּם זֹנִים אַחֲרֵיהֶם.

The word tur appears in the Torah in three different contexts: One, by the travelling of the cloud of G-d before the people, Bemidbar 10:33 and Devarim 1:33, two, by the twelve people (spies) who went to the land of Israel, (ten times in chapters 13 and 14), and three, by the laws of tziztit, 15:39. What does the word mean?

It is curious that commentators translate the word tur differently in the various verses. For example, Alter (2004, pp. 732, 745, 760, also see footnote on page 760) on 10:33 and 13:2 translates the word as scout, while on 15:39, he translates the word as stray. The problem or the reason for the change in the definition, is that the definition of the word tur as to scout does not accord with 15:39 since the verse does not mean that one should not scout with one’s heart and eyes. In addition, the word scout does not accord with Bemidbar 10:33 since the cloud of G-d was not scouting for the people, as it did not report back to the people, and it was also not exploring land, it just led the way.

Another definition, a variation of the definition to scout, is that I have heard people translate the word tur by the English word tourist, but this is a complete inversion of the terms. Shimon Sharvit (2023) notes that in modern Hebrew, some words had to be created since when there was no word in Hebrew for a modern term. One method was to match a pre-existing Hebrew word which had the same sound as an English word and then apply the definition of the English word to the pre-existing Hebrew term. He quotes three examples. One, the word mechonah, which in biblical Hebrew mean base, but since it sounds similar to the English word machine, in modern Hebrew, mechonah means machine. A second example is the word masechah, which in biblical Hebrew means idol, but since it sounds similar to the English word mask, in modern Hebrew, masechah means mask. A third example is the word tayar, which in Chazal (see Sifrei Bamidbar 82) means a guide, but since it sounds similar to the English word tourist, in modern Hebrew, tayar became tourist.

To return to the question, what is the definition of the word tur? A reasonable approach is to follow what I believe is the common translation of the term in 15:39, to go, and apply it all the other cases. When I discussed this idea in a class, Binyamin Hoffman told me that the word tur in Arabic can refer to a bird and airplane, and then he suggested that the word could mean to go fast. This is a wonderful suggestion since it distinguishes the term tur from the usual term lalechet, which is going at a regular pace, and accords with all the occurrences of the word in the Torah. In addition, since the word does not mean to scout or spy or to explore it is not surprising that Moshe did not the use the word tur when he recalled the sin of the spies in Devarim 1. I will now go through all the examples of the war tur in the Torah.

Bemidbar 10:33 means that the aron and the cloud of G-d travelled in a fast manner before the people to arrive at the next resting place. Similarly, Devarim 1:33, should be understood to mean that the cloud of G-d went before people moving fast for the people to get to the next resting place. These verses are recording how wonderful the situation was prior to the sin of the spies, and the idea is that when the people travelled, they followed the cloud (and the aron) which was moving fast, which enabled the people to also travel quickly from one point to their next resting point. Also, the verses are contrasting a regular cloud, which moves slowly, with the cloud of G-d that could move relatively fast.

Bemidbar 13:2 means either that G-d told Moshe to send people (spies) to go fast to the land of Canaan (Israel) or that the spies were to go through the land of Canaan quickly. Similarly, 13:17 means that Moshe sent the spies to go fast to the land of Canaan or that the spies should travel quickly through the land.

Bemidbar 13:21 means that the spies went quickly through the land from the south all the way to the north.

Bemidbar 13:25 means that the spies returned from their fast journey to the land (of Canaan, Israel) at the end of forty days, which truly was fast.

Bemidbar 13:32 first records the words of the “narrator” who refers to the bad spies as having gone fast through the land, and then 13:32 records the words of the bad spies, who also mentioned that they travelled fast through the land. The bad spies added the phrase “the land that we passed through” since if they travelled very quickly, then one might have discounted their negative report, hence they added that “we passed through the land.” They were saying even though we moved quickly, still we passed through the land and our claims are correct since we were able to see what was happening in the land.

Bemidbar 14:6 means that Yehoshua and Caleb were amongst the people who went quickly through the land.

Bemidbar 14:7 then records that Yehoshua and Caleb used the same language as the bad spies from 13:32, that we (Yehoshua and Calev) also went quickly thought the land and the phrase “the land that we passed through” to substantiate their repudiation of the bad spies.

Bemidbar 14:34 matches the days that the spies went quickly through the land with the punishment of the people, that the number of years (40) the people had to stay in the desert was based on the number of days (40) it took the spies to go through the land of Canaan (Israel). Thus, it was good the spies travelled quickly through the land to minimize the punishment to forty years.

Bemidbar 14:36,38 contrasts the bad spies who travelled quickly though the land, and were punished with Yehoshua and Caleb, who also had travelled fast through the land, but they had given a good report and were not punished.

The next time the word tur appears in the Torah is Bemidbar 15:39, and the idea of the verse is that people should not go after their hearts (which in the Torah is one’s thoughts) and one’s eyes to sin (zonah, to act inappropriately).

Does 15:39 mean that a person is never to follow one’s thoughts and eyes? Do all cases where a person acts based on what a person thinks and sees lead a person to sin? Yet, seeing and thinking is how people learn new information. If people do not follow their thoughts and eyes, then they end up doing what other people tell them to do, which sometimes leads to horrible actions, and if there is no one to tell a person what to do, then a person is not to do anything? No, the point of the verse is that a person should not act hastily (go fast) based on one’s thoughts and sights. Sometimes, when people act hastily, driven by impulses, which derive from their thoughts and sights, they sin. Instead, after seeing a situation, especially a case where a person is tempted to sin, a person needs to contemplate what is the proper way to act. In the context of 15:39, the seeing of the tzitzit or maybe just the techelet cord, is supposed to help a person contemplate on how one is to act that the person should not sin.

Bibliography:

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

Sharvit, Shimon, 2023, Literary points in parashat tzitzit, Bar Ilan weekly parasha sheet from the faculty of Judaism, Parashat Shelach, no. 1523, pp. 1,2.

Vayikra (Leviticus) 10:8-11 – Why did G-d tell Aharon not to drink wine after the deaths of Nadav and Avihu?

2026-04-06T23:38:00.003+03:00

ויקרא י:8-11 - וידבר ה' אל־אהרן לאמר. יין ושכר אל־תשת אתה ובניך אתך בבאכם אל־אהל מועד ולא תמתו חקת עולם לדרתיכם. ולהבדיל בין הקדש ובין החל ובין הטמא ובין הטהור. ולהורת את־בני ישראל את כל־החקים אשר דבר ה' אליהם ביד־משה.

Vayikra (Leviticus) 10:1,2 records that Nadav and Avihu died in the ceremony of the eighth day. Afterwards, Moshe gave various instructions to Aharon, Nadav and Avihu’s father, Elazar and Itamar, Nadav and Avihu’s surviving brothers, and Mishael and Eltzafan, cousins of Nadav and Avihu, 10:3-7. Afterwards, 10:8,9 records that G–d told Aharon not to drink wine when they would enter the ohel moed, which I think refers to both the courtyard of the mishkan and the mishkan, see our discussion on 1:1, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra.”

Afterwards 10:10,11 explain why Aharon and his sons cannot drink wine since they need to be able to separate from what is considered kadosh or not, what is considered tamei or tahor, and they need to teach the people the laws. Presumably the idea is that when a person drinks, then this clouds their judgement. Note the Torah did not say not to get drunk, but simply not to drink. (This law while technically not applicable to contemporary Jewish practices, still raises questions how a person can marry, mekadesh the Shabbat, and say havdalah when drinking wine?)

These four verses, 10:8-11, mark the first time in the Torah that G-d spoke only to Aharon concerning laws. (The only other prior time that G-d spoke only to Aharon was in Shemot 4:27, when G-d told Aharon to meet Moshe.) Why at this time after his sons just died, did Aharon have to know that he and his two living sons could not drink wine in the ohel moed? Was Aharon, a grieving father, really able to focus on what G-d was telling him?

In addition, after this conversation between G-d and Aharon, Moshe gave further instructions to Aharon, Elazar and Itamar, 10:12-18. Why did G-d speak to Aharon in the midst of Moshe’s instructions to his family?

Various answers have been suggested to suggest why the verses 10:8-11 are recorded in the midst of the tragedy of the deaths of Nadav and Avihu.

Rashi (on 10:2) quotes R. Yishmael that Nadav and Avihu violated this law of not drinking wine, which might have caused them to sin (see Ramban on 10:9), and this is why the law was recorded immediately after they died. This could be, but it is very unlikely. Firstly, one wonders how much wine the people had in the desert? Secondly, 8:35,36 records how in the previous seven days, Nadav and Avihu had undergone a seven-day initiation process where they had to be in or near the ohel moed, which suggests that they would not have access to wine during this process.

A second approach is that the Bekhor Shor (on 10:9) and Hoffmann (1953, on 10:8) write that it was then the practice of mourners to drink wine, and hence the law was needed to tell Aharon that even though he was devastated by the loss of his sons, he should not drink wine. This could have been the practice of mourners, but again, did the people have wine in the desert? Also, still why were the instructions about not drinking wine in the middle of Moshe’s instructions to the survivors? The instructions could not have waited until after all of Moshe’s instructions at the end of chapter 10?

Ramban (on 10:9) suggests a conceptual connection between the law of not drinking wine and Nadav and Avihu’s sin. Nadav and Avihu sinned because they thought erroneously, for whatever reason, how to worship G-d, and so too wine is prohibited since it leads one to think speciously. One could add to this idea that 10:8 records that drinking wine can lead to a lack of separation between kodesh and the profane, and this is similar to Nadav and Avihu’s sin that their fire, which was co-existent with G-d’s fire, reduced the separation between G-d and mankind, see our discussion on 10:1,2, "Nadav and Avihu." Again, this could be true, but why in the day of the great tragedy of the deaths of Nadav and Avihu did G-d have to tell Aharon about not drinking wine? The instructions could not have waited for another day?

A different idea is that these verses are an example where the Torah, acting like a narrator, inserts information into the narrative that initially seems out of place, but that this information can give a greater understanding of the ensuing narrative. I believe these narrative inserts occur at least 14 times in the Torah. Some examples are Bereshit 2:25; 3:1; 11:30; 18:11, 25:27,28, 27:1, 29:16,17, 31:19; 39:6; 48:10; Shemot 9:31,32; Bemidbar 12:3 and 13:20, and Devarim 3:29. In this case, the Torah wants to add information to the very important ensuing argument between Moshe and Aharon concerning whether the hatta’t sacrifice should have been eaten or burnt, and the argument was related to the deaths of Nadav and Avihu. The prelude to this argument is recorded in 10:12-15 and the argument itself is recorded in 10:16-20. For a discussion of the significance of this argument, see our discussion on 10:16-20, “Moshe and Aharon’s argument after the death of Aharon’s sons: An argument for the sake of heaven.”

How do G-d’s instructions to Aharon not to drink wine enhance one’s understanding of the argument between Moshe and Aharon? It does this in two ways.

One, a person reading this story might wonder who was Aharon to argue with Moshe, even if Aharon was Moshe’s older brother? Moshe had been on Mount Sinai forty days with G-d, two or three times, and had come as close to G-d as any human being, Shemot 34:5,6. The answer from 10:8-11 is that G-d also spoke directly and only to Aharon about laws.

Two, while Moshe agreed with Aharon in the end, maybe Moshe’s first argument was correct that the sacrifice should have been eaten. Maybe Moshe only agreed to Aharon since the sacrifice was already burnt and could not have been eaten anymore. Thus, 10:8-11 inform us that Aharon was empowered to separate from kadosh and chol, which means that Aharon could decide if the sacrifice was truly kadosh or not. Accordingly, the insert of the laws of 10:8-11 are to tell us that Aharon’s argument that the sacrifice should have been burnt was truly the correct approach.

This suggestion that 10:8-11 is a narrative insert to explain the argument recorded in 10:16-20 means that this conversation between G-d and Aharon about not drinking wine did not have to occur on the day when Aharon’s sons died, but could have been some time afterwards. Yet, when the Torah was written, the insert was recorded in the aftermath of their deaths to help the reader understand the argument between Moshe and Aharon that did happen on day when Nadav and Avihu died.

Bibliography:

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

The 2026 version of Andrew Schein's commentary on the Haggadah is now available

2026-03-23T13:54:00.000+02:00

Hello,

As I have been doing annually since 2014, I offer anyone a free copy of my commentary on the Haggadah. No adds or requests for donation, though I would be happy for feedback how to improve the commentary (typos, mistakes, etc.). The commentary is 120 pages, 1.5 spacing with a bibliography. If you are interested in reading the commentary, please send me an email at ajayschein@gmail.com, and I will send you the file.

I wish everyone a chag kasher ve-samaech and pray for peace in the land of Israel.

Andrew Schein

Shemot (Exodus) 26:9, 31-33, 36; 27:21, 36:35,36; 40:3, 21 – The parochet in the mishkan/ ohel moed: A pavilion and a screen

2026-03-08T23:37:00.001+02:00

שמות כו: ז- יב: וְעָשִׂיתָ יְרִיעֹת עִזִּים לְאֹהֶל עַל־הַמִּשְׁכָּן עַשְׁתֵּי־עֶשְׂרֵה יְרִיעֹת תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם׃ אֹרֶךְ הַיְרִיעָה הָאַחַת שְׁלֹשִׁים בָּאַמָּה וְרֹחַב אַרְבַּע בָּאַמָּה הַיְרִיעָה הָאֶחָת מִדָּה אַחַת לְעַשְׁתֵּי עֶשְׂרֵה יְרִיעֹת׃ וְחִבַּרְתָּ אֶת־חֲמֵשׁ הַיְרִיעֹת לְבָד וְאֶת־שֵׁשׁ הַיְרִיעֹת לְבָד וְכָפַלְתָּ אֶת־הַיְרִיעָה הַשִּׁשִּׁית אֶל־מוּל פְּנֵי הָאֹהֶל׃ וְעָשִׂיתָ חֲמִשִּׁים לֻלָאֹת עַל שְׂפַת הַיְרִיעָה הָאֶחָת הַקִּיצֹנָה בַּחֹבָרֶת וַחֲמִשִּׁים לֻלָאֹת עַל שְׂפַת הַיְרִיעָה הַחֹבֶרֶת הַשֵּׁנִית׃ וְעָשִׂיתָ קַרְסֵי נְחֹשֶׁת חֲמִשִּׁים וְהֵבֵאתָ אֶת־הַקְּרָסִים בַּלֻּלָאֹת וְחִבַּרְתָּ אֶת־הָאֹהֶל וְהָיָה אֶחָד׃ וְסֶרַח הָעֹדֵף בִּירִיעֹת הָאֹהֶל חֲצִי הַיְרִיעָה הָעֹדֶפֶת תִּסְרַח עַל אֲחֹרֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן׃

שמות כו:לו: וְעָשִׂיתָ מָסָךְ לְפֶתַח הָאֹהֶל תְּכֵלֶת וְאַרְגָּמָן וְתוֹלַעַת שָׁנִי וְשֵׁשׁ מׇשְׁזָר מַעֲשֵׂה רֹקֵם.

שמות כז: כא: בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד מִחוּץ לַפָּרֹכֶת אֲשֶׁר עַל־הָעֵדֻת יַעֲרֹךְ אֹתוֹ אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו מֵעֶרֶב עַד־בֹּקֶר לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה חֻקַּת עוֹלָם לְדֹרֹתָם מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.

שמות מ:ג: וְשַׂמְתָּ שָׁם אֵת אֲרוֹן הָעֵדוּת וְסַכֹּתָ עַל־הָאָרֹן אֶת־הַפָּרֹכֶת.

שמות מ: כא: וַיָּבֵא אֶת־הָאָרֹן אֶל־הַמִּשְׁכָּן וַיָּשֶׂם אֵת פָּרֹכֶת הַמָּסָךְ וַיָּסֶךְ עַל אֲרוֹן הָעֵדוּת כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת־מֹשֶׁה׃

Shemot (Exodus) 26:31-33 records instructions from G-d to Moshe to build a parochet, that was to be on four pillars and underneath the claps that connected the two parts of the covers of the mishkan. 36:35,36 record the fulfillment of these instructions. Afterwards, 40:3 records that G-d instructed Moshe to put the parochet within the mishkan and 40:21 records that Moshe fulfilled these instructions. What was the parochet?

