Ellman It is No Empty Thing

5/14/2018 Ellman It is No Empty Thing - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ellman-it-is-no-empty-thing 1/83

In Memoriam,

Norman E_ Frirncr, '7'l

Yaakov Elman

"It Is No Empty Thing":

Nahmanides and the Search

for Omnisignificance*

'lrad itional Jewish biblica I exegesis gra ppled from ca rly on with the

difflcultlcs inherem in parsing ~Idlvinc text expressed in human

idiom, a text "fr..iu~ht wuh b:.ickground.·,j The tensions involved in

determining the exact demarcation between these two realms=-the

divine and human-has fueled the elaboration of new categories of

meaning and new strategies for making a difficult text meaningful.

Recently james Kugel has proposed tht:- term "omnlxlgnlflcarux-" I e )

descrlbe the essum lal Mance of the rahbink: ex~~gt~s.i.~f Scrip' Lire. Ac-

cording to han, "omnistgruficance" constitutes

the hasic assumption underlying all of rabbinic exegesis that the- sllght-

t'S! dCIJ ils of the biblic.~~text have a mea rting t ha t is bot h comprehen-sible and slgujtlcant. Nothing in tht· Bible ... ought to be explained as

the: produ CI of chance, or. tor t 11.1 matter, ;l S ;lIl ~lIIP h,11 iv 01 ' r he to ri ca l

form, 0 anything similar, nor ought its reasons to he assigned to the-

realm of Di~·ine unkrur, ....ahl~s. Every detail i~pLLI I~H~Tt~ Lo T~ach some-

thing new and irnportant, and il j~ C~p:lbk~of being djS.C'DVCf(~d hr

careful analysis. Z

If W~ equah'::: Kugd's "something new and important" with aggadic

Of halakhic truths, his deflnu ion is a restatement of the rabbin!r: lruer-

pretarion of Deur 32:47= "For it is. not an empty thing for you, it 1 . < ;

your very llfe, and if (it appears] devoid [of moral or halakhic mean-

ingJ, it .is you lwho ha ve not worked out its moral or kgal signifi-

I



2 The Torah U-;WaddaJournal

cancel."? Kugel's "meaning that is. both comprehensible and ""Ignitl-

(~nl" rhus in rabbinic terms has J sharply limited and highly focused

r,.lng~of admlssiblc interpretation, omnisigruficunce is restricted tointerpreta tions which give the text J mar ..1or legal Jimcnsion,

Rcsh l..akbh',~ comment in Hullin 60b demonstrates this focusing.

"']1wn: , 1 n: verses i mthra '0 0 which are worth y of being bu rnt, but

t h e y aH~ [after " < 1 1 1 1 essential components of Torah (ben hen !5u.fi~i

"j orab)," Resh L1kish Ihe n attc rnpts to tease mora I sigrufica nee from

the gcogra phica I a nd historic a 1 da til recorded in J)el H 2:23 and Nu III

21:2.6, .....hich art' explained as demonstrating how Go(1 arranged mat-

icrs SD that brad could conquer Philistine and Moabite land while

01ill malruaining lilt: oath which Abraham swore to Abimelekh (Gen

21 :23) and the prohibition of "vexing Moab" at D(:"UL 2:9.

Thus, "omnisigniflcance: describes not only , 1 fundamt:nwl as-

~umrl ion of Ihe rabbinic view of S-cripture, it also serves to guide

rabbtnic lnterpretatlon lruo certain fulrly well-defined channels, and

establishes (l hlerarchv of rrdcn:nCf': in regard to exegetical alterna-

rives,

It also presents a challenge. }laving claimed such profundity for at!

of Scripture, Ih~ rabbinlr pro~mm may be expected 10 deliver on itspromise. However, <JS we shall see, for r~'1~c.mshaving 10 do wirh the

problemutics of the concept itself, and certain historlca l develop-

mcnts, til a t promise was never rulfilled_1 1 may be worth p~UI~jng :1moment 1() examine: tl L(: term "omnlsig-

niftcance.' What advantage do we g::iln by hs lI.~C OVC"f 1he more tra-

dirional ~rnidrash"? I t has often h~~(~ rcma rk ccl L hal t he I crm

"midrash" is ambiguous, serving to denote a collection of rabbinic

texts, a g(:"nrC" of lile rature :d nd cc r1 ai n IlOU] ilctical methods." It would

seem high lime that this terminological confusion be resolved, J low-

ever, h~· fucu~in~ on ends m1her thun rneanx, un tl IC hjcrarchy of

preference rather than on the exegetical techniques employed,

"omnisigmficance" introduces yet another distinction without resolv-

ing the arnbigulty of the other uses of "midrash."

Historic" lly, omnisiguifica nee reflects < I ra bbin ic view of Scri pru re

rather than a complete exegetical program. It describes an ideal

wbich was neoer actually realized. Not c:vt:ry re~[ure of Scripture has

been mrcrpreted either twtlkhkally or ag.gadicilly. Our (~olkTlion~ ofnudrashi III hardl y constitute an omnisignificant COIl J us; not on Iy do

IILey faii to dt.':~ilwith many verses, and even whole biblical (·Il'Jprcrs,

but features which are considered sigmflcant-e-lcgally Or morally-in

one context are ignored in others. ·111erabbinic program Or programs

do nut evert ~llcmpl to provide ~ complete corn me ntaf), , in whatever

mode, to any biblical book, chapter, or pa ....~<ige.~



Yaak[JI} Elman 3

There is another aspect to Ih is problem. 0 mnisignificancc assu rues

a uniform narrative or expositional density, where the hiblical text is

uniformly informative on some level. However, at least ;IS concerns

pesbat and Ihe preserved hala khlc derasbot ava ib blc to us, th is is nUlaltogether dear, for example, while the expression ish ish,~ or even

t'sh "lone,' is. sumcl irnes interpreted a~ including women," at other

times this b L J n necessary, since the ve rse itself incl udes the m within

its. purview-isb 0 isbab? Why these variations? For that matter, why

va ria tions sue h as tw(esh or adam: These questions are never ra ised

In a systematic way,

Thus, rhc Hcw/fs restatcmcnr of the omnlslgnlflca nr ideal-~wl

heikhu de·ika lemidrasb dar\bimm-"wherever we: can draw distinc-

nons [between similar or identical biblical I~~X~S]we do,'?" or more

expansively, "wherever we can make lcW~lly or spiritually meaningful

intcrprctarions, we do~-----eXpn.:~se5 both the ideal ami its impossibillty

of realization, for the lrnpllcation is that if WI.: cannot-e-we do not." h

Is noteworthy that this statement, wlnch is anonymous. was in ,,]I

probablluy milde more than three centuries after R_ Ak lva's most

audacious attempt to attain 1 he ideal. l~ " 1 1 1 e well-known talmudic pas-

sage (/l1.eua!?ot 29b) which desc r ibcs the scene in lleaven ~~ Moses

watched thefJoly One. bl~~s....'>ede 1Ie. completing the Tomh lry

inscribing "crowns" un the letters, poignantly expresses the dilemma.

On inquiring as to ,he purpose of these- Gowns, he is informed thar

many ~<.:ner a nons hence, R. Akiva would derive "piles and piles" of

hala k hot from ea ch crow n. W e .. : may ask, in the ;<;pTi l of tha t story.

where are those ri1es and pi les of ha la k1101 expou ndcd from the

crowns of Ihe letters? The very locus dassicus of oumislgnjfk.ance

po lnls lip either its loss, Or its lack,

II s hou t e l ,llso be noted that, ;11k'l st with reference !0 the

mcdiev ..l-as opposed to the ralmudlo=use of Ihe term "pesbat",omnislgn iiGme~~ n eed not be unique Iy posl ted of mid r..L,,]~; IH~hm-

oriented approaches m.."1Yalso obey ihe ommsignifiomt imperatlve.

One consequence of this j~ that approaching the history of Jev ...ish

biblical exegesis from an "omnisigniflcunt" perspective changes our

view of the goals, purposes and achievements of jewish blbllcal com-

mcntary,

1 f the ;lI"]Hmyrn of midrash is ~Hwplain sense mCrlning~.- ..- a difficult

enough term to dcl1m;B-what is the antonym of omnisignitlcancc?

Non-slgntflc:a nee? Arbitrariness? : ! I . . ! t ~ : . lninglessness?" Clearly, i f my

qU:JliFiuHion of Kugel's definition be accepted, < l n omnislgniflcant

irucrpretation must he- contrasted with one which lac-ks halakhic or

rhcologtcal vu lu c. Thus, a pproaching rl l bb i 11ic expositions of

Scripture from an ornnisignificant polru of view provides a Ul<.:an0 of



1 Tbe lomb U-Maddu.joumal

assessing the xucccss of lts program "from wrrhin." Certainly. this

point of view i,~v~ILJa1lc in selling the terms of future research,

The omnisigmflcant imperative proceeds directly from the view of

Torah as divine revelation and serves to ju~1 if y mldrashic approaches

[0Torah: nevertheless, as noted. use of this principle was not univer-

sally applied to all biblical texts nor W:lS the meaning restrtrted to

narrow halakhu or moral categories, indeed, pesbat lntcrprctations

arc I)Ot excluded, so long as they have halakhic Or cdificatory value,

In d~.~~krabbinic texts, apparent redundancles and duplications

are [nterprcted casuistlcally, SU as to draw distinctions betwee-n ap-

parently similar, identical or contradictory phrases, verses 01' pas-

sageslS \\o11ile the Bart! states this principle only in reg...rd to legaltexts (,l~ in Bekborot fib), it dearly applies. though wlrh the applica-

tion of different mklrsshk: methods, to non-legal passages < l~ well.

TIlis method of dealing with redunda fld~~ has bee n ex pa nded to in-

elud e ~ II sorts of m id rash ic interpre tation, and 11~s be-come typical of

the tradit ional approac.h to most of the problems outl) ned above _A~

Tosafor noted long ag,o, only when midrashic methods hil do we f~1l

back on pesbat app roaches. L~

1ndecd, the history of "norma live" Jewish b ibl i c'} ll ex egf.:s is rna y be

~~~cnfrom the perspective of the rise of ornnistgnificanre ln tlu: ran-

naitic era, and its transmutar ion, through holh an increasing use of

certain methods and a dropping of others, during Ihe .~LlCcl.:f.:Jing

centuries,

For example, some rules originally lmundcd 10 limit midrashic in-

terpretatlou we] t o forced into cmmslgniflca nt scrvlr:e-. The rule LkH

~~~vny[Y.<I.~.~ag(~parasbabt which is said and repeated is repeated

only lor the Innovation (J;1iddush) it contains," became instead, in the

Bauli, another omnlsignilicant rnidrashic exegetical princip!c." Thus,uri gi 1 1 < ] 1 lv, when in 1anna iic usc, l~ the rule served the pu rposes of

what we may term =pesbat : " By i t 1 S use in refcrunce In whole pas-

.~age.~, its thrust was to limit rnldrashlc interpretation of ( ·~ac11caturc

of each repetitive parasbab. 1[ rocLlsC'd attention on the differences.

between the lWO rather than their simila rities, <mel Ihus narrowed the

scope of mldrashlc interpretation.'? It was only the former that could

sen ..e the program of rabbinic midrash. In the hands of the &ldi, this

was turned iuaide-out, with the term "parasbab" referring even lei [.

few words repeated within :;! l ..W-SC, the limuution On chaptcr-explica-

tion became a license for providfng ;!ny repetition wlthin a vC'rSL~J.

word, phrase or c la use-wit h m id1(l sh tc import. _~f

However, even in the hcyda y of mid ras h ic creation there were

objections to the all-ernbra clng charact (Tof t he om nislgn i f iGinl pro-

gr:"ffi_ Thug, R_ Yosi ha-Galili protesls R. Akiva's extension of Lev



YaakOlJ Elman

6:23, which specifies "all sin offerings," to all sacritlces of higher

sanctity (hxlesbei kodushim), ~Aki ....a, though you extend [the phrase]

ko! batat all day long, there is norhing there bui sin offcrings~"11

However, R_Yos] ha-Galili is himself nul a "srrlcr constructlonlst,' andelsewhere R_ Ishmael can be .~n~1ls protesting ]{, Yosi's extension of

a midrash ically derived rule (lamed) already derived from another

such exposition (lamed) Y . And, of oon rse, there was t he time-bon

ored principle lhat ~the Tor~h speaks in human ldlom," which lhco-

retically serves as a ~cap" to midrashlc exposition. However, lb(: lalter

is appJied only narrowly in l:.i] rnudic times,2~ < I n t i its W nna ilic origin

has been dispu t C ' J _ ~i

r'urthermorL, beginning early in the arnoraic period. use of •he

superfluous rau, which represents one omnrsignificant extreme,

seems to have ended, Prom R . Yohanan's remarks to Rexh I";JkGh re-

garding such ;1 use on the pari of R. Eleazar b. rt~d~uh,Did you ~C~

ben Pcd.t1h expounding as :\1o~e5 from the mouth of the Most High?",

we may understand that he disapproved of such tuldraxhlc exegesis

in his OWn time. kesh Lakish res ponds by pourring out that R.

Eleazar's derusbab is not original wlih him, but is merely a citation

from Si/m t.veoamot 72h)_ And indeed, an uxa rnin ati on of R.

Yohanans legal derashot as preserved in the lJcwti does nol reveal

even nne superfluous n·w being used for such pmpo ...es, The same

holds true for his di~clptc· associates R. Eleazar and Resh Lakish,

Apparently for R. Yohanan and his close associates, at It:asl ;JS they

are represented in the Baolt. only Tannalm could expound biblical

texts in that way,~

The superfluous ~J(U' is representative of the entire midrash!c enter-

prise, with !he loss of tlus ~h()uk~ on which to hang nudrashic inter-

pr~~1<Ilion came the loss of similar part EcI~~,~-o,beb and! IK like,

Indeed, the form rein Ii ela X, Yminalan," which appears some 170times in the Badt, always ap'pea~'Sin baraitot; is often based on Llw

exposit jon of such particles-s-and is never aurtbuted (0 an Amora, In

contrast, "irn eino 'myan ~cxpoxlrions, which alw~y.~ ~rrlyto a su-

perfl uo us wo rd and not a lcuer or p~ rt ide, continued lobe used j n

arnor a tc and post-amoralc times, though the- H~dmique hardly sur

vived the transition 10 Ihe geouic period. ~(,On the other hand, one

t:x.t:gt.:1 leal means of dealing wilh duplicate hal:~khic passages in a

.,ju risp ru d en ti a 1~ \VOl y , where each listing of a pan ic lila r proh ibinon

represents one =count" (Ili (HJOr"aiau bi-sbenei larin), continued

through the amorak: period, hut arr;:ll-ently ended with lt. Ashi. Of

the five instances in which such suggestions are rejected, ItAshi and

his SOn Mar b. R. Asht, are responsible for three cases, and the re-

mil lning (WO ~rc: anonvmou < ; and are proba blv to lx: dated after R_



6 The Torah {f-Madda JO u mal

Ashi's time." We may thus distingubh three major periods of rabbinic

1C:l¥J rnidrash: the ta una itlc, the arnora ic and poe..t-J rnorak. Such peri-

odization has been shown, with reference to other midrashlc lech·niqu es, in the work uf M ic hac I C he rn ir:k_1I-:

Suffice it to say here that, as has long been observed, the Amoraun

were much more rest rained. on t he whole, than the Tanna im, and

their successors were still mOH~ restrained in their uSC' of these tech-

niques, Indeed, the Rishonlm retognlzcd that the system had all but

dosed down; as R, Aaron ha-Levi put it in the t hineenl h ecruury: " \ 1 : :1c -

do not have the right to expound verses which the I{abbis have noi

lalreadyl expounded."?

The Karaite cha llenge forced would-be defe ndc r ; o . ; of Ihe fa lth iu

iurn thuir aucruion to pesbat. l lowevcr, since rabbinic (or rabbanite,

in this context) Ha lakhah cOLild hardly be defended on that ground

alone, K Saadiah Gaon, perhaps. the most intlH(·~nlal of the anti-

Karaite polemicists, devised a new strategy, one which further mar-

Hinal izc-J midras b lc exegesis.