The standard/ traditional understanding (see Rashi on 26:31) is that the parochet was a screen that hung over four pillars that were standing in a row and the parochet divided the special building (mishkan/ ohel moed) into two parts, an inner and outer room. Yet, this understanding does not accord with 27:21, which records that the parochet was to be on the tablets (luchot, edut), while according to the traditional interpretation the parochet was in front, not on, the tablets. Similarly, 40:3 and 40:21 record that the parochet was to cover the aron which contained the luchot, but according to the traditional understanding the parochet did not cover the aron at all. Rashi (on 40:3) is aware of the difficulty of 40:3 and tries to defend the traditional understanding that the parochet was just a screen by claiming that the word to cover means to protect and the screen can be thought of as protection of the aron. Similarly, the Talmud (Menachot 94a) quotes Rebi that the word on, al, does not really mean on, but near. These two attempts are very difficult.

Friedman (2003, p. 263) makes the fascinating suggestion that really the parochet was a pavilion that rested on the four pillars that were standing not in a row but as a box. The aron would then be within this box or pavilion. This suggestion accords with 27:21 that the parochet was on the luchot and 40:3,21 that the parochet covered the aron. Hurowitz (1995) discusses this idea by Friedman, which Friedman had first suggested in 1992, and notes that it is supported by the Sumerian word BARAG and its Akkadian cognate par- akku, which are believed to baldachins, a canopy on top of an altar or throne. He notes that the connection between these two terms and the word parochet was made in 1874 by Delitzsch. Hurowitz also notes that if this suggestion is correct, then the curtains that rested on the four pillars must have continued to the floor to stop anyone from seeing the aron that was within the parochet, so it was also a masach, screen.

Friedman notes that his suggestion accords with Bemidbar 4:5 that when the priests had to pack up the mishkan, they would take down the parochet and the parochet covered the aron, and the idea would be that once the four poles were removed, the curtain would fall and cover the aron.

This understanding also explains the term ohel edut in Bemidbar 9:15, 17:22,23 and 18:2, as well as the reference to the tent, ha-ohel, in Bemidbar 18:3. The idea being that with the parochet hanging over the four pillars, the parochet was a tent (ohel) covering the aron, which had the tablets (the luchot, the edut), within the mishkan.

This idea that the parochet was a pavilion and not a screen also suggests a new interpretation of Shemot 26:9. 26:9 records that with regard to the second cover of the mishkan, the cover made of goat hairs, which consisted of eleven segments, each four amot (cubits) by thirty amot (cubits), the sixth segment was to be folded towards the ohel. All the explanation that I have seen (for example Rashi on 26:9 and Hurowitz, p. 137), understand that half of the first segment of this cover, namely two amot of the first segment, was to hang in some form over the entrance to the mishkan. Presumably the basis for this idea is that as the length of the mishkan was 30 amot and the heigh of the mishkan was 10 amot, then 40 amot was sufficient to cover the mishkan and its back. Yet, the second cover had 44 (11*4) amot, an extra four amot. We also know that the second cover had an extra two amot in the back of the mishkan, 26:12, and then it “must be” that the remaining extra two amot were in the front of the mishkan. Yet, 26:9 refers to the sixth segment of the cover, while this explanation claims the first segment of the cover was folded over. Also, according to this explanation, there is no folding since the two amot just hang down in the front of the mishkan.

A simple reading of 26:9 is that the second cover of the mishkan starts at the beginning of the mishkan, just like the first cover of the mishkan, and then the sixth segment of the second cover would begin at the twentieth amah of the mishkan. This would be the same spot where the sixth segment of the first cover of the mishkan would begin, but by the first cover, the beginning of the sixth segment would be attached by loops and claps to the fifth segment. However, by the second cover, the sixth segment is attached to the seventh segment, and not the fifth segment, with loops and clasps, 26:10,11.

26:9 is then informing us that after the five segments of the second cover of the mishkan, the sixth segment was folded over, which means that it would cover two amots of the mishkan and not four amot. This doubling of the sixth segment, would establish the measurements of the pavilion of the parochet that it would have two poles at the twentieth amot of the mishkan, and two poles at the twenty second amot of the mishkan. Within this two amot and undetermined length (ten amot?), the aron, which had a depth of one and half amots (25:10), was situated, 26:33. After the sixth segment was folded over, the loops and clasps of the second cover were attached to the end of sixth segment and the beginning of the seventh segment, at the twenty-second amot of the mishkan. The parochet was then under both sets of clasps of the two covers of the mishkan (26:33), the first two pillars were under the clasps of the first cover of the mishkan, and the back two pillars were under the clasps of the second cover of the mishkan. (Note this configuration would have occurred even according to the traditional interpretation of 26:9, see Cassuto, 1967, p. 352.) After the loops and clasps were attached to the sixth and seventh segments of the second cover, there would be another five segments to the second cover, segments seven, eight, nine, ten and eleven, twenty more amot, which would give an extra two amot beyond the end of the mishkan, 22+20 = 42, 26:12.

The end of 26:9 records that the folding of the sixth segment was facing or towards the front of the tent, ohel. The ohel is the tent that was made by the parochet, and the end of 26:9 is stating that when one folded the sixth segment, the coming together of the folded segment was at the edge (vertically above) from where the front two poles of the parochet and the curtains of the parochet were situated. This means that the edge of the folded over part of the sixth segment of the second cover was facing (downwards) the front of the tent that was made by the parochet.

The idea that the parochet was a pavilion also suggests a simple reading of 26:36 (and 36:37 and 39:38), which records that there was a masach, which was just a screen, and it was by the entrance to the ohel (the tent). What ohel?

According to the traditional understanding it is not clear what is the reference to the ohel in 26:36. However, once one understands that the parochet made a tent, ohel, above the aron within the mishkan, then, as in 26:9, the term ohel in 26:36 (and in 36:37 and 39:38) is referring to the tent that was created by the parochet, and the masach, screen, was in front of the area that led to the parochet.

Bibliography:

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

Friedman, Richard Elliott, 2003, Commentary on the Torah with a new English translation and the Hebrew text, New York: HarperSanFrancisco.

Hurowitz, Victor Avigdor, 1995, The form and fate of the Tabernacle: Reflections on a recent proposal, Jewish Quarterly Review, 86: 1-2, pp. 127-151.

Shemot (Exodus) 33:12-19 – The beginning of the amazing conversation between G-d and Moshe

2026-02-22T22:51:00.002+02:00

שמות לג: יב-יט: וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל־ה' רְאֵה אַתָּה אֹמֵר אֵלַי הַעַל אֶת־הָעָם הַזֶּה וְאַתָּה לֹא הוֹדַעְתַּנִי אֵת אֲשֶׁר־תִּשְׁלַח עִמִּי וְאַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ יְדַעְתִּיךָ בְשֵׁם וְגַם־מָצָאתָ חֵן בְּעֵינָי׃ וְעַתָּה אִם־נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ הוֹדִעֵנִי נָא אֶת־דְּרָכֶךָ וְאֵדָעֲךָ לְמַעַן אֶמְצָא־חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ וּרְאֵה כִּי עַמְּךָ הַגּוֹי הַזֶּה׃ וַיֹּאמַר פָּנַי יֵלֵכוּ וַהֲנִחֹתִי לָךְ׃ וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אִם־אֵין פָּנֶיךָ הֹלְכִים אַל־תַּעֲלֵנוּ מִזֶּה׃ וּבַמֶּה יִוָּדַע אֵפוֹא כִּי־מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ אֲנִי וְעַמֶּךָ הֲלוֹא בְּלֶכְתְּךָ עִמָּנוּ וְנִפְלִינוּ אֲנִי וְעַמְּךָ מִכׇּל־הָעָם אֲשֶׁר עַל־פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה׃ {פ} וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל־מֹשֶׁה גַּם אֶת־הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ אֶעֱשֶׂה כִּי־מָצָאתָ חֵן בְּעֵינַי וָאֵדָעֲךָ בְּשֵׁם׃ וַיֹּאמַר הַרְאֵנִי נָא אֶת־כְּבֹדֶךָ׃ וַיֹּאמֶר אֲנִי אַעֲבִיר כׇּל־טוּבִי עַל־פָּנֶיךָ וְקָרָאתִי בְשֵׁם יְהֹוָה לְפָנֶיךָ וְחַנֹּתִי אֶת־אֲשֶׁר אָחֹן וְרִחַמְתִּי אֶת־אֲשֶׁר אֲרַחֵם׃

Shemot (Exodus) 33:12-34:10 record an amazing conversation between G-d and Moshe. This conversation can be divided into three (or more) parts, 33:12-23, 34:1-4 and 34:5-10. In this discussion we will focus on the conversation that is recorded in 33:12-19 and try to do our best to understand the flow of the conversation, which is not obvious. The discussion on the blog “As close as it gets,” focuses on the end of the first part of the conversation and the second part of the conversation, 33:18-34:7.

The conversation begins with Moshe speaking to G-d, and saying, “You say to me, bring up this people, yet You have not made known to me whom You will send with me. And you have said, I know you by name, and you have found favor in My eyes,” 33:12, Alter translation, 2004, p. 504. The phrase in the first half of 33:12, “yet You have not made known to me whom You will send with me” was Moshe referring to G-d's statement in 33:1-3, that after the sin of the golden calf, G-d agreed to send a malakh to accompany the people to the land of Israel, but G-d and/ or the glory of G-d would not accompany the malakh and the people. This statement by G-d is the background to the conversation in 33:12-19.

What was the point of the first half of 33:12, “You say to me, bring up this people, yet You have not made known to me whom You will send with me” or why did Moshe start the conversation by stating that G-d had not made known to him whom G-d would send? My guess is that Moshe was pointing out that since G-d had not told him who was to be the malakh who would accompany the people, this indicated that the decision recorded in 33:1-3 to send a malakh “without G-d” was not final. Accordingly, Moshe could then make an effort to rescind the decision since Moshe wanted G-d’s glory to accompany the people in their travels in the desert, as he stated in the end of the conversation in 34:9.

In the second half of 33:12, Moshe recalled that G-d told him, G-d’s name, which is recorded in 3:14 and 6:3, and that G-d had stated that Moshe had found favor in G-d’s eyes. This last statement is never recorded prior to this conversation, but was a reasonable assumption by Moshe since G-d had chosen Moshe to be His messenger and Moshe had gone up to Mount Sinai to speak to G-d.

33:13 then records that Moshe continued to speak and said, “And now, if, pray, I have found favor in Your eyes (the end of 33:12), let me know, pray, your ways, that I may know You, so that I may find favor in Your eyes. And see, for this nation is Your people,” Alter translation, 2004, p. 504.

In 33:13, Moshe began by stating that if his assumption in 33:12, that he had found favor in G-d’s eyes, was correct, then he asked to know G-d’s ways since knowledge of G-d’s ways would lead him to know G-d, and knowing G-d could cause G-d to look favorably on him and/ or the people. It is interesting that Moshe did not just think that G-d would look favorably on a person based on a person following the laws, but rather Moshe thought that for G-d to look favorably on a person, something extra was needed and that was to “know” G-d in some way. Thus, the Rambam (Moreh 1:54) quotes this verse to argue that the crucial aspect of religion is knowledge of G-d and not praying and fasting. Also, Moshe seems to have been asking for some knowledge of G-d that he did not learn when he was on Mount Sinai for forty days.

One question concerning 33:13 is what are G-d’s ways? I have found six different suggestions to what Moshe meant by the phrase G-d’s ways.

One explanation is from Talmud (Berakhot 7a) is that Moshe was asking about the theodicy question. This is such a basic question in religion that maybe knowing the answer to this question would lead people to have a better knowledge of G-d.

Rashi (on 33:13) varies the approach in the Talmud and suggests that Moshe’s request to know G-d’s ways was that Moshe was asking what is the reward of a person who finds favor in G-d? This request is less significant of a question than the theodicy question, and it is unclear why Moshe would want to know about the rewards for the righteous, unless Rashi understood that Moshe was asking about the rewards in the next life. Maybe Rashi thought that Moshe thought that if a person knew the rewards for fulfilling the mitzvot, then more people would follow the Torah.

Rashbam (on 33:13) suggests that Moshe was asking G-d to show him the (best?) way to get to the land of Israel. This approach continues Moshe’s statement in 33:12 that G-d had not told him who was to accompany him, and now, according to the Rashbam, Moshe was saying whoever would accompany the people, still Moshe wanted G-d to tell him the way to the land of Israel. Or, maybe Moshe was asking G-d to accompany the people and not a malakh. This request was partially fulfilled in the second half of 33:14. This approach makes Moshe’s request to know G-d’s ways limited to the circumstances of the people living in the desert, and it is unclear how it relates to the remainder of 33:13.

A fourth approach, which I believe is the most popular approach to 33:13, is from the Bekhor Shor (on 33:12, Hizkuni on 33:12 quoting the Bekhor Shor, also Rambam, Moreh I:54) who explains that G-d’s ways is the thirteen middot, attributes of G-d recorded in 34:6,7. With this understanding, Moshe’s request was fulfilled in 34:6,7, and the idea would be that by knowing these attributes a person would have a better knowledge of G-d. Furthermore, the Ran (derashot 4) suggests that Moshe wanted to know G-d’s ways (the 13 middot) in order that Moshe would be able to pray more effectively for the people if they sinned, and then if G-d’s glory would accompany the people, and the people sinned, the Glory would not necessarily kill all the people. Accordingly, with this approach, the ability to pray more effectively would then allow G-d’s glory to be within the malakh who would accompany the people

A fifth suggestion is from the Ibn Ezra (in his introduction to the Decalogue on 20:1) that knowing G-d’s way is to understand astronomy or maybe all of science. The idea here is that by knowing science, then this would lead to a knowledge of G-d.

Seforno (on 33:13) offers a sixth suggestions that it is not the knowledge of science which leads to a knowledge of G-d but a knowledge of philosophical question concerning G-d. For example, Soforno suggests that Moshe was asking G-d to explain how G-d can know the future and yet there still be free will.

With regard to the first, second, fifth and sixth suggestions, it is not recorded that G-d answered Moshe’s request. According to these suggestions, one would have to say that the conversation moved on to other issues.

My guess is that the phrase G-d’s ways refer to how G-d decides to forgive or to punish people, which varies suggestions one and four, and is referred to in the second half of 33:19. Maybe the reason why Moshe was asking this question at this time was because previously in 32:32 Moshe had asked G-d to forgive the people for the sin of the golden calf and G-d had rejected his plea, 32:33,34. Thus, in 33:13, Moshe was asking G-d’s ways to know how and when G-d will forgive the people or punish people. Also, similar to the Ran’s idea with regard to Moshe’s request to learn the 13 middot, Moshe thought that if he had this knowledge of when G-d would forgive or punish the people, then this would lead G-d to returning the glory of G-d to be with the people. Note, this suggestion differs from suggestion four since one does not have to assume that Moshe had known before his question that there existed some specific attributes of G-d as the fourth approach seems to imply.

A second question concerning 33:13 is that in the second half of 33:13, Moshe requested to find favor in G-d (Your eyes), but this request seems superfluous after Moshe had already stated in the end of 33:12 that he knew that G-d had found favor with him. Maybe Moshe was asking that if G-d taught Moshe G-d’s ways, then Moshe would be able to find more favor in G-d’s eyes? Maybe in 33:13, Moshe was asking to find ways to find favor in G-d in the future. Maybe, the answer is that in the second half of 33:13, Moshe was trying to learn about G-d’s way to enable other people to find favor in G-d’s eyes, and this is why in the end of the verse Moshe recalls that the Jewish people are G-d’s people. Also, in 33:16, Moshe refers to the people wanting to be able to ascertain that they had found favor in G-d’s eyes.

If in 33:13, Moshe was requesting that G-d look favorably on the people, then maybe the request was to have the covenant renewed based on the idea that the sin of the golden calf led to the breaking of the covenant. I am not sure if the sin of the golden calf led to the breaking of the covenant, and even if it did, already by 32:14, it seems that G-d had agreed to re-new the covenant.

Other possibilities, independent of whether the covenant had been renewed or not, are that maybe the request by Moshe for G-d to look favorably on the people was an attempt to renew or improve the relationship between G-d and the Jewish people after the sin of the golden calf or to compensate for G-d not being with the people on their way to the land of Israel? Or, maybe Moshe thought that if G-d would look favorably upon him or the people, then G-d would return G-d's glory to be within the malakh who was to lead the people in the desert. Or, maybe Moshe thought that if G-d looked favorably upon him or the people, then G-d would help him or the people in their march to the land of Israel? With this last possibility, the goal was to replace in some way the loss of G-d’s glory who would not be within the malakh that was to lead the people.