By assert ing 1 kll .11] I he hala khot which seem to have been

derived by de rash were aen 1::1 lly t ransrnit Led orally and only provided

with asmatsbtot In the text, despite clear talmudic evidence to Ih~~contrary, R Saadlah Caon and others attempted to blunt the force of

[he K<Jraite denigr<uioll of such met hods,

As. It Saadiah writes. in the lruroduction to hi~ Ttlj.~·i': "In all, we

find seven essential elements which require us lto resort] to Tradition

in r eWl rd r to the proper undc rstandi ng] of m tzo o: whose reason is

LI nknown (_.bim' iyoJ) _" He tbl.:n proceeds 1 ( } cnun 1(::rate t he vJ rious

parameters with regard to the performance of the minsx which C"J.n

be known only through Tradjtirm-c-mattcrs such as the proper manu-

facture of rltua I objects, the manner of observa nee, r(~111nc nt measures

of whatever sort, including time, mizuot whose biblical source is

obscure, Or whose nal UH~, a~ dc~crilwd ill ScrlpHire, i ~ obscure, t:1c_:!i'

M(~-;I revealing is his attack on Karaite methods of bibl lral ~xege-

sis, in PJ rticulat thei r usc of analogy. ~, Sinee n iany m idras h ic middot

may be categurii'.ed ~~ form(:; of analogy (hek(.!sh. gezr!rab \h,w,~h,

hlny ..en a» or mah maainn) or work by analogy Ueeta! u-fera: and its

near relations, rlbbuy and mt ut, de), we may understand his strate-

gic retreat from Ihi0 b~HIkgroLind and his insistence on Traditionalone. Depriving halakhic midrash of real authorltv prepared the

ground for his counterattack on Karaite legal exegesis."

This view continued to exercise influence 00 long as K~Iraisrn

rcma ined a threat, and its tra ces ,1rc 10 lx: found in 1he works of b 1cr

Geonim, R. Samuel ha-Nagid, R_ Yehudah ha-Levi, and 11m Ezra, as

Jay Ha rr is points out, l~



Y~Clkm}Elman 7

As the Karaue challenge receded, or in places in which it was not

of concern. Ihis view of the proforma nature of rabbinlc midrash did

not take bold, As might be expected, this holds true for those mOM

concerned with ex rIkat ing the intrlcaci E :S of the ta 1mudic t ex I a 50

such, rather than studying it us a nascent 1 0 1 w-code _ Rashi, the

Tos~fbl<;, and those who followed in their path could scarcely ignore

the sheer amount of space devoted to the topk within the talmuds

and halakhic midrashlm. However, all Lhal Illls effort could achieve

W<lS to keep allvc :;! certain interest in rcmeving the methods used.

Reviving them VIo<lS out of the question, since, as noted above, the

process of limdinH them had set in long heforc, already in the lime of

the early Amorairn.>'

With the rise of "p-"Sbat-ufiellted~ medieval hihlical exegesis, first

as a response (0 (he Karaite challenge in the Middle H~lst,and later in

Fra nee Jnd Spa in, < I S ,I na tural outgrowt h of an ernpha sis on peshlJ.!;~;

the challcn}lc of producing a complete, connected commcruary c( ruld

no kinger be ignored, and a number of different strategies evolved to

aCCOlln! for features of the hEblk~il text which could nol comfortably

be fined into the rabbinic scheme.

In order to produce coherent commentaries (m ~l v<lrieg;lted and

gapped text, the cJrly medieval commentators were forced to consid-er the limits ;llld relative importance of ;I host of tbcolugic;J.1 :1I1d

cM~getcal prj nci pies, hot h lh ()~(~ inherited from ca rl lcr tim es and

those prompted hy their new engagenu.:nl with the biblical [ext.

Classic ornnlslgnific a nee took new [orrns, and, at times, all but ,~LlhM i· ·

nucd exegetical verity, now known as pesbat, for the search for legal

and moral teachings of a tcxi "fraught with background."

The decreasing interest in the study of classic legal rnidrashic

methods wax reversed with the increasing interest paid to the intrk:a-

ci(~$of talmudic dialectic and Ihe cornposh ion of cornmcnra rie.~on it,c-hiefly those of Rashl and the Tosafists, Natura Ily enough, those

whose concern centered around the talmudic lexl uself felt the need

10 understand classic legal midraxhk: methods, They were nul alone

in the ir concern, however: even the Gerrnan Pietists, 1 he Has idci Ash-

kcnaz, who opposed the introduction of Tosaflst dialectic in Talmud

study, "stressed [he i ITIpc.H1::1I" lC~~ uf m b l { _ " study as. J c-rtri(,:;lllink in [he

ha lakluc pnx' e s . . s , as it ha d been viewed in III~ pre-Crusa dc period." ~

However, concern alone l IOC1S not produce a prugam, and the lack

of the means Io carry H out would clear ly ha rnper efforts to put it in-

to practice. Despite their interest, tl lis b 110 less the C~.~I.:with n.~gard

to Ihe .Iosafists. Th us, in the cot! rs.C"of I ime, such inu ..:rt:M s were cha n-

neled into the production of super-commentaries on Rashi's cerumen-

rary on the Pent<JIeuch, a nd the- focu s of su r h com me nta r les ttl rued



8 TheTomh U-Jladda Journal

from the biblkal text to that of Kashj'~ commentary. Moreover, due: (0

Ihe essen tlal j rrelcvance or kgal rnidra~11to couteurporary hala kluc

concerns, the forum for discussion of these methods shifted from ta].

mudic commentary to !hose sup~:r-comrncntarics referred to ~bove,

hu ndreds of which were corn pos~~d bet ween the fifteenth and nine-

teenth centuries. Hut the concern [or meaningfulness, and the ar-

1crnpt 10 :d o ppl Y the omnisigruficant imperat ive to as rnu ch of III (~Pc n-

tateuch "<IS possible, predates the fifteenth century. It has merely been

transmuted.

Nevertheless, this re-surgeru interest in lc:~l midrash, focused prj-

lTIMily 011 k,l~hj's commentary as it was, carried with d an implicit ad-

mission of Iailure to account for every feature encountered in Torah.I'o:'>r-talmudic exegetes ariel halakhisrs (:ollid no Inngel' he- able to

employ midras hlc methods, and there was no possi bi Ii ty of ~~XIC nd inl-t

such methods to (Pentateuchal) texts which IMd nol lxx-n dcah with

prey Iously. So much For 11w t hcory. in p r.lC1iCC', 'There is no study hall

without its innovation." and such extensions were ~Llg){c,~h:d ~~ by-

products of the exeg~~lk<ll proccs~.

I

As noted above, even du ring , lu: ,,m na j Iic era, 1 1 ic ra hhi nic doctrine

of In dat ...at' rels did not apply in equal measure to both legal and

non-legal contexts. \l;;'e find little attempt to apply C~_'r1~iir~ o r tht~mid-dot, such as the principle of rtbbuy, lO the latter, Of, conversely, SOITI(~

of the more wide-ranging middot, to the fo rmer . The distinction be-

tween kgal and non ..kgOll portions of the Torah, and the application

of these modes of interpretation, seems 10 h<JVC been rlx~ogniz~~d

early On,

Howe-ver, once the ('l(l~~i{: rrudrashtc mcthodologjcs were either

abandoned, asmost of them were, or reinterpreted, as in the case of

~the Torah speaks in human terms" or "the Torah is not in chronolog-

ical order, ~ the distinction between the two types of text became less

urgent, and, rno~1 OrH:n, aMadic (nar rativc) and halakhic (legal, and

more brO<ldly. expo~innnal~7) texts tended to he treated the same.

What ~ppJkd 10 OnC' ~pplicd to the other,

From an omnlsigniflcant p..crspectivc, posba: and derasb arc merely

alternate means of reaching ~ oourmon gO~jLThus, ~I::; Rk·l.~lrdSteiner

has pointed OlH,~ pashtanic exegetes may be categorized by the

wciglu t!u.:y give omnisignjflcance in their cousidcration uf competlng

inrc rprcta t tons.

However, once the Torah was viewed from an accommodationist

perspective, 1ha~ !S, viewed as a I(~x' which rakes human limitations



Yaakov Elrnan 9

into account ("the Torah speaks ill human terms},}') new areas of om-

l~isignifir::;!n~'e opened up, since accommodatlonlst techniques (e.g.,

rcsurnptive repetition to help the reader maintain the flow o r thetext) became sigruficant." TIluS, Tosafot notes that when the RabbisC<lnnot interpret ~ it'::Ii:' mldras hlcally, they fall back on pesbat. When

we bel the interpretive power {O provide proper midrashir me ..ning

to the text, we must perforce fall back un the humanly attainable

plain meaning. Rules of presumed tannaitic vintagc,~l such as "the

Torah spe ..ks in human terms," which, in both tannaitic and amoraic

usage was restricted to only rwo or three e)liJu::~~UH~;ussumed a

new, much more g~~e ral significance.

Tosafot's attempt to understand these rules, inhcrucd from rlu: tal-

mudic era, in a broader pcrspcct ivc, is also worthy of note, \Vhil(~

ea ch of these ru lcs. as rabbi n 1 c < J I]Y erda ined so to spca k, rcrna in fo O

valid, its application is circumscribed and delimited, finding ib plan:

within the larger system of rabbinic e..:x<:ge..:~l,~.

Despite the growing power of ornnlsignjflcance, however, a ves-

tige of the older attitude, which saw revelation :Is. sf':lf-v;llirhHiT~g,

without recourse 10any moral or legal meanings, rcmuincd. The very

facr that Scripture records a date, a geographlcal or gene;~ logical

dar um, ipso facto; provides h with signific;}nee. · i _ \

To take an example which will stand at the center of Our concern,

consider the formu lation of the observat ion tha t there is no se:quc n-

tial order ro the Torah (eht IFrula/um u-me'ubar ba-Torab). In iHekfl-

1a,·H the rule serves to mark the placement within the body of a bibh-

cal book (Exodus, Leviticus, Isaiah, ctc.) of verses which ought to

have- opcnccl 1he book (Exod 1:):9. Lev 9: 1, r S o 6: l}-wil !lou1 <m y fur-

ther significance given to tJ~at placement. The "rule" serves merely as

a marker of an out-of-sequence verse, hut provides no cxplan •uion of

wh y t he verse is pla ced as it is.

In the Btwli, the observation of ein mukdam u-me'ubar ba-Torub

a ppcars only once, in regard to the placement or NIIIn 1:1 (w h idl

records a date in the "second month ") and Nu rn 9: 1 (whi ch records.

one in the "first"); the latter pas.sage is thus chronologjcl] earlier and

so is out of ~~equ~nt:e_'IJ However, tht~ observation that this prove;';

t hat sequential order docs not ..IVo...~y r : ; rcllcc 1 historlca I order, tra ns-

milled by R. Mcnassah h. Tahlifa in the name of Rav, b not explained

in an omni:o>ignifk;mt manner. Three generations later, It Papa limits1be rule's applicability to cases in which the <l,~~~qul!nli<llhynvolves

two separate rXl .~; , ;~w~~tre! 'inyanei), but not one." His proof is from

the halakhic rule: of isela!u-ferat u-khlal, which depends on ,~L'(lll(:-n-·

tialtrv fnr i[0 very existence. Two aspects of this analysis should be

noted ill the current context. It is of intercs; .h~H while I~<IVin first



TheTorab u-Maddatournat

generation, following tannaitlc lradltion." applied the rule to.a nar-

ratite context, three g~nt;mllon.~ later R_ Papa, in tum, invalidated it

for use, at least in part, in expository (h..b khic) cont exts. Second, nei-ther of them provided ;:.nomntsignificant interpretation of this dcpar-

(me from sequent! ality.

In its later history, the principle was indeed applied exclusively to

narrative contexts, even though, strictlv speaking, R. Papa's statement

does not invalidate it for use ill :.lllhalakhic contexts, Moreover, while

uarly rabbinic evidence restricts use of the prlnciple [0the placement

of individual verses within a passage, Rashl employs u to note ,he

achronological placement of whole passages within a narrative con-

text.

A.~nOlC"J, t l l L ' lvleNlta applies this rule to verses while Itn: :!pp~ic~

it to ihe relation uf dlfferen1 passages: more typical in classic rabbinic

texts is the application to scqll~:nu;~of ucrns or subjects, as in the

anonymous comment recorded in Genesi:.. Rahbah; w J icre the order

of presentation of Jacob's wives, concublnes and ;,;un~10 Esau at Ccn

33:2 .~ «oordinarcd with his. concern for them, abaron aharor: bani»,

< l remark which R~~hi incorporates into his commentary. l~

Scqucntiality of this type VIo<lS also employed 10 halakhh ends. asfor example stfra« analysis 0 1 " Lev 5:8.

"He ~hnll offer that which i~ for the sin-offering flrst." What JeM.: "S this

verse mean to ~a}'~ If to teach !tHH it CUHLi.:'~ Ix{ore lbt' burnt-offerings,

surely ilwas <ll[e~J~ .. SJid; "And he xhall prer;He rhe second for a

burnt-offeriug'v" Rather, this provides ;i, gc[]cml rule (birl.v.:m at)) f()r :.:III

.~in-()ffelin.&~. that they take precedence over all burrn-otlcrlngs which:;tccomp~ny them, whether lrhe CL5(· ("uun~nl~l ;1 hird sm-offering

[whkh precerlexl a hirrl burnt-offering, or even lthat] a bird sln-offcrtng

[precedes] an aruma Ibu rm-oilcrmg."

This binyan at: applies W most Ibl;'; of r ltuul materials which

include sin and burnt offerings, such < J S those at Lev 9;2, 3, t <lA, 6,

1(d,5-

Sifra notes the exception at Lev 12;8, where tlu: burru ()fft:ring is

llstccl f'lr,.;L

~OIlC for u bu rnt -off (:;Tinlo!; ~lTldOlW fnl·;"l sin-olferi ng." r.1,It~I)'\""her~ a sin-

offering L~exchanged. ~l the ~!n-oifering precedes the burni-otlenng:

here [rcg~RliBg ~ parturient mother], where the burnr-otfei ing has beenexchanged," the burnr-offerlng precedes the sin-offering.

W"hate\'er [sacrifice] come;'; for a sin, the sill-offering precedes the

burnt-ollering: here, """·he~e [the sacnficesl do nor come fO T a sin, thebnrnt-Dffef1r1R precedes the stn-offering. W11erever two [birds] come in

place of a xin- offering, the sln-offering precedes the burru-oflcrtng:



Yaukou Elman 11

here, when. l\\.'[) (·ome in place of a sin-cllcrlng, the bu rnl -ujfering pre-cedes the sln-oftering>'

However, as Ihe fourth-gcneranon Arnora, 1 \ . " 1 " " a , nole0.~4 this still

does not solve OU r prohle m since, in the c.a.~(~of a partu ricnt Wmn<H1,

a bird .~in-ofkring Is prescribed in any case. Wh;' then h the burnt-

offering listed riml' For miera, says Rava: tbe verse placed [the burnt-

offering] first only for [the purposes o n reading [the Torah scroll]. IIwould seem from this that Script ure ls self-vahdanng: since rh~~fe is

no other apparent reason for requiring that the won'; "burnt-offering"

precede "sin-offering" here,

From the texts at band it seems that sifm ..nd the Havli were still

content to allow Scripture to be self-validating, Wht'"l L no other pu~si·biliry presented ilsc-lf-kol beieb« de-ilea lemidrash darshinan. Only

much later were attempts made to force this cornmcru into conforml-

ty with the Imperious omnlstgruftcant demand. To a certain extent,

this rema ined true eve n j 11 medieval t imcs. As we sh;111see, even

Nahmanidcs, whose close attention to matters of rheological signifi-

cancc led him to propound qucstlon« which his predecessors hardly

touched on, did not allow his keen sensilivily io proportion and

scqucnuality to function as me;JI1S in and of rlH2.JT1*h.'t'~. but only to

the extent of asserting the priority of chronologlra] sequence over

other forms or .~ignitkance, Generally speaking, for him too the prob-

lern of sequence was fully resolved in accordance with the. omni.sig-

nlftcant imperative, namely, wil h an interpretation which WJV(~ the

matter of sequence a moral or hulakhic meaning. Still, 011 occasion,

he too saw Scripture as sell-validaung. ~~1n the case <ll liuud, neither

he nor Rashi provides an interpretation of llu: reversal of term'> from

the expected at Lev 12:8-, beyond Rava's enigmatic solution."