G-d responded to Moshe, and said, “My face will go and I will grant you rest,” 33:14 (variation of Alter, 2004, p. 504 translation). What does the term G-d’s face mean? In 33:18, Moshe asked to see G-d’s glory and G-d said that no person can see His face, 33:20. It seems that G-d’s face is referring to G-d’s glory and this is Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon’s (on 33:14) explanation of the term. With this idea, we understand that in 33:12,13, Moshe was asking, in an indirect manner, for G-d’s glory to go with the people.

Is this statement “My face (or glory) will go” a positive or negative response? I believe that many people understand it in a positive manner. The Ran (see middle of derashot haRan 4) explains that G-d’s response was partially positive that G-d was saying that He would not go with the people in the desert but He would join them in the land of Israel. I think from Moshe’s statement in the beginning of 33:15, “If your face does not go,” we see that G-d’s statement in 33:14 was not a positive response since G-d was not agreeing to allow His glory to be within the people. Furthermore, from Moshe’s request in 34:9, that G-d should “walk” with the people, we see that G-d had not agreed to accompany the people.

The second half (the last two words) of 33:14 records “I (G-d) will grant you rest, va-ha-neechoti.” What do these words mean? One approach is that this phrase can be understood as “I (G-d) will lighten your burden” (JPS translation, in Sarna, 1991, p. 213). Tigay (2004, p. 188) varies this and writes that the phrase means “I (G-d) will deliver you to safety.”

What then is the meaning of 33:14? My guess is that G-d was saying that G-d’s glory would go in the front of the people to help guide the people to the land of Israel which would ease Moshe’s concern in 33:12,13 that G-d was only sending a malakh and not G-d’s glory to help take the people to the land of Israel. This answer would be addressing Moshe’s request to know G-d’s ways according to the Rashbam’s understanding of the phrase, but according to the other opinions in 33:13, in 33:14, G-d was not addressing Moshe’s request to know G-d’s ways, but responded to Moshe’s underlying concern of the need for assistance to bring the people to the land of Israel.

33:15,16 record Moshe’s response to G-d statement in 33:14. The verses state, “And he (Moshe) said to G-d: If your face does not go, do not take us up from here. And how then, will it be known that I have found favor in Your eyes, I and your people. Will it not be by Your going with us, that I and Your people may be distinguished from every other people that is on the face of the earth?” variation of Alter translation, 2004, pp. 504,505.

In this response, Moshe does not seem to be referring to his request from 33:13 to know G-d’s ways, but instead Moshe is responding to G-d’s statement in 33:14 that G-d’s glory would be present, albeit in front of the people. In 33:15,16, Moshe was not happy with G-d’s offer. Moshe wanted the glory of G-d to return and be with the malakh and the people, and not in front and separate from the people.

Why did Moshe want G-d's glory to accompany the people if the glory of G-d was so dangerous and could wipe out the people, as recorded in 33:3,5? The answer is from 33:16 where Moshe gave two reasons for desiring the glory of G-d. One reason is that the glory of G-d would enable the people to know that G-d had found favor with them. Presumably this would occur by the people seeing the glory of G-d and the glory of G-d not destroying them, as for example in 40:34. Two, its appearance would make the people distinct from all other people. Apparently, Moshe though that these reasons were worth the risk that G-d’s glory could destroy the people.

33:17 records G-d’s response that “G-d said to Moshe, this thing too, which you have spoken I will do, for you have found favor in My eyes, and I have known you by name,” variation of Alter translation, 2004, p. 505. What did G-d agree to? Also, this agreement is referred to as being a second agreement, the word too, what was G-d’s first agreement? My guess is that G-d's previous agreement to Moshe's request was for G-d not to kill all the people for the sin of the golden calf, 32:14. What is the second agreement here?

One possibility could be that G-d agreed to Moshe’s request in 33:15,16, to have G-d’s glory be within the people, but from Moshe's request in 34:9 for G-d to accompany the people, we see that G-d had not agreed to Moshe's request for the glory of G-d to return, as otherwise Moshe would not have had to ask another time. Furthermore, if G-d had agreed to have G-d’s glory within the people, why would Moshe need to ask to see G-d glory in 33:18?

A second possibility to what was G-d’s agreement, following the Bekhor Shor, Hizkuni and Ralbag (all on 33:17), is that in 33:17, G-d was acceding to Moshe’s request in 33:13, to show Moshe His ways, and these commentators follow the approach that G-d’s ways are the attributes of G-d.

Rashbam suggests that in 33:17, G-d was agreeing to Moshe’s request in 33:16 to make the people distinguished. This approach connects G-d’s response to Moshe’s most recent request in 33:16 and not to a request from four verses beforehand (33:13). This agreement, according to this approach, is referred to again in 34:10, and was fulfilled when Moshe’s face radiated, 34:29,30. With this idea, in 33:17 G-d agreed to Moshe’s request to make the people special but changed how they were to be distinguished. Moshe intended for the glory of G-d be with the people to signal that the people were distinguished, while G-d was going to do a special miracle with Moshe. Yet, as Moshe’s face was changed due to Moshe’s partial ability to see G-d’s glory in 34:6, then the people also got to see G-d’s glory in a very, very indirect way.

33:18 records that Moshe then asked to see G-d's glory. It is not clear what prompted Moshe to make this request, and likely it depends on how Moshe understood G-d’s statement in 33:17. If Moshe thought that in 33:17, G-d had agreed to have His glory be within the people, then Moshe asked for something extra, that he could see G-d’s glory. Or, if Moshe thought that in 33:17, G-d had agreed to tell him G-d’s ways, then maybe Moshe thought he could ask for one more thing, to see G-d’s glory. Or, if Moshe understood that in 33:17, G-d had not agreed to have G-d’s glory be within the people, then maybe in 33:18 Moshe was asking at least to let him see G-d’s glory. With any of these possibilities, 33:18 appears to have been a personal appeal since in the end of 33:17, G-d had acknowledged that G-d had found favor in Moshe and that Moshe had a special status since he knew G-d’s name (mentioned in 33:12, the beginning of the conversation). However, the Rashbam (on 33:18) adds that this request for a personal vision of G-d’s glory also relates to the renewal or re-affirmation of the covenant after the sin of the golden calf. Maybe that just like by the first covenant, Moshe had experienced an unbelievable revelation from G-d (Shemot 24:10,11), so then Moshe thought that a new revelation would signify the renewal of the covenant.

The beginning of 33:19 records that G-d partially agreed to Moshe's request to see G-d's glory, and the end of 33:19 records that “I (G-d) will grant favor to those I grant favor to, and I will have compassion to those I have compassion to.” The second half of 33:19 is not in response to Moshe’s request in 33:18, but to Moshe’s request in 33:13 for G-d to tell him G-d’s ways. In the end of 33:19, G-d is stating that G-d alone will determine who he is to be granted favor and compassion, and G-d would elaborate on this idea in 34:6,7. This reading of the second half of 33:19 means that G-d rejected Moshe’s request to teach him G-d’s ways.

To summarize, it appears that there are two issues being discussed in 33:12-19, whether G-d’s glory would accompany the people in the desert and whether G-d would share with Moshe, G-d’s ways, which I understand to be how to know when G-d will punish or forgive people who sinned. These issues are interrelated since Moshe thought that knowing G-d’s ways would lead to G-d’s glory being with the people. As of 33:19, G-d had not agreed to send the glory of G-d with the people, and G-d told Moshe that there was no set formula for when G-d would forgive sinners. In this conversation, G-d only agreed to do something which would show that the people were special, and this would be to make Moshe’s face radiate, and to partially show His glory to Moshe.

Bibliography:

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

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

Tigay, Jeffrey H., 2004, Introduction and annotations to Exodus, in The Jewish Study Bible, edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 102-202.

Shemot (Exodus) 14:1-8, 17 – Pharaoh's heart (brain) at Yam Suf: The true colors of Pharaoh and the Egyptian army by Yam Suf

2026-01-19T19:55:00.003+02:00

Shemot 14:1-3 record that G-d had the Jewish people travel in a circuitous course when they left Egypt to make Pharaoh think that the Jews were lost in the desert. 14:4 then records that G-d told Moshe that He would harden Pharaoh's heart in order that the Egyptians would chase after the Jewish people. Afterwards, 14:5-7 record that once Pharaoh heard that the Jewish people had run away, he immediately wanted to enslave them again. Pharaoh gathered his army and began to chase the Jewish people. 14:8 then records that G-d hardened Pharaoh’s heart that Pharaoh chased after the Jewish people. Similarly, Shemot 14:17 records that G-d told Moshe that He would harden the hearts of the Egyptian forces to chase the Jewish people. Note that this hardening of the heart is a little different than by the plagues since there the hardening of the heart was not to let the Jews leave, while here the hardening was to chase the Jewish people to make them slaves again.

These verses raise two somewhat contradictory questions. One, once G-d was going to harden Pharaoh's heart to have him chase the Jewish people, why did the people have to march in a circuitous course? Two, why did G-d have to harden Pharaoh and the Egyptian forces heart since 14:5-7 record that they went to chase after the Jewish people before G-d hardened their hearts (in 14:8)?

Maybe the circuitous route was to show Pharaoh's true colors, when his heart was not yet hardened, that he was evil, even after experiencing the ten plagues. Even though 14:5-7 do not relate Pharaoh’s decision to chase after the Jewish people to the people getting lost in the desert, undoubtedly, he learned this information (see 14:3) and then he thought that G-d had only helped the Jewish people temporarily with the plagues, so he thought he had a chance to enslave the people again. We see that his request for G-d to bless him, 12:32, was a lie.

Why then did G-d harden Pharaoh’s heart after Pharoah was already chasing the Jewish people? The answer is that Pharaoh's desire to chase the Jews and enslave them was his intuitive response to hearing that the Jewish people were trapped (system one of the thinking process of the brain). However, after experiencing the ten plagues, a little more thinking (system two of the thinking process of the brain) would have made Pharaoh realize that he should just let the Jewish people go. Thus, 14:4 tells us that G-d would harden Pharaoh heart and 14:8 tells us that G-d hardened Pharaoh's heart that his thoughtful second system did not overcome his intuition response to chase down the Jewish people, see our discussion on Shemot 9:34,35 "A hard heart: System one and system two."

With regard to Pharaoh's soldiers, their hearts were initially not hardened to show, like Pharaoh, their cruelty that they wanted to attack a defenseless innocent people. This explains why their deaths at Yam Suf were just. When these soldiers saw that G-d split the Yam Suf, their intuitive response (like most soldiers) was to continue chasing the people. However, if they had thought a little bit more, their thoughtful second system of thinking, then they should have been sufficiently awed of the waters being split, that they would have stopped chasing and trying to kill the Jewish people. Accordingly, G-d hardened their hearts to chase the Jewish people into the middle of Yam Suf, and did not allow their second system of thinking to overcome their intuitive response. These soldiers died at Yam Suf, 14:17, 28, and they were no longer a threat to the Jewish people when the people were in the desert.

Bereshit (Genesis) 41:42; 42:8; 45:1,12 – The importance of Yosef’s revid ha-zahav - The golden half mask

2025-12-15T15:27:00.000+02:00

Bereshit (Genesis) 41:42 records that Pharaoh gave Yosef linen clothes and a revid ha-zahav to put around his neck. The special clothing re-calls the special coat, ketonet pasim, that Yaakov gave to Yosef in the beginning of the story, 37:3, but what is the revid ha-zahav and is it crucial to the story?

Alter (2004, p. 235) notes that while many people translate the revid ha-zahav as being a gold chain, it should be translated as a golden collar, and from Egyptian bas-reliefs, it would have covered parts of a person’s shoulders, the upper chest and the neck. My guess is that the golden collar also covered Yosef’s cheeks, and if this is true, this would give a new perspective for several verses in the story of Yosef. (Note all of the points below are still possible if Yosef wore a mask even if the revid ha-zahav was not the mask.)

One, 42:8 records that the brothers did not recognize Yosef. This is slightly surprising since there were ten brothers and not one of them recognized Yosef. Rashi (on 42:8) suggests that maybe Yosef had a beard at this point, while when he left them, he was a still a youngster who was not yet able to grow a beard. It is also possible that they did not recognize Yosef since they never would have expected Yosef to be ruling Egypt. Another possibility based on the idea that the revid ha-zahav covered Yosef’s cheeks, is that the brothers did not recognize Yosef since they only saw his upper face.

Two, the end of 45:1 records that Yosef made himself known to his brothers, be-hitvada, but the verse does not record Yosef as saying anything. What did Yosef do to make himself known to his brothers?

I believe the standard explanation for 45:1 is that when the verse states that Yosef revealed himself to his brothers, this is an introduction to the ensuing verses, as 45:3 records that Yosef told his brothers, “I am Yosef.” Yet, there is a break of a verse, 45:2, which records how Yosef cried and that the Egyptians heard him crying, and only afterwards did he say that he was Yosef, 45:3. However, if the revid ha-zahav covered Yosef’s cheeks, then 45:1 could be understood simply that Yosef took off the revid ha-zahav, and then the brothers could recognize him. With this idea, he cried after taking off his half-mask, 45:2. After discussing this idea in my synagogue, Eliyahu Navon suggested that a proof for this idea is that in 45:3, the Torah specifies that the brothers were frightened from his face, panav, but does not record from him, mimenu, to stress that the crucial issue was that they saw his face, which was something new, since only at this point did Yosef remove his half-mask. With this idea, in 45:3 Yosef said that he was Yosef as the introduction to his question about Yaakov, or to remove any lingering doubts his brothers might have had about his identity.

Three, 45:12 records that Yosef told the brothers "Here, your eyes see, as well as my brother Binyamin's eyes, that it is my mouth that speaks to you," (Fox, 1995, translation, p. 215). The verse is within a section where Yosef was telling his brothers to tell Yaakov to come to Egypt, 45:9-13, and the concluding verse in this section, 45:13 records that Yosef told his brothers to tell Yaakov what they saw in Egypt. This seeing in 45:13 seems to refer to the seeing mentioned in 45:12, but what can it mean that the brothers saw that Yosef’s mouth was speaking to them?

Many commentators (see for Rashi and Ibn Ezra on 45:12) explain that the reference to seeing Yosef’s mouth in 45:12 refers to Yosef speaking to the brothers in Hebrew. However, as noted by the Ramban (on 45:12) this is not a strong proof that he was Yosef since many people could have known Hebrew. In addition, if the proof of Yosef that the brothers were to supposed to tell Yaakov was that Yosef spoke Hebrew, then 45:12,13 should have referred to the brothers hearing Yosef, but the verse refers to something that the brothers saw, Yosef’ mouth.

Ramban (on 45:12) suggests that Yosef wanted the brothers to tell Yaakov the great honors that they saw that Yosef had in Egypt, but 45:13 records that Yosef told the brothers both to tell Yaakov about the great honors and what they saw. This means that the seeing is separate from the great honors.

Rashi (on 45:4,12, based on Bereshit Rabbah 93:8) also suggests that the seeing referred to in 45:12 was that Yosef showed his brothers that he was circumcised. This is quite bizarre that the brothers really checked this and even if they did maybe other people also circumcised themselves. Also, this seeing would not be related to Yosef’s mouth.

A simple explanation of 45:12 is that once Yosef had removed the revid ha-zahav (as I believe occurred in 45:1), then the brothers could see Yosef’s mouth without his cheeks being covered up. Thus, Yosef was telling his brothers that they should tell Yaakov how they saw his mouth and could then verify that it was Yosef. Interestingly, 45:26,27 record that Yaakov did not believe his sons when they returned from Egypt, and it was only when he saw the wagons did Yaakov believe his sons about Yosef. These wagons were authorized by the mouth of Pharaoh, 45:21, and hence in the end it was the mouth of Pharaoh and not the mouth of Yosef which convinced Yaakov to go to Egypt.

(After speaking on this idea in my synagogue, Shmuel Klang noted that the Ramban in his comments on 46:29 suggests that when Yaakov met Yosef in Egypt, Yosef had some type of head covering, mitznefet, which initially delayed Yaakov’s recognition of Yosef in conjunction with the Ramban’s assumption that Yaakov’s vision was already deteriorating at that point. It seems that the Ramban was referring to a hat and not a mask since the Ramban writes that Yaakov’s recognition of Yosef was only momentarily delayed. Note in 46:29, there is no hint in the Torah that Yaakov’s recognition of Yosef was not immediate.)

Bibliography:

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

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

Bereshit (Genesis) 31:20-55 – The last meeting between Yaakov and Lavan: On neutral ground

2025-11-25T00:09:00.000+02:00

Bereshit (Genesis) 31:20 records that Yaakov “stole” Lavan’s heart since he fled from Lavan’s house in Haran without telling Lavan that he was leaving. The following verse, 31:21, then records that in this flight Yaakov crossed the river, which is commonly understood to mean the Euphrates. Why did Yaakov not inform Lavan that he was leaving? This seems to be acting in a sneaky manner. If Yaakov had really changed his character during his stay in Lavan, then he should not have been sneaky, but should have left in an open manner. Also, why do we need to know that Yaakov crossed the Euphrates?

Afterwards, 31:22 records that after three days Lavan learned that Yaakov had fled. Lavan then chased down Yaakov and caught up to Yaakov by the hills of Gilead, 31:23. This led to the final encounter between Lavan and Yaakov, 31:26-55, which began by Lavan questioning Yaakov, why had he fled without telling him, 31:26-28.

Yaakov’s answer to Lavan was that he was worried that had he informed Lavan that he was leaving, Lavan would have stolen his wives, i.e. forced Rahel and Lea, Lavan’s daughters, to remain in Haran, 31:31. We see later on that Lavan did claim “ownership” of Yaakov’s wives, 31:43, but why was Yaakov not worried that Lavan would steal his wives on the hills of Gilead? Did Yaakov think that Lavan would not have chased him down? Or, did Yaakov think that he could get to the land of Israel before Lavan chased him down? Was Yaakov surprised by the sight of Lavan?

Seforno (on 31:31) suggests that in Haran, Lavan had many supporters, and hence he could have forced Rahel and Lea to stay in Haran, but on the hills of Gilead, Lavan did have enough men to impose his will on Yaakov. This approach seems to be based on the idea that Yaakov was not sure that G-d would physically protect him from Lavan in Haran, which I doubt. Also, most likely, Lavan had taken enough men with him on the hills of Gilead to impose his will, just that he was stopped by G-d’s intervention, 31:24, as could have happened in Haran.

My guess is that Yaakov was pretty sure that Lavan would chase him down, because the Torah records, from the perspective of the narrator, that Yaakov had stolen Lavan’s heart by running away, 31:19, and there is no reason to believe that Yaakov was unaware of this reaction. If this is true, then Yaakov could not really have hidden from Lavan. Even had he gotten to the land of Canaan, Lavan would still have tracked his down. It is even possible that Yaakov waited for Lavan on the hills of Gilead. The logic would be that Yaakov was not worried about Lavan since G-d had already assured him that He would be with him, 31:3, and for Yaakov it was better to finish with Lavan before having to deal with Esav. How then did Yaakov gain by meeting Lavan on the hills of Gilead instead of being in Haran?

My thought is that had Yaakov stayed in Haran he would have been subject to the laws of Haran, and then legally Lavan would have been able to keep Rahel and Lea in Haran. We see the importance of the local jurisdiction of Haran after Lavan switched Rahel and Lea on the marriage night, 29:23. It was clear that Yaakov had been working for Rahel, but still Lavan said the law in this place (Haran) was that Yaakov had to marry Lea first, 29:26. Even on the hills of Gilead, Lavan claimed that everything that Yaakov had, including Yaakov’s wives, really belonged to him, 31:43. Lavan was making this claim since he was applying the laws of Haran despite the fact that he was outside of Haran. Thus, Yaakov wanted to leave Haran’s jurisdiction, which is the importance of 31:21 that he passed over the Euphrates, which meant leaving Haran’s jurisdiction, and then Rahel and Lea would legally stay with their husband, Yaakov, instead of their father, Lavan.

Bereshit (Genesis)18:24-32, 19:4 – Avraham’s request to save the city of Sodom (Sedom): The numbers: 50, 45, 40, 30, 20 and 10

2025-10-28T15:46:00.001+02:00

Bereshit (Genesis) 18:20,21 records that G-d told Avraham that the people of Sodom (Sedom) and Gomorrah (Amora) were evil, and G-d implied that he was going to destroy the cities. 18:22 then records that the “people” who had been with Avraham, went to the Sodom, and then 18:23 records that Avraham began to plead with G-d not to kill the righteous/ innocent with the guilty.

18:24-32 record the details of Avraham’s request from G-d. 18:24,25 begin that Avraham requested for G-d to spare the city (Sodom) if there were fifty righteous people living in the city. God agreed to this request, 18:26. However, Avraham continued pleading, and he asked G-d to spare Sodom, if there were fewer righteous people, 45 people, 18:27,28. G-d again agreed to Avraham’s second request, 18:28. Yet, Avraham continued pleading with G-d, lowering the needed righteous people to 40, 30, 20 and finally 10. G-d agreed to all of Avraham's requests, but then Avraham stopped whittling down the numbers, 18:27:32.

Why did Avraham start his request with fifty righteous/ innocent people and why did he stop at ten people? Why did he not ask for G-d to spare Sodom if there was one righteous/ innocent person in the area?

Rashi (on 18:24,28,29,32) suggests that the basic principle was that ten righteous people could save an area, and the number fifty was based on ten righteous people saving five different places. The number forty-five was based on the idea of nine people in each place and adding G-d to the number in each place. The number forty was for ten righteous people in four cities to save four cities, and then the declining numbers would correspond to saving fewer and fewer areas. Finally, Rashi suggests that Avraham did not request less than ten righteous/ innocent people since he had learned from his request of 45, i.e., nine for each city, that nine righteous/ innocent people were insufficient to save a city.

Ramban (on 18:24) questions Rashi's logic. If ten righteous people were sufficient to save a place, then the Ramban wonders, why on each occasion that Avraham reduced the number of righteous people, Avraham began his request by asking for G-d's mercy. If the reduction in the number of righteous people matched the reduction in the number of places, then the request did not involve any more mercy on G-d's part since it was the same ratio as the first request of fifty righteous people. Also, the Ramban does not understand, why Avraham should not have requested for nine people for one place since this was not the same as requesting for G-d to spare five places for 45 people since maybe in one place there were nine righteous people but not nine righteous people in five different places? The Ramban concludes that he cannot understand how Rashi came to his explanation and he thinks that Avraham was always praying for five cities. Yet, the Ramban leaves the numbers of people unexplained.

Firstly, it seems that Avraham was only praying for the people of Sodom either because he knew them from chapter 14 (he saved them) or because of Lot, as in the conversation between G-d and Avraham, the Torah only refers to one city and the entire focus of the story is on Sodom. However, why the different numbers?

My guess is that basis for the numbers of people that Avraham suggested was because Sodom was a small city, more like a village than a city. Accordingly, the first number of fifty might have been because fifty people were a small majority of the number of families. For example, there might have been 90 families living in Sodom, and then fifty righteous people would be a majority per family. The next number 45, the only non-zero ending number, might have been since that was very close to being half the population. Afterwards, Avraham reduced the number since he was basing himself on having a meaningful minority which could save the city.

It could also be that initially Avraham might have thought that G-d would respond to his first request by agreeing to a higher number, say 150 people, and then they would have compromised at 100. However, G-d surprised Avraham by agreeing to 50 righteous/ innocent people as being enough to save Sodom, which indicated to Avraham that there did not have to be a large majority of righteous people to save the city. This might have prompted Avraham to continue even with having a meaningful minority of people.

Why did Avraham stop at ten? Wenham (1994) notes that, "the tone of G-d's replies conveys the feeling that He cannot be pushed much further." Or, maybe Avraham was very confident that there were ten righteous/ innocent people in Sodom. Or, maybe Avraham thought that less than ten righteous people were too small a minority to save Sodom.

A possible proof that Sodom was not very large is from the battle between Avraham and the four kings in chapter 14. 14:14 records that Avraham attacked the four kings with 318 men, which implies that the force of the four kings was around the same size or smaller since he would not have attacked a much large force. Furthermore, if the army of the four kings was around 300-500 soldiers, then this indicates that Sodom and his allies were not able to gather a much larger force since the four kings would surely have taken enough soldiers from Mesopotamia for them to be confident of winning in all of their battles against the five “cities,” 14:8,9. Finally, in olden time, when there was a war, every adult able-bodied man went out to fight, which implies that Sodom (and each of its allies) would have an army and a male adult population of around 80-100 men or less.

Note, after Lot leaves Sodom, he pleads to go to Tzo’ar, and he bases his request on the fact that it was a tiny place, 19:20. This means that Tzo’ar was even smaller than Sodom.

After discussing this idea in my synagogue, a friend, Oded Walk, suggested another proof that Sodom was a small place. 19:4 records that the whole population, old and young, surrounded Lot's house, but how can there have been enough room if the population was very large? Due to this problem, Rashi (on 19:4, see Siftei Chachamim on Rashi's comments) suggested that 19:4 does not mean literally that the entire population of the city surrounded the house, but that no one in Sodom protested the people’s treatment of Lot. It is much simpler to understand 19:4 that the population of Sodom was small, and then everybody or a majority of people (50 people?) could have surrounded Lot’s house.

The idea that Sodom was a dinky place might answer the archeological question that no cities have been unearthed that accord with the period of Avraham's approximate lifetime, 1800 BCE. A friend, Aaron Israel, suggested to me that due to the great upheaval that occurred after the conversation between G-d and Avraham, one would not expect to find any archeological remains, but people have searched. The sites that have been suggested, Bab edh-Dhra and Numeria (on the southeastern present-day Jordanian side of the Dead Sea), seemed to have been destroyed around 2300 BCE, see Rast 1987. Closer to Avraham’s likely time is that Harris and Beardow (1995) suggest that the cities were situated on the peninsula (El Lisan) which divides the two basins of the Dead Sea and the destruction occurred around 1900 BCE. On the other hand, if Sodom was just a dinky village, then one would not expect to find any remnants of large buildings that would have indicated a city in ancient times. Who knows?

Bibliography:

Rast, Walter, E., 1987, Bronze Age cities along the Dead Sea, Archaeology, 40:1, pp. 42-49.

Harris, G. M. and A. P. Beardow, 1995, The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah: a geotechnical perspective, Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 28:4, pp. 349–362.

Wenham, Gordan J., 1994, Genesis, Waco: Word Books.

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 31:10 – Hakhel, shemitta, and Sukkot

2025-09-25T16:56:00.001+03:00

דברים לא:י - ויצו משה אותם לאמר מקץ שבע שנים במעד שנת השמיטה בחג הסוכות.

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 31:10,11 record that Moshe commanded the people meketz seven years, be-moed (time of) the shemitta year in the holiday of Sukkot, to hear the Torah being read in the chosen place. This law is called hakhel and the reference to the chosen place connects this law to the laws of chapter 12, which begin the large section of laws of the book of Devarim with laws relating to the chosen place.

There is much confusion about the timing of hakhel. The word meketz means the end (see Rashi on Bereshit 41:1), which means that hakhel should be at the end of seven years, but Sukkot is in the beginning of the year. One answer is the Ibn Ezra's opinion (on 31:9, 15:1 and 9:11) that the word meketz really means the beginning of a time period, and then, according to this idea, hakhel is to be done in the beginning of the shemitta year. A second answer is that Chazal (see Rambam, Laws of Chagiga 3:3) understand that meketz means the end of a time period, its usual meaning, but that hakhel is to be observed in the Sukkot of the eighth year of the shemitta cycle or the first year of the new cycle, when it is no longer shemitta. Rashi (on Devarim 31:10) follows this idea and explains that 31:10 refers to this year as being the time (moed) of shemitta since some laws of shemitta still applied. This approach is difficult since the eighth year is not the shemitta year even if some of the laws of shemitta are still relevant.

A third possibility is that really the year begins in Nisan (Shemot 12:2 and Rabbi Yehoshua, Bavli, Rosh Hashanah 11a, see our discussion, “When is the Jewish New Year?”), and then the holiday of Sukkot in the shemitta year, while not at the end of year, can be considered the end of the seven-year cycle, the language of 31:10, since there are just six months to go in the seven-year or eighty four month cycle.

Why should the hakhel ceremony take place during the festival of Sukkot? Sukkot is a pilgrimage festival, but why is hakhel not on Shavuot or chag ha-Matzot? Abarbanel (1999, pp. 492,493) suggests two reasons why Sukkot is the most propitious time for the hakhel ceremony. One (see also Tigay, 1996, p. 291), is that as Sukkot occurs after the harvest, the people could relax and concentrate on hearing the Torah being read. Abarbanel’s second rationale is that since on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur people re-dedicate themselves to G-d, then people will be more likely take to heart the Torah reading that they would hear during the hakhel ceremony.

A third question is what is the connection between shemitta and hakhel? Maybe there is no connection between hakhel and shemitta, but the shemitta year was a way for the people to mark which year hakhel was to be observed.

Also, why does hakhel only take place once every seven years? A possible answer is that had the ceremony occurred every year it would lose its effect of increasing the people's fear of G-d, 31:12,13 (diminishing marginal utility).

Menachem Kasdan (1969) suggests an appealing reason both for why hakhel is related to Sukkot and to the shemitta year. He notes, as do many (see our discussion on 31:7-23, "Passing the baton from Moshe to Yehoshua"), that based on the Rambam (Laws of Chagiga 3:6) that hakhel is a re-enactment of the giving of the Torah. In addition, he points out that the shemitta year corresponds to the conditions of the people in the desert who received the Torah at Mount Sinai. He writes (p. 79), “Only a nation whose faith permits it to dwell in the unhospitable desert or observe shemitta is worthy of receiving the Torah.” Furthermore, he notes, following the timing of hakhel according to Chazel, that by the holiday of Sukkot in the eighth year of the shemitta cycle after the shemitta year, there were no celebrations of crops being harvested. Thus, he suggests that in Sukkot of that year, the people were again showing their trust in G-d, and this made them worthy of re-receiving the Torah by the law of hakhel.

Kasdan’s idea is interesting and can be slightly varied. Maybe celebrating hakhel during Sukkot of the shemitta year was to have the people be as close as possible to the conditions of the generation that actually heard the Decalogue. The obligation to live in sukkot during the festival of Sukkot is an approximate re-creation of the conditions of the people who lived in the desert, see Vayikra 23:43, and in the shemitta year the people were living off the produce of the land that grew naturally somewhat similar to the mahn that the people lived on during their time in the desert.

Bibliography:

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

Kasdan, Menachem, 1969, Hakhel, Gesher, 4:1, pp. 70-80.

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

Devarim 20:10 -15 – Are optional wars permitted in the Torah?

2025-08-29T13:05:00.000+03:00

The Rambam (Mishnah Torah, Laws of kings, 5:1) writes that there are two types of wars in Jewish law, a war that fulfills a mitzvah, milchmet mitzvah, and an optional war, milchmet reshut. The Rambam gives three examples of a war that is a mitzvah to fight: To fight the seven nations who lived in the land of Canaan, to fight Amalek and to defend the Jewish people from enemies who attack the Jewish people. There is support for each of these examples from the Torah. For example, Devarim 7:1,2 refers to fighting the seven nations, Devarim 25:17-19 refers to fighting Amalek and Bemidbar 10:9 refers to fighting a nation that attacks the Jewish people. Note, the wars with Arad (Bemidbar 21:1-3), Og (Bemidbar 21:33-35) and the war with Midyan (Bemidbar 25:17,18; 31:1-8, see our discussion on Bemidbar 25:14-18, “The battle with Midyan: Kozbi”) also were wars to stop these nations from attacking the Jewish people. Also, Avraham’s war with the four kings to save Lot (Bereshit 14) would fall into this category of being a war that is a mitzvah. On the other hand, the war with Sihon (Bemidbar 21:21-31) was under the category of a war with the seven nations, the Amori, but since the war was fought outside the land of Israel, Moshe was able to offer Sihon peace, which he refused, see Nachshoni 1987, pp. 657, 659.

The Rambam then gives two examples of an optional war, to increase the boundaries of the nation and to add prestige to the king. These wars do not seem to have any source in the Torah.