.~he history of"Jewish biblical lruerpretation since the founccnih ccn-

rury can be seen as reflecting, on the whole. an increasing s.ens!1 i\'ity

to rnaximallst claims of omnisigruficancc, in one war or another. By

Ihe sixteenth century. the more universa t concept of ~oUlni.~ignfi-

cance may I)(_:-said to have come into us own. and Ba,~hi·scornrnen-

tators bq~in 10 lnquire (IS to the moral or halakhic reason for his

invocation of the rule, Abarbancl too searches for meaning in struc-

ture and ~cqu~m ..e, though he stands in cssenrial respects apart from

that tradition of bibl ical exegesis whose poirn of departure was

increasingly Rashl's commentary rather than rhe biblical text itself, a

tradltion which Nahrnanides foslerC'J. II is a~ though 1{ashi's common-

tary served as an exegetical code which refocused attention in tlu: di-

rection o r those matters with which i, chose to deal."



12 '/1JeTomb U-MaddlJ.jourua/

On a maxi rna list reading of the prj nc irk, ornnis ignlficance shou td

govern evcry [cature of Scripture; no arbh rarlness is permitted, More-

over. the m(~<mintl imparted or imputed must lx- consonant with the

classification of Scripture as divine revelation, as noted, this restricts

the range of interpretation to halakhic or mom] tcucl lings, ldeally, we

must account for every characrer isnc, stylistic or " lnera ry" as 11might

be,

Ironieall y but perha ps jnevi tab~y. greater seusiti vil y 10 Ih t: ()UUl isig-

nlftcml demand was accompanied with an inability to account for

many of 1 he finer points of Scripture which, in earlier times. had

been interpreted rnidrashicall y. since the sy~wm of rabbinic midras h

had been Increaslnglv limited in application siru«: arnoraic times,111U~, the renewed claim for omnisignificance only underscored lhf.:

irn pD~S ibil ity of fonnu lating a fl ,U Ic ( ILrate response to t hat cha 11~~n:ltc.

The maximalist dem ....nd for omnlsignlflcancc extended to two as-

peers of lh~~doctrine, und engendered two tY[l(·~~of difflculty. One in-

volved the problem of wre~I;ng ethical or halakhic meaning from gen-

res which seem to be interested in neither (genealogy. geography,

etc.): second i~ lll<.:- challenge of imparting such ..~i~nificancc to eWl)'

feature of the Writt(~n Torah, even [catures which a ~p<1sht<1nic"view

of Scripture would c-haracterize as structural, aesthetic or merely lin-

gubik. But even a more moderate stance, one. say, which looks for

moral rneaning in the stories or historical in for m,H ion found in

Scripture (as the to'aliyot of Ralh!}l), faces difficulties, since, as noted,

large pans of the urunterpreted Torah xccm baslcally irrelevant to the

nmn:m~ of the omnlsignificant imperative. Though the rabhinic dic.-

tum places rhe onus on rhc interpreter-if it is "empty" of m~~<ming,

the fault is yours---in the course of lime, after continual dose study

does noi yidd the requisite results, interest in these te-xts will hegin towane, and the Bible will cease to engage the best intellectual t~nergk~

of those who devote themselves to the explication of Jewish texts.

C..nscq ucntl y. a certa in latitude in carryi ng ou t rlu: orrin isiflnifica nt

program had to be allowed .. Concern with the details of Israelite his-

tory or genealogy might be Interpreted ~~ an expression of Cod',~

love and concern for His people>' or an expression of the impor-

tance-in His. view-of !h~~matter described, This doctrine found

ample precedent and justiflcatlon in Ilu: earlier midresbet a{W;adab.

for example, WI.: find in C(.>th.. 'SisRa bb ab :

The couversations of t h~ servants of the patriarchal houses arc more:beloved to the Holy O[K', blessed be He, Ihan •h~ Torah le;.l.!ing ofthelirl descendants, for the narrative of Eljczcrl'~ search for a ...jf~ furIsaacl takes up three or rOUI' columns lof text] while [rhe importanthalakhlc principle thatl the blood ol' a [dead] creeping thing causes im-

purity is derived by means of In exr. . . . .letter .. , . >



YaakmJ Fiman 13

This statement of R_ Aha/i, an Amon! uf indeterminate date, may

be interpreted at> a cry of disma y at this viola. ion of the om 1 1 isigrufi-

cant impcrai ive; later on he makes IIu: ;';~lme statement about {he

mention of Rlie.7.~r '$ bathing hls f€et, which merits more space in 1 1 1 ( : :

Scripture than any halakhah which is derived from (or linked w) one

seemingly superfluous kll~r.{,() In ir~ current contexI, this is interpret-

ed as evidence of the moral gulf hcrween ourselves Mid the l'~Jl-

riarchs, a poignant reminder of the "devolution of the species."?' h i s .

immediately preceded by the famous dictum, cited in the Basi! in the

name o r R. Yohanan, hen: auributed to K Abba b. Yamlna ill Ara-

maic, "If early gencratlons were LH1ge:ls.we <Ire humans: i f they were

hurnan, we .J re donkeys, and n o r even Iike the don key of R. Pir)has

b. Yair."

Whatcv~~r irs original context and meaning, R. Ahu/I'« dictum

serves to express an aston nd: ng and pain fu I vio la t jon of d H . : - om n isig-

nificant ideal which ordinarily assigns higher value 10 halakhah than

to na rrauve. I~should be noi ~~l t ha t jt also lrnpl tcitIr prov iJt:.~ :.l ya rd-

stick 10 mea sure Soil r-h clC'-llb lions. as N;) h rnanides later reco gni zed:

xlnoe the Toruli's contents are expressions of God's pcrspecti v(:' amJ

values, those matters which He chooses tu crnpbasize , either by

reperi t ion 0"- by expa t~.si~ concentration, a re by that ve Iy r< J . L " l sigrull-

cant, We skill have occasion to point to cases whose moral value is

even k.~~ accessible than rho ...e already mentioned, as. examples of

1hls tendency. W

In the following - " tL ldy, \1o'ewill examine Nahrnanides' attempt to np

ply the ommsignlficanr lmpcrunvc 10 the question of narrative and

cxposluonal sequemiality within the bihlk~l text. However, while

~<l hrnanidcs was hardly averse to progra mmatic dbcll~.~ions of

mctlx Klplogka 1 matters, (Ie docs not open Iy dhnl.~s the imporia nee

of Ihis factor as compared with competing values: it was not until

centuries later that omnisigntllcancc began to he- mh~~d explicitly in

this connection. Its place in Ihe hierarch, r of principles must be

inferred by Hlt:a ns of an ana lysis. of spf..:"dfkexegcticu I moves, ,\ swill

rapidly become evident, despite this. Ihe quest ion of omnlsignifi-

~'anu..::is--om nip resent .

The field chosen for this investigation i.~he problem of sequential-

ity. ~rt issue which was of p rirna ry concern ]() Nahrnanid cs, ~nd U)

wh ich he retu rncd time: " < I nd < l gain. Equ ally important, 0 inee it was the

area in which he aTgu(~d forcefully ag.aimL the t'xq.-lCl kal tradition he

inherited, he fe:h impell ed to add rcss the question eli rectl j'. and pro-

g....mmaric statements regarding i~abound in his commentary on [he

Pentateuch.



TbeTorab U-Maddajfmmal

1n short, if Scripture is an omni;<;ignit'icam text, then meaning must

also Inhere in lbe order in which it ChO(J~0 1() arrange its constituent

elements.