The Mishnah (Sotah 8:7, Talmud Sotah 44b) takes it as a given that there is a concept of an optional war, and in the discussion about the types of war, the Talmud quotes Rava that for sure an optional war was the wars fought by David to expand the borders of his kingdom. (Shmuel Rubinstein, 1975, p. 374, in his notes on Rambam 5:1, explains that the wars by David was when he fought with Aram Tzova, which I think is the reference to the wars recorded in Shmuel II chapter 10. Could it also refer to the war mentioned in Shmuel II 7:3-5 or is this the same war as in chapter 10? Other optional wars by David could be his war with Moav, Shmuel II 7:2, and/ or his wars before he was a king, Shmuel I 27:8,9.)

One possible source in the Torah for an optional war is the laws of warfare recorded in 20:10-15, as Rashi (on 20:10) writes that the laws in these verses are applicable to optional wars. Yet, as noted by Luzzatto (on 20:11), the Torah does not give any explanation for the source of the war referred to in 20:10-15. Luzzatto suggests that the context of the war in 20:10-15 can be known from the beginning of chapter 20, 20:1, which refers to the people going to fight an enemy, and Luzzatto argues that an enemy is a nation that harmed the Jewish people either by trying to conquer the land of the people to take possessions of the people. Accordingly, Luzzatto argues that the war referred to in 20:10-15 was not an optional war, but one to defend the people, the third example of the Rambam’s example of obligatory wars. One could add to his argument by noting that the last law in the section on wars, the law of the captive women, also begins with the phrase when you fight your enemy, 21:10. Thus, both the beginning and the ending of the section on war refer to fighting an enemy and not some peaceful nation, and then all the laws within the section, which includes 20:10-15, are also referring to fighting an enemy. Note Shimon and Levi’s massacre of the people of Shekhem (Bereshit 34) was a case where they were “fighting” a war with a peaceful “nation” since the people of Shekhem made a deal with the family of Yaakov and this can explain why Yaakov was so furious with them, see our discussion on Bereshit 34:25-35:5, “The brothers of Dina go amok.”

If there is no source for an optional war, then participating in such a war should be forbidden since a person is killing other people for money or prestige. This “right” to fight such a war was the common understanding until the 20th century, but should people be allowed to kill for material gain or glory? My guess is that this concept in Judaism either derives from the culture and mind set of ancient times or to defend the actions of King David, as occurs in his actions with Uriah and Bat Sheva (see Shabbat 56a), but has no basis in the Torah.

Bibliography

Nachshoni, Yehuda, 1987, Notes on the parashot of the Torah, Tel Aviv: Sifrati.

Rubinstein, Shmuel, 1975, Commentary on Rambam’s Mishnah Torah, Rambam La’am, Vol. 17, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Introduction to four kinot relating to the massacre of the Jews in Germany by the Crusaders

2025-08-03T17:06:00.000+03:00

On Tisha B'av there are four kinot which re-call the slaughter of the Jewish communities of Speyer, Worms and Mainz (all in Germany along the Rhine River) by the Crusaders in 1096. These kinot are Hacharishu mimeni, Mi yeten roshi mayim, Amarti sheu meni and Evel aorer. The kinot also describe how the Jews refused to become Christians and instead killed themselves, and even their children.

On November 27, 1095, in Clermont, France, the Pope Urban II made an appeal that Christians in the West should go help the Christians in the East and this led to a series of Crusades by people in Western Europe to capture land in the Middle East and specifically the land of Israel. One group of at least 15,000 people from apparently Northern France responded to the Pope’s call, and started to walk to the land of Israel in the spring of 1096. However, these people were not willing to wait to fight until they got to the land of Israel, but they started to attack Jewish communities almost from the get go. Sperber (1990, p. 109) writes that it seems that the first Jewish community that they attacked was in Rouen in northwest France. Afterwards, they travelled eastwards towards Germany, and they attacked the Jewish community of Speyer on May 9, 1096 (8th of Iyar). Note, the kinah Mi yeten roshi mayim gives the dates for the attacks on the Jews of Speyer, Worms and Mainz. Also, note that since the Crusader mob travelled eastwards from France to Germany, north of Paris, they did not encounter the Jewish communities south of Paris where Rashi lived, and Rav Soloveitchik (2010, p. 431) writes that this enabled the Torah shebe’al peh to continue since there was no destruction of Torah scholarship in France in 1096.

From Speyer, the Crusader mob went north along the Rhine to kill the Jews in Worms (around 50 kilometers north of Speyer) on the 23rd of Iyar and Rosh Chodesh Sivan (May 24 and May 31, 1096) and then they continued north again to Mainz (another 50 kilometers north of Worms) to kill the Jews in Mainz on the third of Sivan (June 2, 1096). Afterwards they continued marching northwards, 165 kilometers, to the city of Cologne and they killed the Jews there on Shavuot (June 5, 1096). This last pogrom is not mentioned in the kinot, but is mentioned by Sperber (1990, p. 108). The fact that Crusaders marched northwards, which was out of their way since they were supposed to be walking east or south to go to the land of Israel, shows their cruelty as they were just going to kill the Jews. According to one estimate, during these two months of May and June 1096 in Germany, “as many as 8,000 Jews were massacred or took their own lives,” (Haag, 2014, p. 106).

Most of the mob who attacked the Jewish communities died on their march to the land of Israel, but some joined with a Crusader force, which was led by various knights, and they conquered Jerusalem on July 15, 1099 (17th of Tammuz). This led to more massacres of the Jewish community of Jerusalem, and the burning of synagogues where Jews were hiding. These massacres are not mentioned in the kinot, but the entire period of the Crusaders was a terrible period for the Jewish people.

One oddity about the four kinot relating to the destruction of the Jewish communities of Speyer, Mainz and Worms is that they are not grouped together. Instead, in between the four kinot, there are kinot about the destruction of the first Bet ha-Mikdash and the second Bet ha-Mikdash. I have never understood this disorder. People have suggested to me that this apparent disorder is to show that all the tragedies are related. I doubt this and think there could be some historical reasons, but I do not know of any particular reason.

Bibliography:

Haag, Michael, 2014, The tragedy of the Templars: The rise and fall of the Crusader States, London: Profile Books.

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

Sperber, Daniel, 1990, Minhagei Yisrael, Volume 1, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Devarim 1:37, 3:26 and 4:21 – Why was Moshe unable to go to the land of Israel?

2025-07-25T01:15:00.000+03:00

Devarim 1:37 records within Moshe’s recollection of the sin of the spies and between two verses that state that Calev and Yehoshua would be able to go to the land of Israel, that Moshe told the people that G-d was angry at him because of them and this is why he was unable to go into the land of Israel. The inability of Moshe to go to the land of Israel is quite tragic for Moshe since this was the goal of his mission starting from the third chapter of the book of Shemot.

Yet, 1:37 is difficult to understand since the verse implies that the reason that Moshe was unable to go to the land of Israel was due to the sin of the people by the spies since the context of the verse, if not the verse itself, was Moshe’s recollection of the people’s sin by the spies (Bemidbar 13,14). However, how did Moshe sin in that incident? Also, Bemidbar 20:12 (and see also Bemidbar 27:14) records that Moshe was punished that he could not go to the land of Israel for his actions when the people requested water by Mei Merivah (see our discussion on Bemidbar 20:6-13, “Moshe’s sin?”), and not due to the sin of the people by the spies.

Subsequently, 3:26 records that Moshe told the people again that G-d was angry (depending on how one explains the word va-yitaber) at him on their account and therefore G-d would not listen to his prayers to go to the land of Israel. This verse does not seem to be related to the sin of the spies or to the incident at Mei Merivah. Why should G-d be angry at Moshe due to the people?

Afterwards, 4:21 records that Moshe told the people again that G-d was angry with him, but this time it was due to the words of the people, and hence he could not go to the land of Israel. This verse is unrelated to the sin of the spies or Mei Merivah. Instead, the verse relates Moshe’s inability to go to the land of Israel to the words of the people, what words?

From all three verses, we see that in Moshe’s speeches to the people in Devarim, Moshe was ignoring the incident of Mei Merivah.

There are several answers as to why the books of Bemidbar and Devarim seem to give different reasons for why Moshe was unable to go to the land of Israel.

One possible answer is that had the people not sinned by the spies, Moshe would have gone to the land of Israel, and the events recorded in Bemidbar 20 concerning Mei Merivah would not have happened. Thus, maybe one could argue that the ultimate reason why Moshe was not able to go to the land of Israel was the sin of the spies. Yet, still it was not the people’s fault that Moshe sinned by Mei Merivah, even if the people had sinned by the spies.

A second answer (see Y. Leibowitz, 1990, pp. 146-149) is that really Moshe was punished that he could not go into the land of Israel due to the sins of the people. This answer ignores the events in Bemidbar 20, unless one claims that Moshe’s actions there show that he was unable to lead the next generation and hence he had to suffer the punishment of the previous generation. Yet, Moshe seemed to have been a very effective leader of the people in several events after Mei Merivah, as for example in the battles with Sihon and Og, and the incident with the snakes, Bemidbar 21:4-9, 21-35. In addition, Bemidbar 20:27 and Bemidbar 27:14 indicate that Moshe sinned by Mei Merivah and his actions were not just a case of poor leadership.

A third idea (see Rashi on 3:26) is that in Devarim, Moshe was saying, admittedly not so explicitly, that he had sinned in Bemidbar 20 due to the people. It was not just that the people demanded water, but maybe Moshe and Aharon's sin by Mei Merivah was their re-action to the people's complaint for water that Moshe and Aharon gave the impression that they were trying to get water for the people, instead of telling the people to rely on the mahn (see our discussion on Bemidbar 20:2-5, 21:5, “Water in the desert”). Maybe in Devarim, Moshe was saying that G-d was angry with him for going to the ohel moed in Bemidbar 20:6 and for giving the impression that he was going to plead with G-d on behalf of the people. Devarim 3:26 would then mean that G-d was angry when I (Moshe) tried to help you (the people get water) that Moshe spoke to G-d for the people’s sake. Or, following this approach, maybe Moshe was saying that he hit the rock instead of waiting for the water to come out since the people were pressuring him to get the water from the rock. This approach negates any connection between Moshe’s inability to go to the land of Israel and the sin of the spies.

A fourth possibility is that really the sin of Moshe that determined that he would not be able to go to the land of Israel was when he doubted G-d’s ability to provide the people meat in Bemidbar 11:21-23. In our discussion on Bemidbar 11:10-29, “Moshe’s reaction to the people clamoring for meat,” we suggested that Moshe was not punished for this doubt since G-d had mercy on him since he was depressed at that time. A different reason could be that at that time, the people were just about to go into the land of Israel, and hence Moshe could not have been replaced then. This immunity ended when the people sinned by the spies, and in the aftermath of the sin of spies, the Torah never states that Moshe was to be able to go the land of Israel. Thus, according to this possibility, it was the sin of the spies that caused Moshe not to be able to enter the land of Israel. How then do the events at Mei Merivah relate to Moshe not being able to go to the land of Israel? While it seems that Moshe sinned in that incident, it hard to understand how this sin was so severe that he should be punished that he could not go to the land of Israel. Accordingly, maybe one can understand that Moshe’s “major” sin was by Bemidbar 11:21-23, but once Moshe was not punished for this, then a “new” sin had to happen even it was not that severe. This new sin was either that he hit the rock or hit it twice or relayed the complaints of the people to G-d, but the sin was sufficient to allow the punishment of his actions in Bemidbar 11:21,22 to re-surface.

If this approach is correct, then in 1:37, Moshe stated that G-d was angry with him due to the sin of the spies since due to that sin, his immunity was removed, and G-d could then “display” his anger even due a minor sin. Afterwards, in 3:24, Moshe stated how he recognizes G-d’s great powers, and this was to rectify his sin from Bemidbar 11:21,22, but this was not sufficient as Moshe stated in 3:26. Finally in 4:21, Moshe refers to the sin of the people by their speaking and maybe this refers to their sin of stating that they wanted to appoint a person to take them back to Egypt, Bemidbar 14:4.

With this approach we can understand why Moshe told the people three times in Devarim that he was being punished because of them. He was being punished since they had sinned by not going into the land of Israel, and he did not want them to repeat this sin.

A fifth (and I think the best) way to understand why Moshe could not go to the land of Israel is that there are two separate issues in Bemidbar and Devarim. Bemidbar 20:12 states that because Moshe sinned by Mei Merivah he was unable to take the people into the land of Israel, which means that he was no longer going to be the leader of the people to take them into the land of Israel. Similarly, Bemidbar 27:12-14 recalls the sin at Mei Merivah, and then Bemidbar 27:15-17 records Moshe’s request for G-d to appoint a new leader since the sin by Mei Merivah meant that he was not going to be the leader of the people to take them into the land of Israel.

On the other hand, in Devarim, Moshe was not attempting to rescind G-d’s decision that he would not lead the people into the land of Israel, but he was asking G-d to be able to go into the land of Israel as a private citizen. This is clearly stated in 3:21-25. In 3:21, Moshe recalled that he had appointed Yehoshua to be the leader of the people to take the people into the land of Israel, and then 3:25 records that Moshe asked just to be able to walk through the land. Note the Talmud, Sotah 14a, records that Rav Simlai states that Moshe did not want to enter the land of Israel to eat its fruits, but to fulfill the commandments that are related to the land of Israel. However, the simple reading of 3:25 is that Moshe just wanted to walk and see the land that he been striving to get to for forty years.

Moshe’s request to just walk through the land of Israel did not contradict G-d’s decree in Bemidbar 20:12 since he was not asking to be the leader of the people to take the people into the land of Israel. Accordingly, in Devarim 1:46, 3:21-26 and 4:21, Moshe was referring to his desire to go to the land of Israel, but not to be the leader of the people. Maybe Moshe thought he deserved his punishment not to continue being the leader of the people or maybe he had no desire to continue being the leader of the people.

With regard to 1:37, while the broader context of the verse is the recollection of the sin of the spies, the verse does not refer to the sin of the spies. Instead, the verse is between the verses stating that Calev (as a private citizen) and Yehoshua (as the people’s leader) would go to the land of Israel, and just as Calev and Yehoshua were not punished for the sin of the spies, so too Moshe was not punished for the sin of the spies. Instead, Moshe mentioned his inability to go into the land of Israel at that point as a way of boosting the people’s support for Yehoshua that Yehoshua was to lead the people and not him, see the following verse, 1:38.

Why then in 1:37 did Moshe state that G-d was angry at him because of the people? G-d’s anger refers to G-d’s refusal to allow Moshe to enter the land of Israel even as a private citizen and the phrase because of the people means that Moshe’s inability to enter the land of land as a private citizen was for the benefit of the people. This benefit was that even if Moshe went into the land officially as a private citizen, still his presence would impinge on Yehoshua’s ability to lead the people which would harm the people.

Why could Moshe not go to the land of Israel as a private citizen and just promise to keep quiet? The answer is that the people would not have allowed him to retire peacefully. They would have complained to him about Yehoshua, as they always complained. Accordingly, 3:26 records that G-d said that Moshe could not go into the land of Israel, even as a private citizen, G-d’s anger, but this was for the benefit of the people. Similarly, in 4:21, Moshe was saying that the people’s words made G-d angry with him. The people’s words were their common practice to complain, and again G-d’s anger is G-d’s refusal to let Moshe go to the land of Israel. Again, the idea is that because the people regularly complain (their words) this meant that if Moshe was in the land of Israel, even as a private citizen, the people would have complained to Moshe about Yehoshua’s leadership and these complaints would have reduced Yehoshua’s effectiveness as the leader of the people.

Bibliography:

Leibowitz, Yeshayahu, 1990, Notes and remarks on the weekly parashah, translated by Shmuel Himelstein, Brooklyn: Chemed Books.

Bemidbar (Numbers) 9:1-5 – Why was the korban pesach (Passover sacrifice) offered just once in the desert?

2025-06-09T13:47:00.001+03:00

Bemidbar (Numbers) 9:1-5 record that the people offered the korban pesach, the Passover sacrifice, in the second year of their stay in the desert. (It should be noted that even though this offering is commonly called a korban, sacrifice, it lacked several aspects of the typical sacrifice.)

We never read that this sacrifice was offered again when the people were in the desert, which implies that it was offered just this one time. This is also the implication of Joshua 5:2-10, which records that the people circumcised themselves for the first time since leaving Egypt in order to offer the Passover sacrifice. (Ramban, on 9:1, and Malbim, derive (from the Sifrei?) this idea from the words, the Sinai desert, in 9:5, since only in that particular desert did the people offer the sacrifice.)