II

A long-standtng consensus counterposcs rlic views of Rashl and Nah-

manides as. to the degree to which chronology ,Il;O\'t:m;'; the order of

Pcntateuchal narratives. Like- much of medieval exegesis, the roots of

this. issue lie in the past, in , he midrashic/talmudic observation rluu

ein mulsdasn u-me'ubar ba-Torab, "the Torah dep~rt.~ from "hrono-

logical orde r,"The locus classicus for derivation of the rule is to be found, in-

evitably, in the Bahylonian Talmud, and no ju:,>tiFic.ation for the asc-

q U eru i ~ iiiY if; presented. "111eTalm lid '- s on Iy prouf is dra wn from ~In

instance which is beyond dispute, the relation of Num l:l-l~ J.nd

succeeding pa rsb ~yotto 9:1-8.6.1The dare of 1he firSl is ~lhc flrst of the

second month of the second y(~.J.r"(1:"1) of the Exodus era, while tlu:

second is dated sometime in "lhc fir~Lmonth" (9: 1) of the same era_(\.j

As far as the rule itself goes, no one nm deny thai this example

illust rates t he poi Ill. It is the conclusion to be d raw n from th is case

that is at issue. Is this IYric11, or b it the exception that proves 1 he

ru Ie , < IS N < I h rnanklcs contcnd sr

Nuhmanidcs (and following him, Abarbanel) r~icci the hitherto tra-

ditional understanding of the t;~lmllrljc/mirll';}sh ... vie-w 1 hal the Toruli

often violates strict chronological order, while Rashl and Ibn E/r~1(1(-

cept this rule of ein mukdam u-me'uhar ba-Torab, extending its 3p-

plication beyond its historic bounds (sec below). MOTe-OYer, implicit

in the consensus-view is the assumption tbat Rashi and Ibn ElH

represent a plain-sense-view of Scrir!lm:-_~~ Like most mattersof con-

sensus, there is. considerable truth ID this xtrnpldred \"lCW of Nahmani-

des' position, Still, surh , 1 view overstates matters and thus overlooks

the complexities which such statements mask, remaining satisfied

with Jess tha n a fun ;KTOll n t w b iell a rrmre cum plctc anal ysls of the

data allows,

To begin with, N<lhm;lllid~~~and Abarbancl do not reject the prin-

dpl(: of ein muisdam irt toto. There are a number of instances in

which such rejection is slrnply impossible. since the framework of the

Torah's narrative makes the departure frum scquentiality ;lh'lnd;}nrly

clear,

Nahman ides argues that the Torah dearly shows its concern wi t 11

Jal b.g and din.molD~y, sltu.:e it dues ~juf urHI" LI:-;or Et~de part II rc fro In

sequential order, ,l~n the case of Num I: 1 and 9:L In essence, he



15

reinterprets the Talmud's proof. Rather than applying to the general

principle of asequentlaliry, eft! mukdam u-me'ubar ba-Torub, the

Talmud's proof applies not to the principle ilM:~lf, but (0 a proviso

thereof: that the narrative and exposition do not depart From chrono-Iogica I order rm{l.~.:<; the reader is ex pllchl y j nformed of th is, either by

means of da tes, as in Num 1:1, or by means of chron ologica 1 da ta of

some other type, such as g1.":nealogical data regarding births and

deaths, etc. His parade example of the latter is Gcn 1"1:32 where

Terah's death is "prematurely" recorded, as can easily be- dernonstrat-

ed in !ighl of the chronological data regarding Ahrarn's birth. If Terah

was 70 at Abram's birth (11:26), Abraham was 135 at his death, which

therefore should have been recorded in Gen 22. In hi.~ response to

Ibn Ezra's claim that this reflects the- TOr:;.lh',~ achronological order,

Nahmanides suggests that the Torah will complete . a generational nar-

r..tive=-cr. We may :.akl--<ln exposition, before continuing on LO the

next generation's history, even at the expense of some chronological

inconni eli ics.

Applying this insiglu 10 rhe text of the entire: Torah, Nahmunidcs

thus requires that every narrative be approachud with the assumption

that the TOr.J.h'~ order reflects tbc order in which the events recorded

took place, when there is no compelling evidence to the contrary, He

wrltcs:

In my opiuion, the whole Torah i~ in onJer. for in all places in which i t

postpones lnarratlngl rhe earlier levcntl it explains [the muncrl, as. forexample, "God s p o k e to M O S ( _ ' s at Mount Sjn'ji~ in .his book.'~; r od , r o rexample, ~On the day i\1o-~~ completed setting up the Tcnt"~7 in lh€

~eCD..rl book. and similar cases. That i.~why i t states here ~aheT lhe

Jt-.nh," to tell us that rhis OCClllTCd immediately after Iht.::irdeath_oil

Thus, t hose cases il~hich the na rra tive signals i l ; , ; v iob tion of therule of scqucntiality serve 0 . 1 s . a point of d(~parlul"e for Nahmanldcs.

From these Gl5eS he applies his insight to the rest o r the Pentateuch,

a lbelt with varying degrees of success, ill' Jocusing on these cases,

NJhn ian ides ra i_';,C0 !he question of wh en <111d why these depa rL t ires

take placx-, O J matter to which Rashi dn~~ not always attend_69

It is important to noi c that, in taking the posluon he does.

Nahmanides goes counter to lns Own exegetical tradition on this

lssu e i not only do Rashi and 1bn Ezra assert the contrary, bu I Ihe

thrust of the Talmud's short discussion, especially in light of R Papa's

Gn·(_:~I,~ seems to ;';UppOr1 rhcrn as well, In the hglu of JH this, his re-

JCC! 1011 of the rule assu mes Hf(~;Jer Importance. 7.

111l~ dispute between hi rn ~md Aba rbane l,'~ on Ihe one side. Jnd

Rashi and Ibn Ezra ~3 on the other, cenkr,~ about the question of dar-



16 'jbe 'jorah Lt-Madda jmJ. rna!

ing those r<!S~~I;:lC;';or events whose relation can be determined only

by inference. How strained do we allow our reading to become in at-

tempting to interpret !h~~order of narrative as reflecting the historical

order?

Furthermore, even when such departures from sequcnti~1order

are ack nowledged, how do we accou n1 for lhem? 0 r need we ac-

count for thcrn at all, or account for all of them? Here, dl{: tuaucr of

omnisigniflcance obi rudcs, and t l .is is often the real ground upon

which the debate 1 < 1kes pbn~.

Moreover, Nahmarudes' sensittvlry [0matters of precedence and

sequence lrnpelled him to the view that expository prose uht:y;,; the

sa me rule of sequent iaILlY as docs na rrative, Ag:1in, ;J nd III C(}n[m~' ,0

Rashi, he insisted that s~que nli ~ iiiY unth in a section must be rna in-

taincd, and an exegete must accounl for (..cpa rrurcs from it, ;-.

l " ; } : : 1 rnples or I his tendency involve descriptions of rBu;lls wh lrh

acquire a narrative character, such as Lev 16 on the high priesl's

Temple service on Yom Kippur, or tlu: procedure due on the appear-

anee of a house fungu s 1n lev 14. bOI h of wh ieh will be examined

below .. But, his attention to matters of sequence is Far more- pervasive

tha n that. Far more Ikin R~,~h l, Na1rman ides tra ces the order of topics

within a passage, or the sequence of P:·1.~0~W:;'iwit hin a gr(::~tcr

whole. His most chanu ..tcrisric phrases (but not the only ones) in this

endeavor arc (/Jr!)-I:;azar f.-L....amar/ u-feresb/ u-l.'e'er!w-bizkid oe-ziorab

and the like, and they appea r more t ha n a hundred times in l.is COrn-

mentary, In some instances he is most concerned with 0cqLlcnn: pure

a nd simp lc, but most in vol vc some sort of repetition; it is significa nt,

however, 1h a t h k . . . a c c o u n ~ o f I1 1t:;<;(~ repel il ions nea r l Y a1wJY S o involve

some sort of sequence, narrative or ~xru~i'ional.