Tosafot (Yevamot 72a, meshoom) quotes R. Yitzhak that the people offered the sacrifice all the years they were in the desert, but only in the second year was it done completely correctly. We will follow the assumption that the Passover sacrifice was not offered in the remaining 38 years of the people's stay in the desert, and try to understand why the sacrifice was offered just once in the desert.

The Sifrei (Beha`alothekha, 67) quotes an argument as to why the Passover sacrifice was only brought once in the desert. The first anonymous opinion is that this was an embarrassment to the people since they really should have offered the sacrifice every year. The second opinion is that of R. Shimon b. Yochai that the Levites offered the sacrifice each year but not the remainder of the population. Why would only the Levites have offered the sacrifice? The answer is that the people worshipped the golden calf, while the Levites did not sin (or repented on their own) by the golden calf. Both of these answers are difficult since according to the first opinion the people sinned for 38 years when they were in the desert. As pointed out by the Ramban and Netziv (on 9:1), this would then mean that Moshe also sinned all those years, which seems very farfetched. The second opinion is also difficult since it is never stated that the Levites alone offered this sacrifice for 38 years. Also, if the sin of the golden calf was really an impediment to offering the sacrifice, why did the people offer it even once?

Ramban (on 9:1) explains the first opinion of the Sifrei that the reason nobody offered the sacrifice in the desert was because of the law that a person who is not circumcised or who has children or slaves who are not circumcised cannot offer the Passover sacrifice, Shemot 12:43 (see Rambam, Laws of Passover Sacrifice 5:5). The people circumcised themselves in Egypt (see Joshua 5:5, Rashi on Shemot 12:6, maybe from Shemot 12:50), but Joshua 5:5 states that the people did not circumcise themselves in the desert. Chazal (Yevamot 72a) explain that the people were unable to circumcise themselves in the desert because it was dangerous. Thus, even though the adults who left Egypt were circumcised, if the children were not circumcised, then the adults could not offer the korban pesach in the desert.

Why did the Sifrei consider not offering the sacrifice as an embarrassment if the people were unable to circumcise themselves? Ramban explains that the embarrassment was the sin of the spies that the people did not want to enter the land of Israel, and it was the effect of this sin that made circumcision dangerous in the desert. However, according to this approach, how could the people have offered the korban pesach in the second year if there were children born in the first year of the people's stay in the desert who had not been circumcised? The answer must be that in the first year the people did circumcise their children as Hizkuni (on 9:5) explains that they were able to do so since they did not travel that year. However, this answer is difficult since there were other years when the people did not travel in the desert, which then would have afforded them the opportunity to circumcise themselves.

Ramban offers a second approach for why the korban pesach was only brought once in the desert. He argues (see Mechilta Bo 12, also Tosafot, Kedushin 37b, Ho'il) that the obligation to offer the korban pesach was only when the people would be in the land of Israel, and hence there was no obligation to offer the sacrifice in the desert. Why then did the people offer the sacrifice once in the desert? Ramban answers that this was to remind the people of the miracles that G-d did when redeeming the people from Egypt. Yet, why was this lesson not applicable for the other years the people were in the desert? S. R. Hirsch (on 9:1) suggests that since the laws of the korban pesach for all time are different than the laws of the sacrifice in Egypt, the sacrifice was offered once in the desert to demonstrate these differences.

Malbim (1809-1879) suggests that the argument in the Sifrei is based on the two approaches mentioned by the Ramban. Malbim explains that the first opinion in the Sifrei follows the view that the obligation to offer the korban pesach was only in Israel, and then the embarrassment was the sin of the spies since this stopped the people from entering the land of Israel sooner (also quoted in Tosfot Kedushin 37b, ho'il). Note, the Malbim does not explain how this opinion explains the offering of the sacrifice one time in the desert. Malbim then suggests that R. Shimon b. Yochai's opinion in the Sifrei follows the viewpoint that people could not offer the korban pesach since they or their children were not circumcised, and R. Shimon b. Yochai claims that the Levites circumcised themselves in the desert.

The Netziv also attempts to explain the first opinion of the Sifrei. He argues that really the people could have offered the Passover even if their children and slaves were not circumcised. He quotes from Yevamot 71a (also mentioned in Tosafot Yevamot 72a, Meshoom) that this requirement only stops one from offering the korban pesach if one was able to perform the circumcision and did not do so. However, since in the desert it was not possible for the people to do circumcisions, the lack of circumcision would not have stopped a person from offering the korban pesach. Instead, the Netziv follows the viewpoint that really the obligation to offer the sacrifice was only applicable in the land of Israel based on Shemot 12:25. Why then did the people offer the sacrifice once in the desert? Netziv explains that the sacrifice shows the love between G-d and the Jewish people, and the people offered the sacrifice even when they were not obligated to do so in the second year. However, in the middle of the second year of the people’s stay in the desert, there was the sin of the spies, which caused the people to be removed from G-d, and hence they did not offer the sacrifice the remaining years of their stay in the desert.

According to this idea, the embarrassment mentioned by the first opinion of the Sifrei was again the sin of the spies, which caused this distance between G-d and the Jewish people. While this makes sense to me, the Netziv rejects this idea since he claims that it does not accord with the Sifrei. Instead, he argues that the embarrassment was that the people did not offer the korban pesach voluntarily. Yet, to me this seems more difficult because even if the sacrifice was voluntary, why did Moshe not have the people offer the sacrifice?

My thought is that the sin of the spies is the reason why the korban pesach was offered only once in the desert (the embarrassment mentioned in the Sifrei), but I would vary how this sin impacted on the korban pesach. The opinion that the people could not offer the sacrifice since their children and slaves were not circumcised is difficult even if this requirement was applicable in the desert. I doubt the people had slaves in the desert, and there must have been many families who did not have sons in the first years the people were in the desert. (Note there was no "baby boom" in the desert, as the population of the people in the desert declined slightly over the 40 years, 1:46 and 26:51.)

I also think that the korban pesach was to be offered in the desert since Shemot 12:24 records that the korban pesach always had to be brought. Ramban quoted Shemot 12:25 as implying that the obligation was only in the future, but 12:25 only means that in the future the children will question the law, but not that the law was only applicable when the people came to the land of Israel. Ramban also quotes Shemot 13:5 as implying that the obligation is only when the people would come to Israel, but this verse is referring to the law of matzot and not to the korban pesach.

If the people were obligated to offer the sacrifice, then we understand why they offered it in the second year of their stay in the desert, but why did they stop offering the sacrifice all the other years they were in the desert? My guess is that the sin of the spies in the middle of the second year ended this obligation. The point of the initial korban pesach in Egypt was to show the people's faith in G-d and the sacrifice in the ensuing years is to demonstrate the continuance of this faith. However, the sin by the spies showed the people's lack of faith in G-d since the people were not willing to enter the land that G-d had promised them, Devarim 1:32. Once the people sinned by the spies this showed their lack of faith in G-d, and then G-d did not tell them to offer the Passover sacrifice again since the sacrifice could no longer demonstrate their faith in G-d.

Maybe this idea would also explain why they did not circumcise themselves in the desert, as again once they showed a lack of faith in G-d due to the sin of the spies, there was no point in circumcising themselves. If this approach is correct, then the people would have circumcised themselves in the first year when they were in the desert (as argued by Hizkuni on 9:5), and Joshua 5:5 would mean that for 39 years the people did not circumcise themselves in the desert and not literally 40 years.

Once the people entered the land of Israel, which demonstrated their faith in G-d, then they were obligated both to circumcise themselves and to offer the korban pesach, which they did as recorded in Joshua 5.

Bemidbar 4:5,6 – The golden poles of the aron (ark): Were the poles ever moved?

2025-05-25T11:25:00.000+03:00

במדבר 4:4-6 -זאת עבודת בני קהת באהל מועד קדש הקדשים. ובא אהרן ובניו בנסע המחנה והורידו את פרכת המסך וכסוי בה את ארון העדות. ונתנו עליו כסוי עור תחש ופרשו בגד כליל תכלת מלמעלה ושמו בדיו.

When the Jewish people travelled in the desert, the mishkan/ ohel moed had to be completely dismantled, and the instructions for this process begin with the aron (ark), which was located in the heart of the mishkan/ ohel moed.

4:5 records that "At the breaking of the camp, Aharon and his sons, shall go in and take down the screening curtain (parokhet) and cover the aron with it" (JPS translation in Milgrom, 1990, p. 25). The parokhet divided the mishkan proper between the Holy of Holies and the anteroom, and apparently, the priests who were coming from the anteroom would pick up the parokhet and place it on the aron without seeing the aron. In all probability the parokhet was much larger than the aron and the items that were on top of the aron. The aron was 1.5 cubits high, 1.5 cubits wide and 2.5 cubits in length, Shemot 25:10. (Each cubit is approximately 18 inches.) On top of the aron was the kapporet and the keruvim, but the Torah does not inform us as to their height. It is believed that the parokhet was ten cubits by ten cubits, which means that if the combined height of the kapporet and the keruvim was less than 3.5 cubits, then some of the parokhet rested on the ground until the aron was lifted up.

On top of the parokhet, two more covers were placed. 4:6 records, "They are to put over it a covering of tanned-leather skin (dugong skin?), and are to spread a cloth entirely of blue-violet on top, putting its poles (in place),” Fox, 1995, p. 672 translation. These extra two covers would stop a person from touching the aron, and protect the parokhet.

The last phrase of 4:6 “putting its poles (in place)” according to Fox or “put in its poles” according to Alter (2004, p. 699) is difficult. The aron contained four rings on its edge, Shemot 25:12, and the end of 4:6 seems to indicate that the golden poles of the aron were to be placed in these rings to enable the aron to be carried by the Levites when transporting the aron. However, Shemot 25:15 records that the poles were never to be removed. If the poles were never removed, how could the priests place them in the rings as indicated in 4:6? Also, how could the poles be put in the rings of the aron if the aron was already covered?

One approach to understanding 4:6 is that the poles were only temporarily moved when the coverings were placed on the aron, Ibn Ezra on 4:6. According to this idea, Shemot 25:15 did not come to preclude removing the poles for just a few minutes when preparing the aron for transport. Furthermore, with this understanding the Levites would have had to lift the covers and then insert the poles. While this is what probably occurred for the other vessels in the mishkan/ ohel moed, by the aron this lifting of the covers could enable one to see the aron and possibly even come in contact with the aron, which is prohibited, 4:15 and 4:20. In addition, it is difficult to understand that Shemot 25:15 allows a person to temporarily remove the poles.

A second approach to understanding 4:6 is that the aron had four poles and eight rings, as opposed to the traditional understanding that there were only two poles and four rings. The Torah does not specify how many poles were attached to the aron, but Shemot 25:12 seems to state that there were only four rings. However, Ibn Ezra (on Shemot 25:12, long and short explanations, also see Bekhor Shor on Shemot 25:12) quotes that some people claimed that the word "and" in Shemot 25:12 could imply that there were eight rings on the aron. Based on this idea, Hizkuni (on 4:6, also see Tosafot Yoma 72a, Ketiv) suggests that there were four poles, one pole for each set of two rings. One could then propose that two of the poles were never removed from the aron as recorded in Shemot 25:15, but the other two poles could be removed, and these were placed in the rings of aron when the aron was to be transported as recorded in Bemidbar 4:6. This approach is difficult, not only due to the problem stated above of inserting the poles after the aron was covered, but also it is not obvious that there were eight rings. The word "and" in Shemot 25:12 can be understood as being explanatory and not additive, which means that there were only four rings, see Rashi on Shemot 25:12. Also, with regard to the other items in the mishkan/ ohel moed such as the table (Shemot 25:26) and the incense altar (Shemot 30:4) there were only four rings, which suggests that so too by the aron there were rings. Finally, 4:6 and Shemot 25:15 do not distinguish between different poles that some can be removed and placed in later and others never moved.

A third approach to understanding 4:6 is from the Bekhor Shor (on Shemot 25:15, also see Hizkuni on Shemot 25:15) who suggests that the instructions in Bemidbar 4:6 to place the poles in the aron is referring to the first time when the mishkan/ ohel moed would be transported, but after that one time, the poles would never be removed as recorded in Shemot 25:15. The idea here is that G-d wanted the priests to put the poles in their proper place, and then when the mishkan/ ohel moed was to be transported, the priests would be in charge of the re-construction of the mishkan/ ohel moed, which would give them the chance to put the poles in the rings. (Note, Shemot 40:20 implies that Moshe was the person who first put the poles into the aron.) This approach is also difficult since why would G-d specifically want the priests to insert the poles? Also, the instructions in Bemidbar 4:6 do not seem to be limited for just one occasion, as they seem to apply whenever the people traveled in the desert.

A fourth approach to understanding 4:6 is that the verse refers to placing the poles on the Levites and not into the poles of the aron, see Ibn Ezra and Hizkuni on Bemidbar 4:6, and Tosafot Yoma 72a Ketiv. I used to like this approach, but it seems to contradict 4:15 which records that only after Aharon and his sons finished covering all of the items in the mishkan/ ohel moed, could the Levites begin to lift the items. Also, 4:20 seems to record that the Levites should not see the dismantling of the mishkan/ ohel moed, but if the Levites lifted the poles of the aron, then because the aron was the first item covered, they would have seen the remainder of the mishkan/ ohel moed being dismantled. (Could one learn that 4:15 means that the Levites entered after each item was covered and that 4:20 only refers to the aron?) Furthermore, this same phrase of placing the poles in 4:6 occurs by other items in the mishkan/ ohel moed such as the table, 4:8, the incense altar, 4:11, and the outer altar, 4:14. If in 4:6 the phrase means that the Levites picked up the aron, then it would also mean that they picked up the table, the incense altar and the outer altar immediately after they were covered. Yet, there were some items, such as the menorah where the Torah could not say "to place its poles" since there were no rings in these items. Instead, 4:10 records that the menorah and its vessels were tied up in a bundle and placed on a frame, but there is no mention that the Levites immediately entered after the tying of the bundle and picked up the bundle. Why would the Levites immediately lift the aron, the table, and the incense altar but not the menorah? Maybe, the answer is that the goal was to limit the time the covers were on the ground for the aron, the table, and incense altar, but this was not a problem for the menorah which was placed on a frame.

Ramban (on 4:6) varies the above approach. He writes that the poles could have been placed on the priests, who presumably then held the aron until the Levites could enter the mishkan/ ohel moed. This would remove the problems of the Levites having to enter the mishkan/ ohel moed before it was complexly dismantled (see Chavel, 1993, footnotes on Ramban). Yet, there were only three priests (Aharon and his two living sons, El’azar and Itamar) who were able to work in the mishkan/ ohel moed, but this was not enough people to hold the aron and finish dismantling the mishkan/ ohel moed. Even if El’azar and Itamar had sons who were old enough to work in the mishkan/ ohel moed, they would have needed to have many sons to hold each item before handing over the item to the Levites. Thus, Chavel quotes an opinion that the Ramban really meant to refer to the Levites and not to the priests.

A fifth approach to understanding 4:6 is that the phrase "putting its poles" means to adjust the poles. Why would the poles need to be adjusted? Ramban (on Bemidbar 4:6) suggests that when the aron was stationary, the poles could have been moved slightly and were not centered. Similarly, Netziv (on 4:6) explains that according to Tosafot Yoma 72a, Ketiv, when the aron was stationary, the poles extended through the parokhet. Thus, maybe when the aron had to be transported, the poles had to be centered to make it easier to carry the aron. While this is possible, I do not understand why the poles would not be centered when the aron was stationary. Hizkuni (on Shemot 25:15 and Bemidbar 4:6) suggests that maybe there were some groves into the rings that held the poles. When the aron was stationary, the poles were not in the grooves, but when the aron had to be transported, the poles were placed in the grooves to ensure that the aron would not fall. The rings would then have had two positions, but I do not understand why the poles would have been removed from the grooves when the aron was stationary. I used to think that maybe the poles needed to be adjusted since maybe when the coverings were placed on the poles, this could have jarred the poles.

Recently, a new simple solution to explaining Bemidbar 4:6 has been proposed based on archaeology. Raanan Eichler (2015 and 2016, also see Sarna, 1991, p. 160) argues, very convincingly, that the aron was similar to Egyptian chests from the 14th century BCE. In February 1923, Howard Carter found King Tutankhamun’s burial chamber (died circa 1325 BCE), along with various items that were buried with the boy King. One of these items was a chest, which had four metal rings at the feet of the chest, and four poles. When the chest was stationary, then the poles would be situated underneath the chest out of sight, and when the chest needed to be moved, the poles could be drawn out, but the rings were made that the poles would not come out completely from the chest. The chest was carried from the bottom, and the length of the chest was long enough that four poles (two in each) direction could slide underneath the chest.