For example, we may illustrate his concern for seq ue nee pu re andsimple by point ing [() hi;'; dis.eussion of the order of laws in the Book

of the Covenant (Exodus. 21-23), in which he demonstrates 1 hat the

sequence is not arbitrary,

The fi r~1 exposition (m (J1~pai) l-.egin:<>wil h r rhe topic] of the Hebrew

slave, since it involves the matter of freeing the slave in the seventh

Ycar, a reminder of Ihe Exodus fTf)jll P.gypl, uWTlt~()m~d in .ht~ firM

Commandment, . . . And when he com p l E . . . ' 1 E . . . ' S the exposit ion (In isbpat)

of this mizuab' regarding Hebrew slaves, 11<..' egins thl..:"cxposluon

(mv,.hr)(l;~ of "yOLl $h:~11not murder," ..ince irls pmhibuion] is the moxtsevere, and lcontinucsl with honor of parents. and stealing, and returns

to ~he exposition U?uz~r le-m ishJXJi)of one who Mrikcs l . u u ) I her1 non-fatally, and after that to the murder of a slave, which is more heinousIhan kill inl-! t~lTlhry~~~ r : ~ ~ ~In:.>lLh of a mist aken 1J1ow which It'";l[b h>

miscarriage], and after that to rhe ~ i r L ' L L I } ' l of the limh~ of I..raelites andslaves, and aftlT Itwi Iv damages to livestock by dcath=-and ~III Ihe

pas..<;.agesre in order and [reflect] pmper intent (kal.~!(mab)..~



Yaab:mElman 17

As to the second L~b:gory, where his attention to sequence comes

abou t a S a resu II of I he need to accou nt for repcritions of a n sorts.

sec his remarks n:garding Pharaoh's double-barrelled accusation ()f

impropricry agalnst Abram in Gen 12:J J-l.,).

h wuuld seem t hat Ihc exposition or Ihe verses is t hat Sara h drd not

accept upon hcrseff to ~ay so ll.c, to claim si~kThood rather than ;-I

lIl,lITbgc-tie with AhT;lhamL ... Sbe remained silent, and dkl not tell

thar bt Ie was] his wif.e, (b~III Abraham told of h b uwn that she was his

sister, and therefore !K' was benefitted LloCGLUSC of her, AnJ this Is [the

reason 1 t he verse Mates, ~Wh,u is this you have (1 mf.::W me? W"hy did

you not tell me that she was YOH r wif e?" First he blamed him in not

telling Phara nil lhal she was h k; wife when he ~aw lrcr being ta ken,

and blamed him as wdl (1?{lZflT ue-be'eshim) him for sayjl1g [~j Ihenobles ;1lkr [his that she was h b sister, He dirl not hi ~1Il(: the woma n

~ L aU, for i t L~not fining that she oont r; l diet her h usband. . . _

Pkflse note that the cxsentia I purpose ()f Ihis comment b 10 ~!C-

count ror the fact that I'h;:ltauh did not blame ~<l l . 1 1 1 fur L I l { : " rk.ccp-

non. despite this, Nuhmanidcs (..armor Iorl )c";J r explaining the sc

qucnce of Pharaoh's claims against Abraham.

Nalnnunklcs' ke-en anennon to the matters of order OInJ sequence

g(]..:~beyond the expo~i1onal or narrative progres...~,Farmore than hispredecessors, he views the OTJt:r of elements in all Il1<J riner of

seq ucn res as signj [lcant. A') a resu It , he forrnu lated an inprcssl ve

array of hierarchies to interpret such lists.

H~~thus employs no kW(T than fourteen of these hierarchies: hinl.

order when xlbltngs Me listed, either in gt':n~7".llogic.dcontexts or oth-

erw ise; 71 ; order of importance, w het her of person, r lu I,d 0bject or

Olht:r;7~ order of preference or l("]vt";"~rder of greater population

when clans arr listed" or olhern'isc,-9V Likewise, prohibitions and sins

wit! 1Jt: llsred in order of (dccreastng) seventy;" ckmcnts in order of

their place in the chain of cau_~.;ltion;~~ number of rL~ople ilfrecL~'ll;~~

Or [t'arsomcncs,s as perceived by a hihlic:~1 character." Rules whlch

obtain for the tndcfinitc [urure (le-domn precede those which arc of

temporary v a lldity." Precedence may also indicate inil ialive,!Il; high

moti va1ion, ~.! 0 r freque ncy _~ FinaUy, as noted alJUV(:, and as a fif-

tccnth category, temporal or narrative sequence may he indirared."?

In short, sequence aJrm) ,<; tW always has a substantive significance

for Nalunanidcs;" it is hardly eyer haphazard Of mechanical: such isthe omnisignjfjcant lrnperativc." Whil~ concern for these matrers S.UI·-

faces in midrashlc texts, to some cxreru ,~3 they are far more promi-

ncnt in Nahrnanides' commentary.

Nahrnanides' aucntlon to matters of sequence, order and conunu-

jty extends to the syntactic rnaucrs as well, a~ W; might expeG, sinrt:



TbeTorah U-MiJ.dd~O u mal

this concern W:JS parr of his exegei leal uudluon. In reacting to lta:-;hi's

midrashic interpretation of the two occurrences of ve-bt"lVu in Exod

4:9, Nahmanidcs writes:

There j~ no need for hls miJm~t~i~·comment, for the masters of lan-

guage [study] have alre ..d y found that it j~ the custom of m,my ~.(~f":':K~~

,(} r~reat (tikbpol) words fur need t . l o - ntlQa;) ~nd for ~hengthenjng u e -I! i=uk) or ber-a usc of the ic:ngthy ~.p~Ke (mi;pt 'a arokb) w II ich comes

between thcrn.?'

This last instance dearly involves a syruactic "resumprivc repeti-

tion." Nahmanides offers other examples of lhe phenomenon, citing

Lev 27:,~t Dcut lH:6, Exod "l:1'5-16, and Gen 46:2., 1u which we mayadd Gen G~9,Nurn 5:9 and 6 : 2 0 , ' 1 " '

Likewise, ~l times he employs ihc existence of a srn: .rll-scalc,

though not purely syruactjc repetition, in furthering lus huger-haLt-

khto=-exegetiral <dm~_J n his cornrne ntary !()1\Lim " 7 ~ 1, he doc~nor

ex pt lcltly note tha t the ~·Iusc " rW henJ he had anoi ntcd and conse-

crated the rn,~ ai t he end of the \'~T~C. rna y he seen as < J R~~UITlpiivc

repetjtlon of ~he anoitucd and consecrated il and all its furnishing" at

lts beginning, but he clearly recognized it as such. He- uses the reperl-

lkm as proof against Ibn Ezra's corueruion that the consecration was

by blood a nd not oil, since bot h cl a 1I,~~~ ref cr to the same <~('I ion, LhI.:

object of which " " < 1 ; < ; the Tabernacle in both cases, while Ibn Ezra's

proof1ext rcq uires that we see l.ev R : l5, which ment ions 1he bl: md of

the sln-offcrlng in this connection, a~ a parallel, This may be rlu: in-

tent of Nahmamdcx' phrase ie-nabas ("fur [cxplauatoryi'] need") in

h ls corm nc nts on Exod 4 : 9 j'l ~L«itcd.

Moreover, he is at one with his exegetical tradition (including

Stfra, SIj1'ei, Ibn Ei':m and Radak) in rt'cognizing inverted clauses(mtkra mesora..~)as a kgilimate Hebrew SYI11,lClicphenomenon. J Ie

points out few- instances himself as well as implicnly accepling

Hashi's proposals."? though he. otTt~rs alternate interpretauons of the

clause about half the ttmc.?'

In sum, Nahmanides b ]cs...:; insistent on sequenlblily in syntactic

(:unll: xts, even when mid rash k ,~(nLr("t.:.~a~Lle otherwise. III Ihb, III.:

follows the "lY<lshl~njc~radition, but even here il must be noted that

he aUE:rnplS 10 expla in, a.~ b r as possi h lc, some of th f:'~ dcpa flu res.

from the expected order,

Eve-n on the "m'l(~r{)~-levd. ;';0 to speak, Nahmanides hlrnxelf rec-

ognizes e-xceptions to his rule. of signaling~ "<11 ! l rUCS the Torah d()c~

not indic~lC' a section's chronological placx-mont. either explicitly, br

means of dme.~ or other chronological data, Of implicitly, where, [or

narrative purposes, I]U; imparting of necessary information is de-



Yaakot) Elman 19

layed." In these cases, such as the question of when jcthro vis-ired

Moses, N...hmanides turns to other indications of' true s.cxluence,~ In

his lruroducnon to Deuteronomy, Nahmanides notes thai certain mtz:

uo: are recorded first in that book though they must have been re-

vealed some 38 years earlier, either at Sinai or during the nn>l eleven

months of the Tabernacle's. existence, from the first of Nisan of the:

second year of 1he Exodus era (Exod 40:34, NUIll 9: 1) 10 the twcnri

eth of Iyyil r of the following ye~ r (Num Y:11) _ 00 Th is observation. in

tum, furthers his understanding of the rok~ of Deuteronomy within

the complex of hook:;tOl which make llr ihe Penateuch. As we shall

see. his view of the Torah as a record of revelation has Far-reaching

consequenccs for anunderstand

iIlg ofother of

i1~tea tures

JSg~p"

fined narrative. IO~

This assumption of the Torah asa faithful account of the: revelation

vouchsafed to Moses is evidenced by Nahmauidcs' objection to

Rashi's assertion that Lev 8~2-.~ h out of sequence. "Why , " asks Nah-

manidcs, "should we overturn [t.e. put out of order] the words of our

God?~ L O J Th is impl k~~ that na rra t ivc , n nh and seq U cnt i ~ li , yare int i-

mately linked, at least in divinely originated narrative, God's prophet

ic Wurd, which is absolutely truthful, must not he considered "out of

order" unless Goo Himself lnforrns us of that LI(1, In Nahmanides'opinion, there seems 10 be an a priori assumption thaI Cod's Word

shou Id be presented j n order of its rcve I~Ion, liYI

Why rhcn does the Torah depart from chronological orde-r?