Eichler suggests that this same construction occurred by the aron. He follows Ibn Ezra’s explanation on Shemot 25:12 that the word paamotav in Shemot 25:12 means legs, and that there were four poles, one for each ring. Thus, the poles of the aron would then slide underneath the aron and always remained attached to the aron. The phrase, “putting its poles” in 4:6 would them mean to slide out the poles. This idea differs from the traditional approach, which understands that the two poles were always sticking out, but this traditional understanding is never stated in the Torah.

One can add a few points to Eichler’s wonderful suggestion. One, most likely, this same idea would apply to the other three items, the table, the incense altar and the outer altar, where the phrase “putting its poles” occurs. With regard to the table, the poles could also have been situated under the legs of the table, see Shemot 25:26,27, and even though the poles could have been removed from the table, it probably was easier to store them under the table. With regard to the incense altar and the outer altar, which did not have legs, the poles were on the sides of the respective altars. In this case maybe they were also “stored” on the side of the altar when the mishkan/ ohel moed was at rest, and then when needed they could be slid out. For instance by the outer altar, which also had four rings, the poles could have been in or attached to the mikhbar under the karkov, Shemot 27:4-7. With regard to the incense altar, which seems only to have had two rings, it could be that poles were stored in a vertical position, and then when the mishkan/ ohel moed had to be transported, the poles were moved to a horizontal position. A possible proof for this is that the height of the incense altar was two amot, while the width and length were only one amah, Shemot 30:2. This double size to the height would have allowed for a two amot pole when the poles were in a vertical position, and then when the poles were horizontal there would have been half an amah sticking out on each side to hold the poles. Or, it could be that the poles for all three items or some them were removed when the mishkan/ ohel moed was not being transported, and when the mishkan/ ohel moed was to be transported then they were placed in their rings. Due to the similarity of the actions of sliding the poles and placing the poles in their rings, the Torah uses the same phrase, “putting its poles,” regarding all the items which had rings.

Two, once the poles of the aron were just being slid out from the bottom of the aron, then this could have been done even though the aron was covered. Once the aron was covered, a person could slide out the poles without touching the aron, as one would hold onto to the cover to slide out the poles. In truth, this seems to be the main point of 4:6 that first the aron was to be covered, and then the poles were moved out from underneath.

Three, the congruence between the chest by King Tut and the aron shows that the mishkan/ ohel moed was based on 14th century BCE Egyptian furniture, which shows the antiquity of the Torah. Would someone from the 6th or 8th century BCE know of the 14th century BCE Egyptian design of furniture?

Bibliography:

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

Chavel, Hayyim Dov, 1993, Commentary of the Ramban, revised edition, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Eichler, Raanan, 2015, The meaning of pa’am in the context of furniture, Journal of Semitic Studies, 60:1, pp. 1-18.

Eichler, Raanan, 2016, The poles of the ark: On the ins and outs of a textual contradiction, Journal of Biblical Literature, 135:4, pp. 733-741.

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

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

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

Vayikra 13:47-59 – Tsara’at by clothing

2025-04-27T14:10:00.004+03:00

Vayikra 13:49,50 records that if a person has a nega, spot, on their clothes, which is thought to be a sign of tsara’at, then the priest inspects the spot and the clothing is put aside for a week. At the end of the week, the priest inspects the clothing. If the spot spread, then the priest declares the clothing as tamei since it is tsara’at and the clothing is burnt, 13:50-52. If the spot did not spread, then it is washed, and after the week, the priest examines it again, 13:53-55. If the spot did not diminish, the clothing is burnt, 13:55. If the spot diminished, then the spot is removed from the clothing, and a person can use the other material from the clothing, 13:56. If a spot returns to the clothing after having removed the initial spot, then the clothing is burnt, 13:57. Finally, if the spot is completely gone from the clothing after the clothing was washed, then the clothing is considered tahor, 13:58. What is the meaning of this section? Why does the Torah record laws concerning tsar’at by clothing?

Hertz (1960, p. 465) writes that maybe the tsara`at was some mildew or some parasitic infection. Similarly, Levine (1989, p. 83), writes that perhaps “they were fungoid or sporoid infections.” This follows the idea that tsara`at is a health problem. The tsara`at by the clothing might be the most likely case where tsara`at is a health problem, but would not people on their own throw out clothing that is infected? Maybe today yes with our higher standard of living, but in olden days if they had no clothing it might have been difficult for people to throw out clothing. Yet, does this idea explain the shocking aspect of burning the clothing?

The traditional understanding is that the spots on the clothing are a warning that the person has sinned usually by talking loshen hara, slander, see Rambam, Laws of Tumat Tsara`at, 16:10 and Seforno on 13:47. Yet, why then does the priest not warn the person to repent when he inspects the clothing?

My guess is that the crucial issue is that the clothing is destroyed either by being burnt or being cut up. Possibly the message is that clothing is unimportant. The idea being that at times people get very caught up with material items, clothing being very prominent material items, and they forget about G-d. Maybe, here the message is that material possessions such as clothing are not important to one's relationship with G-d. With this idea, the tumah of the spots on the clothing, has a similar message to the spots on the person. In our discussion on chapters 13,14 "Tsara`at by a person,” we suggested that the spots of tsara'at on a person signify that a person's looks are not important to one's relationship with G-d, and then similarly, maybe the message by tsara’at on clothing is that a person’s clothing, whether fancy or simple, is not important to a person’s relationship with G-d.

Bibliography:

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

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

The 2025 version of Andrew Schein's commentary on the Haggadah is now avialable

2025-03-30T11:52:00.003+03:00

Hello,

Last year, one of the loyal readers of this blog, Gary Greenberg, told me that I need to send out the commentary on the Haggadah much earlier than I usually do, so now, two weeks before Pesach, I am announcing that the 2025 version of my commentary on the Haggadah (PDF file, 120 pages, including references, 1.5 spacing) is available to anybody who wishes to read it. Also, very kindly, last year after Pesach, Gary Greenberg carefully went over last year’s version and pointed out several mistakes, which has improved the commentary. Thank you Gary. Below is the Table of Contents to the current commentary. If you are interested in receiving the file, send me an email, ajayschein@gmail.com, and I will send you the file (for free, no ads and no requests for donations). I wish everybody a chag kasher ve-samaech and good health.

In addition, unrelated to the commentary, as part of the Seder, we should all pray for peace in the land of Israel, the safety of our soldiers and the return of all of the captives from Gaza.

Andrew Schein

Table of Contents

Introduction to the Haggadah

Bedikat hametz

Two systems of removing hametz from the house: Burning and annulling

Hiding bread in the house before doing the bedikat hametz

The blessing on bedikat hametz

The Seder plate

The history of the Seder plate

How many matzot are needed at the Seder?

The mnemonic of the Seder

How is one to sit at the Seder: Hasibah (Not leaning)

What does the word hasibah mean?

Do women need to do hasibah at the Seder?

Kiddush

The four cups of wine

The four words or verses of redemption (parshanut)

Karpas

Why is karpas part of the Seder?

How much karpas should a person eat?

Dipping the karpas

Yachatz and ha lachma anya

Is there a connection between reciting the sentence that begins with the words, ha lachma anya and yachatz, the breaking of the matzah?

Raising the Seder plate and uncovering the matzah when reciting ha lachma anya

The third sentence in the paragraph of ha lachma anya and living in the land of Israel

Maggid

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

Structure of the Maggid

Mah nishtanah: Covering the matzah by the mah nishtanah

Mah nishtanah: Popularity

Mah nishtanah: It’s source

Mah nishtanah: Who says the mah nishtanah?

Mah nishtanah: How many questions compromise the mah nishtanah?

Mah nishtanah: The order of the question of the mah nishtanah

Mah nishtanah: The answers

Lowly states: We were slaves and our forefathers were idolaters

The four words of baruch and the four sons

The four sons: Why four?

The four sons: How can one identify the traits of each son from the verses in the Torah?

The four sons: The answers to the evil son’s question

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

The flow of the Haggadah from Rav’s understanding of the change in our status to the interpretation of the verses in Devarim

The descendants of Avraham

Lifting a cup of wine and covering matzah twice during Maggid

The drush: Introduction

The drush: Devarim 26:5 - Arami oved avi (parshanut)

The drush: Devarim 26:5 - Va-yered mitzraymah

The drush:Devarim 26:5 - Va-yagar sham

The drush: Devarim 26:5 - Va-rav

The drush: Devarim 26:6 - And the Egyptians with evil intent treated us harshly

The drush: The first half of Devarim 26:7 - We cried to G-d

The drush: The second half of Devarim 26:7 - And G-d saw our affliction and our burdensome suffering (parshanut)

The drush: Devarim 26:8 - The plague of the firstborn Egyptians (parshanut)

The drush: The anti-Christian drush on Devarim 26:8?

The drush: Devarim 26:8 - Sixteen drops of wine

The drush: The ten plagues

The drush: Dzach adash beachav (parshanut)

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

Dayenu

Rabban Gamliel

Matzah (parshanut)

Maror

A new song?

Dividing Hallel

Differences between reciting Hallel all year round and by the Seder

The blessing at the end of the Maggid

Matzah

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

Shemurah matzah

Charoset

Eating eggs by the beginning of the meal

Afikoman

The history of the term afikoman

Eating the afikoman before the middle of the night

Shefokh hamatcha

Hallel after birkat ha-mazon

Birkat ha-Shir

Hallel ha-Gadol

Songs at the end of the Seder

Seven songs

Ehad mi yode`a?

Chad gadya: Is there a message?

Chad gadya: Good and bad characters

Bibliography

Shemot chapters 25-39 – The special building (mishkan/ ohel moed) in the desert: The nitty gritty of its construction

2025-03-17T11:03:00.004+02:00

Shemot chapters 36-39 record the building of the mishkan/ ohel moed. This was not a simple project. Was it possible for the Jewish people to have constructed this building and its courtyard? The construction had to happen relatively quickly. It seems that the project started after Moshe brought down the second set of tablets, luchot, which was at least 120 days after the Decalogue was pronounced in the third month of the first year of the people's stay in the desert (19:1), and the mishkan/ ohel moed was finished by the first month of the second year of the people's stay in the desert, 40:2, which gave less than six months for its construction.

One question is whether the people had the necessary skills in order to make the mishkan/ ohel moed? Could former slaves have the knowledge needed to do all the intricate metalwork?

Ibn Ezra (on 31:2) writes that Betzalel and Oholiav were chosen to be in charge of the work because they were the only ones who knew how to do the work. According to this idea, out of the entire population there were only two trained workers, but then maybe they would have been able to teach the other workers (see Ibn Ezra on 35:31-35).

Ramban (on 31:2 and 35:21) first notes that the people worked on bricks and mortar in Egypt and not metals, but then he writes that G-d gave those people who had the natural ability to do the work the necessary knowledge. This could be the idea of 36:1, also see 31:1-6 and 35:30-35. Accordingly, maybe the ability to make the mishkan/ ohel moed was another miracle that G-d performed for the people in the desert.

Modern commentators have made other suggestions. Nahum Sarna (1986, pp. 196-200) disputes the idea that the people were untrained. He notes that the people had "experienced firsthand for a considerable period of time the most materially advanced civilization of antiquity." For example, the funerary mask of King Tutankhamun (14th century BCE) is quite exquisite. According to this idea, it was very likely that amongst the Jewish people there were people who had the skills needed to build the mishkan/ ohel moed. Cassuto (1967, p. 327) adds that "for the working of the metals, they were able to utilize the services of the neighboring Kenite tribes."

A second question is where did the people get all the supplies that were needed for the mishkan/ ohel moed? These supplies include various metals, gold, silver and bronze (maybe copper), various dyes (techelet (purple/ blue), argaman (red/ blue) and tolatat ha-shani (bright red)), wood, wool, hides, special stones, linen, oil and spices. Note it is possible that Moshe told them what supplies were needed for the mishkan/ ohel moed before he went up to get the second set of luchot, which could have added a few more months for the people to gather all the supplies.

With regard to the gold and silver needed for the mishkan/ ohel moed, 12:35,36 record that the people had received gold and silver from the Egyptians when they left Egypt, which was in addition to any jewelry that they had acquired when they were slaves. Furthermore, we know that in antiquity Egypt has relatively large amounts of gold that it attained from the area that today is Southeastern Egypt/ Northern Sudan, but then was called Nubia or Kush, see Schorsch (2017). Egypt also had silver, though seemingly less amounts than gold, since it acquired the silver just through trade, see Schorsch (2018).

With regard to bronze (copper?) that was also needed for the mishkan/ ohel moed, most likely the people, even as slaves, had this metal, as 12:34 refers to bowls that the people had to place their dough, and these bowls were most likely bronze (or copper). Also, 38:8 notes that bronze was used for mirrors and was then probably a common household item.

With regard to the animal skins, wool and goat's hair, Cassuto (1967, p. 327) notes that 12:38 records that the people had large amounts of flocks which could have provided the necessary quantity of these materials. (One of the needed hides, techashim, 25:5, is a mystery, and hence if the item is unknown, one cannot determine how difficult or easy it was to acquire the object.)

With regard to the dyes, oil, and spices that were part of the mishkan/ ohel moed, Cassuto (1967, p. 327) also suggests that these could have been purchased from passing caravans if the people did not have them. (Interestingly, dyed wool with red and blue stripes from around 1,000 BCE, around 200-400 (?) years before the time of the people in the desert, was found in the southern Negev by Timna, see Hasson (2017) and Efrati and Ruth Schuster (2016).) Similarly, with regard to the linen (shesh), maybe the people could have bought the linen from travelling merchants. Yet, was trading a real possibility? In the first year of the people’s stay in the desert, were they camped near trade routes? Would traders have sought them out in the middle of the desert? Even if yes, would these traders have had all the dyes, the techelet, argaman and tolatat ha-shani, that were needed?

With regard to the dyes and the linen, the most likely source were the Egyptian gifts that the people received when they were leaving Egypt. Both 3:22, the first mention of the gifts, and 12:35, the actual record of the giving of these gifts, record that the Jewish people received dresses from the Egyptians. The Egyptian dresses could have been made of linen, wool or other fabrics, and many of them could have been decorated with the dyes techelet, argaman and tolatat ha-shani. The Jewish people would have been able to take apart these dresses, and separate the threads of the dresses. The people could then have taken the threads which were already dyed with the different colors and combined these threads together to make the items that were needed for the mishkan/ ohel moed. A minor proof for this idea is that 35:23 records that any person who had any of the needed colors or textiles brought them to Moshe, so we see that these items were things the people had.

This idea of trading could apply to the oil, which was only needed at the end of the process for the consecration of the mishkan/ ohel moed and for lighting the menorah afterwards, both of which do need seem to have required large quantities of olive oil and olive oil is fairly common in the Middle East, though not in the desert. Maybe the trading was also the source of the spices, which would have come from areas east of the Sinai Desert, and most likely there were traders who sold spices. Note, the phrase “what the people had” in 35:23,24 is not recorded in conjunction with oil and spices, which suggests that either traders sold it to the people or people were sent out to acquire these items.

Another item needed were special stones for the clothing of the high priests, and 35:27 records that the chieftains donated these stones. Hizkuni (on 35:26) writes that the chieftains had acquired these stones from the Egyptians when the people left Egypt. Again, based on the idea that the people acquired dresses from the Egyptians, then it is possible that there were stones on some of these dresses. It is also possible that the chieftains had these stones before the night of the Exodus as even though the people had been slaves, maybe some of the people had "connections" and would have been able to acquire precious stones. Also, it is possible that the chieftains bought the stones from caravans traveling through the area or the chieftains went out of the camp to seek traders. Finally, it is likely that the choice of stones were based on what the people had or could acquire.

Another item that was needed for the mishkan/ ohel moed was wood, atsei shittim, 25:5, which are thought to be acacia trees. (This question might also apply to the cedar wood by the ashes of the parah adumah, Bemidbar 19:6, but there was much more time to acquire this wood.) How much wood would have been needed? The answer to this question depends on much is an amah, a cubit? A cubit is the distance from the middle finger to the elbow, but how long is this? One popular definition is 18 inches or 45 centimeters. For example, Greenfield (1982) argues that it was 44 centimeters. With this definition, 10 cubits were approximately 4.5 meters. On the other hand, since people were smaller in olden times, as from military records of British soldiers in the 18th century, they were on average twenty centimeters shorter than today (see Flood, Fogel, Harris and Hong, 2012), then a cubit might have been a little less. Yet, even with a smaller cubit, still wood was needed for three sides of the mishkan (30 amot by 10 amot) and the pillars in the mishkan/ ohel moed.

The traditional answer to the source of the wood is recorded in Bereshit Rabbah 94:4 and Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah 1:12 (see Rashi on 25:5) who quote R. Levi who states that the wood came from the Galilee (where suitable trees grew) that Yaakov had taken the wood down with him when he went to Egypt, and the people had planted the wood when they were in Egypt. This seems quite incredible. Ibn Ezra (on 25:5, also see Hizkuni on 25:5 and Cassuto, 1967, p. 237) suggests that there was a plentiful supply of acacia trees in the desert. However, Ziony Zevit (1992) points out that the type of acacia tree that grows in the area where the people were probably located starts branching out about half a meter from the ground, which means that its wood would not have been tall enough to use for the planks/ beams of the mishkan/ ohel moed that were ten cubits high, 26:16. On the other hand, he notes (see also Homan, 2002, p. 140) that outside of the Sinai desert in the land of Israel “in the Mediterranean climatic zone,” there is a different type of acacia tree, Acacia albida, that provides sufficient wood for what seems to have been needed for the mishkan/ ohel moed. The people would then have had to also traded for this wood.

A different possibility (an anonymous opinion quoted by Ibn Ezra, short comments on 25:5) is that the large pieces of wood that were need to build the mishkan/ ohel moed could have been connected from smaller pieces of wood. A beam/ plank comprising smaller pieces would not be that strong, but the wood in the mishkan/ ohel moed did not have to support much weight, and the walls of the mishkan/ ohel moed were reinforced by beams going around them and silver holding the bottoms together, 26:16-29. The beams which held the parochet were also held together with silver bottoms, 26:32. Also, the beams that held the curtains both by the entrance to the special building and to the courtyard had bronze bottoms bases to support them, 26:37, 27:10-17 and there were also pegs and ropes for more support, 27:19, 35:18 and 39:40.

With this understanding that the woods used in the mishkan/ ohel moed were combined pieces for the longer planks/ beams, there were several ways for the Jewish people to have acquired the necessary wood. One, some of the trees in the desert could have been used even if they did not grow to the required size by combining the wood from the trees. Two, maybe some traders had pieces of wood that they were willing to sell. Three, the Egyptian chariots that drowned at Yam Suf could have made from wood, and the Jewish people could have taken wood that flowed to the surface. Four, as we discuss on 14:1-31, "The miracle at Yam Suf: Bait," the Egyptians had forts in the Sinai desert, and it was the soldiers from these forts who attacked the people at Yam Suf. Maybe the Jewish people pillaged the forts after the soldiers drowned, and maybe these forts had wooden structures which could have been dismembered. Five, maybe the people had wooden wagons when they left Egypt, which they could have taken apart. Note, that just like by the dyes and textiles, 35:24 records that the people who had atsei shittim (the wood) brought it to Moshe, which accords with possibilities three, four and five, see Ibn Ezra short comments on 25:5.

Accordingly, it seems that there were enough people to have the necessary skills to build the mishkan/ ohel moed, and it was possible for the Jewish people to have acquired all the building materials needed to construct the mishkan/ ohel moed.

Bibliography:

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

Efrati, Ido and Ruth Schuster, 2016, First Textiles From King David Era Discovered at Timna Copper Mines, Haaretz, February 24.

Flood, Roderick, Robert W. Fogel, Bernard Harris and Sok Chul Hong, 2012, The Changing Body: Health, Nutrition and human development in the western world since 1700, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Greenfield, Abraham Yehuda, 1982, “Middah ke-Neged Middah, Moriyah, 7-8 (127-128), Tammuz 5742, pp. 59-86.

Hasson, Nir, 2017, Brightly Dyed, 3,000-year Old Textiles From King David-era Found in Southern Israel, Haaretz, Jun 28.

Homan, Michael M. 2002, To your tents, 0 Israel! The terminology, function, form, and symbolism of tents in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, Leiden: Brill.

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

Schorsch, Deborah. 2017. “Gold in Ancient Egypt.” In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/egold/hd_egold.htm. Accessed March 2025.

Schorsch, Deborah, 2018, “Silver in Ancient Egypt.” In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/silv/hd_silv.htm. Accessed March 2025.

Zevit, Ziony, 1992, Timber for the Tabernacle: Text, Tradition and Realia, Eretz-Israel, 23, pp. 136-143.

Shemot 25:1 - Shemot 40:38 – The special building (mishkan/ ohel moed) in the desert: Why?

2025-02-23T23:10:00.002+02:00

Shemot chapter 25 starts a new and final unit in book of Shemot, which excluding the story of the sin of the golden calf and its aftermath, encompasses all the chapters from 25 through 40, the end of the book of Shemot. In this unit, the Torah first records the instructions and then the building of a special building and its courtyard within the camp of the Jewish people. There are three different terms that are used in the Torah to describe this special building, the mikdash, the mishkan, and ohel moed. While I think that many people believe these terms are synonyms, my hypothesis is that the terms refer to three distinct configurations. My understanding is that the term mikdash refers to a place which has a collection of special items (furniture) that are used to worship G-d, the term mishkan refers to the enclosed area made by the walls around the special furniture including the first covering, ceiling, of the special furniture, and the term ohel moed refers to the entire complex of the courtyard and the tent/ building which enclosed the special furniture, see our discussions on 25:8,9; 27:21, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Shemot," 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.”

In this discussion and throughout this commentary on the Torah, I use the term mishkan/ ohel moed to refer to the special building and its courtyard, in case people are unaware of my definitions of the three terms or do not accept my definitions. In this discussion, we will try to understand what was the purpose of the mishkan/ ohel moed, as it seems to have had great importance given the many chapters devoted to the instructions and building of the special building, its furniture and courtyard.

One approach is that the mishkan/ ohel moed was built in order to have a place to offer sacrifices, see Rambam, Laws of the Chosen Place 1:1. Yet, sacrifices could be offered without a mishkan/ ohel moed. For example, the Jewish people offered the pesach offering in Egypt, 12:27,28, and Yaakov offered sacrifices on his way down to Egypt, Bereshit 46:1. Also, most of the items in the mishkan/ ohel moed, such as the aron, the menorah and the shulchan do not relate to sacrifices. Sacrifices were brought on the altar in the courtyard of the mishkan/ ohel moed, but it seems that this altar was less important than the aron and the other items located within the special building since the aron was made of gold, 25:10-18, while the altar in the courtyard was made of bronze, 27:1-6. However, following the Rambam’s idea (1963, Moreh 3:32) that G-d does not really “like” sacrifices, maybe the goal was to limit the sacrifices to being offered in one place and to minimize their significance. This would be a negative reason for the mishkan/ ohel moed.

A variation of this first approach with a positive perspective is that the mishkan/ ohel moed would be a place to pray. Sefer Ha-hinukh (quoted by N. Leibowitz, 1976, p. 482) writes that the building of a special building in G-d’s name was to put people in the right frame of mind to worship G-d through prayer and sacrifices. This rationale seems true of the Bet ha-Mikdash and in theory our synagogues, but there is no record that the people prayed at the mishkan/ ohel moed in the desert.

A second approach, which has many variations, is that the purpose of the mishkan/ ohel moed was for there to be a place where G-d's presence (G-d's glory?) would "dwell" amongst the people. The proof for this idea is that both by the beginning of the instructions to build the mishkan/ ohel moed, 25:8, and towards the end of the instructions, 29:45,46, the Torah records that G-d would “dwell” amongst the people, and implication is that the “dwelling” was within the mishkan/ ohel moed. While the appearance of G-d's presence would in itself be sufficient reason for the mishkan/ ohel moed, commentators have suggested various reasons that relate to G-d's presence, see for example. Ibn Ezra, short comments, end of comments on 25:7. We now will list some of these secondary reasons for the mishkan/ ohel moed that relate to G-d’s presence being in the mishkan/ ohel moed.

One (2a), G-d's presence in the mishkan/ ohel moed was a sign of the cloud of G-d. In class, David Barrett suggested that this idea was according to Ibn Ezra’s (short commentary on 13:22 and long commentary on 15:22) opinion that the cloud left the people after the splitting of Yam Suf, and then the mishkan/ ohel moed would serve to remember this cloud.

Two (2b), G-d's presence in the mishkan/ ohel moed made it the designated place where Moshe would speak to G-d, 25:22, see Rashbam on 25:8. Ibn Ezra (long comments, on 25:1) explains that the mishkan/ ohel moed saved Moshe from having to go up the mountain all the time. However, while the mishkan/ ohel moed was the most obvious place for divine communication, it is unlikely that this was the prime reason for the mishkan/ ohel moed since many times, as in Egypt, G-d spoke to Moshe outside of the mishkan/ ohel moed.

Three (2c), G-d's presence in the mishkan/ ohel moed made a great name for the Jewish people and it would have attracted non-Jews to come and learn about Judaism. Yet, in the desert, we have no record of non-Jews (other than maybe Yitro) visiting the camp. This reason would be more appropriate to the Bet ha-Mikdash in Jerusalem.

Four (2d), G-d's presence in the mishkan/ ohel moed was to cause the people to refrain from becoming impure, sinning or lying when they saw the mishkan/ ohel moed and G-d’s presence.

A fifth secondary reason (2e) within the idea that the purpose of the mishkan/ ohel moed was to be the place for G-d's presence to appear is from the Ramban (introduction to chapter 25 and introduction to the book of Shemot). He writes that G-d’s presence in the mishkan/ ohel moed was situated above the aron, and the Divine Presence was to replicate the cloud that was on Mount Sinai, 24:16. The mishkan/ ohel moed was then a traveling mini- Mount Sinai. Similarly, just like G-d spoke to Moshe on Mount Sinai, 24:18, so too G-d would speak to Moshe in the mishkan/ ohel moed, 25:22.

Cassuto (1967, pp. 319, 484) follows the Ramban's approach. He explains that when the people were camped at Mount Sinai, they were conscious of G-d’s nearness, but once they would leave Mount Sinai, the mishkan/ ohel moed provided a tangible symbol of G-d’s presence amongst them. Cassuto argues that the commandment to build the mishkan/ ohel moed is recorded after the covenant was recorded since the mishkan/ ohel moed was a perpetual extension of the bond that was forged at Mount Sinai. Similarly, Berman (1995, p. 52) follows this approach and writes that the aron and the two altars “simulated different aspects of the Sinai experience.”

Notwithstanding the popularity of the traveling mini-Mount Sinai approach, I doubt that the point of the mishkan/ ohel moed was in order for G-d's presence to dwell amongst the people since the cloud of G-d and G-d's glory appeared independent of the mishkan/ ohel moed even after the building of the mishkan/ ohel moed, see Bemidbar 11:25 and Bemidbar 14:10, though in Bemidbar 14:10, the appearance of G-d’s glory was quite ominous. Even if G-d had not commanded the people to build a mishkan/ ohel moed, G-d's presence could still have appeared amongst the people, as for example in some restricted area with no special building, or outside the camp.

A third rationale for the commandment to build the mishkan/ ohel moed is that there was a need for a suitable place for the luchot, the tablets (see Rashbam on 25:10 and Tigay, 2004, p. 166). This understanding accords with the idea that the most important item in the mishkan/ ohel moed was the aron, which stored the luchot, see Shemot Rabbah 34:2. The mishkan/ ohel moed was then one element in the establishment of the covenant, and this is why the building of the mishkan/ ohel moed was recorded after the covenant was made. In fact, 24:12 records that Moshe was to go up to Mount Sinai to get the luchot and then chapter 25 begins with the description of the mishkan/ ohel moed. In addition, right before Moshe descended from Mount Sinai, Shemot 31:18 records that G-d gave Moshe the luchot and he descended from the mountain with them. Thus, the entire section, 25:1-31:11, which records the instructions to build the mishkan/ ohel moed and laws about Shabbat, 32:12-17, is framed by Moshe receiving the luchot. Yet, the mishkan/ ohel moed seems to be a very elaborate structure just for the luchot, but the luchot were written by G-d (31:18, 32:15,16), which meant they have to be treated in a very, very special manner.

Sarna (1986, pp. 208, 209, see also Cassuto, 1967, pp. 331,332) notes that in a treaty between Egypt and the Hittites from around 1269 B.C.E., it is recorded that a copy of the treaty was to be placed "beneath the feet of the god of the respective parties." The mishkan/ ohel moed follows this same pattern, as the luchot in the aron were the written record of the covenant between G-d and the Jewish people. Furthermore, on top of the aron were the keruvim, which were symbolically a portal to G-d, 25:22, and then the aron could be considered metaphorically as the footstool of G-d. (Note, Chronicles I 28:2, Psalms 99:5 and 132:7 that refer to the mishkan/ ohel moed as the footstool of G-d.)

(The luchot are referred to as the luchot ha-`edut, or just edut, the tablets of the testimony since they were a witness to the covenant between G-d and the Jewish people, 25:21, 31:18, 32:15, 34:29, and 40:20. The luchot were also called luchot ha-brit, tablets of the Covenant in Devarim 9:9,11,15. Thus, the crucial idea of the aron was that it contained the luchot, see Talmudic Encyclopedia 1979, 2:179. Sarna notes that this was radically different than other ancient shrines where the key item was the idol, while here it was the luchot.)

Cassuto (1967, p. 331) asks why were the luchot in the aron if the people had no access to the aron? He answers that undoubtedly there were copies of the luchot, but the original was in the aron for safekeeping. Possibly, the luchot were not for the people to read from, but their presence in the aron was to register the existence of the covenant between G-d and the Jewish people.

With this third approach, the mishkan/ ohel moed had to be built in order to have an appropriate place for the luchot. Once the luchot were in the mishkan/ ohel moed, then this would be the most appropriate place for G-d's presence to appear. Thus, 25:8 could be understood to mean that G-d's presence amongst the people was an outcome of the building of the mishkan/ ohel moed, but not that it was dependent on the building of the mishkan/ ohel moed. Also, once the mishkan/ ohel moed was where the luchot were situated, then this would be the obvious place to offer sacrifices.

These two approaches to why there was a need for the mishkan/ ohel moed, the traveling mini-Mount Sinai approach and a suitable place for the luchot, are not antithetical and could even be combined (Cassuto), but there are differences between them.

One difference is whether the commandment to build the mishkan/ ohel moed occurred before the sin of the golden calf. There is no definite answer to this question according to the traveling mini-Mount Sinai approach. One could argue, as the Ramban (on 25:1) does that the presence of G-d was always needed even if there was no sin of the golden calf, or one could follow Rashi (on see his comments on 30:16 and 31:18) that the mishkan/ ohel moed as a place for the Divine Presence to appear was only needed after the people sinned. However, if one follows the idea that the mishkan/ ohel moed was in order that there be a suitable place for the luchot, then one would have to maintain that the command to build the mishkan/ ohel moed was before the sin of the golden calf since with this approach the storing of the luchot was part of the establishment of the covenant. Even if the people had never sinned with the golden calf, still there would have been a need for a special place to put the luchot.

A second difference between the two approaches is whether G-d’s glory was always in the mishkan/ ohel moed. According to the traveling mini-Mount Sinai approach, G-d’s glory would always have to have been in the mishkan/ ohel moed since otherwise the mishkan/ ohel moed would no longer be a mini- Mount Sinai. However, if the mishkan/ ohel moed was in order that there be a suitable place for the luchot, then G-d’s glory was not an intrinsic part of the mishkan/ ohel moed. When the mishkan/ ohel moed was completed, G-d’s glory appeared, 40:34,35, but this was just an initiation of the mishkan/ ohel moed. This appearance would show G-d’s approval of the mishkan/ ohel moed, but then the glory of G-d could have left.

Bibliography:

Berman, Joshua, 1995, The Temple, Northvale: New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc.

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

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

Rambam (1138-1204), 1963, Guide to the perplexed (Moreh Nevukhim), translation by Shlomo Pines, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

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

Tigay, Jeffrey H., 2004, Introduction and annotations to Exodus, in The Jewish Study Bible, edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 102-202.