Nahmarudes rnaintalns that it does ~o only for good and sufficient

reason (" le-:;orekh 'inyan U -le-ta 'am natsbo If' HI5) _ Most often he a[-

tribul ~~~the la ck of chronological sequ encc to t he needs of ex posi-

tion' the necessity of rounding out a part lcular topic before proceed-

in g to another, for ex ample . in expla ining !he c1< JS$ic case orachronological arrangement, Num 1:1 versus 9:1, he suggests that

Nurn 1-H completes the narration of the dedication of the Tabernacle

begun ~ J . I the end of Exodus, and M) it is presented out of its. chrono-

logical order in order to maintain J coruinuitv of topic. HJ., TIl(; death

of Terah j,~ recorded in Gen 1] ~_:)2.ill order to clear the way for the

history of Abraham."? Note once: <lgilin the rrirn~(y of straightforward

ex position; the ~XCf . : ptlons serve to prove the rule, si [ JU": : h is the need

for such straightforward exposition which overcomes the general rc

quirement of narral lve sequent ial itv,Furthermore, j n the ca se at ha net, tha l of the initbI cha pters of

Numbers, (lsin most cases, however, l){:>1~pproacl l(·~Srespond lO 1he

omnislgniflcanr demand. whether or nol j)(m;h~VOI arc interprered as

being in chronological order, once art explanation fC)f their placumuru

k; provided, that positioning: becomes meaningf L 1 1 .



20 TheTorah U-Madda_fourn~J

The difference between the a pproa ches of 1{a~hi ~nd Nahma nides

b as follows, According to Nahmanides, chronological placement is

I

henOITI\,

and thus rorrel.'pom.b to the narrative covenant1 ( 1 1 : 1

wh i c hrequires such an arrangement, it does not require any other explana-

tion. It might be Ihought, as became the norm in later generations,

that Rashi's view, which provides the Torah with two options, must

account for the Torah's choice of either present in~ events in chrono-

logical order or departing from such order, Implicttly, however, Rashi

is one w ilh Nahmanide s in a ssurn in~ that seque nt ia lity b normal,

since it is only departures from it which require comment, On occa-

sion, especially with midrashic warrant, he will account for sudl

dep<lrllm::-s_w~It is thus significanl th a t he does n ot < llv ..ays d o so .':" Inreality, howe' rH Rashi seldom juslifit~,~ Ihe departure from proper

seq uence, unless Ihe re is talmudic Of rni drash lc W~ rrn nt, Nahma n ides,

On the other ha nd, elt her iucrprets the p ;IS . -;;1 (~ ~~ lO be in proper

sequential order, or expla ins the di vergence.

In the «l~t: ()f Nu III 9: I, Rashi opts for his oft -repea ted coni em km

that th e Torab evidences great concern for Israel's reputation, and ~o

the fact tha t PaSSU\'~T wus observed onl y once in II u..: wilderness is

nul placed at the head of the Book of Numbers . ' ! ' '1 hus, 1he ;<;i,_;nifi-

cancc of this instance of asequerulallty is to leach us once again of

God's great love for His people, This lesson overcomes the need for

chronological order; rrt:~llma bl v , the teaching of !his lesson of (; od's

love and concern for Israel is the very [unction of the dates giw~n!m

It is msiructive to contrast this view of ascqucntiality with the clas-

sic fabbink 011(;, w he ru, as noted above, the ru lc serves onl y 10 ma rk

some verses as belonging at the bcginning of their book or pass.age.

No attempt Is made to account for their placement, Only sporadir-allv

are attempts made 10 extend this principle to ascqucnrial g~ppingwithin a book or na rra Ivc, as 1bn E~rJ and H.ash j do. A . consisrcn;

effort to force this rule into n.mformily with the imperious omntstg-

nifl~~~nl demand for moral or legal JTw<wiJ lgfu lncss emerge:'> only

later.

Mainlainlng Unity of Time~Place and Theme

niffL"1l ._., ,~tmixes of ~p'..~hl.mic"and midrushic techniques were adopt-

ed by the commentators to deal with the challenge of exposlt ing the

tex.t of the Torah in an omnisiguificantly meaningful way, H b at

tlrncs difficu It to determ ine whethe r a Prind ple is indeed OnC or the

other, and the ultimate c~tq~odza1ion of such exegetical principles

may depend upon the exegete's judgement of the genre or mixture

of ge n re.'; in w hich the text a ppears, Moreover. the use of" these pri n '



Yaakmt Elman

ciples becomes a funcnon of their place in the exegete's hierarchy of

ava i~ 1J1ehermcncut lea 1 techniq lit'S,

The tangled h istory of tlx: applicati on of the prj nci pl e of ein m ute-

dam u-me 'ubar amply illustrates this point. In the course of OUr

anal ysls, we will suggest a number of h ierarc ha 1 consldera Ions and

llterarv/structural assumptions which both serve to buttress or accom-

pany the USE: of this rule of sequentialny by Nahmunides. Because of

the iruerpenetratlon of these ussumptlons and priorities, il is lrnpossi-

blc 10 examine (:~ch one in isolation from the others. However, to

the extent possl ble t fun discus ......on of the ru 1(: of seq u entia iiiy will be

deferred ti II sect ion IV, ~nd more pa rtic 1Ib rly, VIn. Here 1 intc nJ

merely inl reduce the topic, and examine an interesting. but to my

knowledge hitherto unnoticed, consequence of ih application. J refer

10 Nahmanidcs' insistence (and following him, Abarhancl 's) on the

maintenance of unity of time, place, and theme, However, since the

point is made more de,! rly in Aharbanels expusit ion, 1 will be~ in

with it. and then proceed to Nahrnanides' view of rhe matter.

A.~notcxi ;~bove, Num 1; 1 and I):1 const itute the das~k' proof for

ascq LU. :nt lality: the da I~ of I: 1 is . la ter 1ha n that of 9: 1, Nahrnanl des

accounts for this departure from chronological order by reference to

an expositional need, and stresses the function of the first nine chap-tcrs of Numbers as rounding out the Torah':"; "dCCOtlnt of the Tent of

Meeting and reb ted rna tters. The program of the first p~ rl of the

Book or Numbers 1 . < ; of less weight. Abarbanel, on tlu: other IM1 ) d .

stresses the Importance of the latter in determining rhe Torah's ar-

rungement of sccdons, Since Abarbanel quote:"; Nahrnanides' com-

ments on thb matter word fur word, J will reproduce and translate

only the passage in the rnrm~r's commcruary.

And from here our Rahhis, o f blessed memory, sakl that there is nochronologtcal order in the Torah, ;lnd N~.hmarudes g;l\'t:; u reason for

this del<lY fin prcscntmg chapter 9, dated in th~ n[~l month. elrlierl. fur

when this rOlJrlb book l- NtJnlbersJ comes to mention the nWpNl

which lsrael was commanded in the desert of Sinai a r Ih;H time t te-sba'atam), I Ie wishcx] to complete the matter o r Ih~ Tent of _",1eetiTlg

;I'ld us scumg up throughout the rime uj' the wil derness [pc rtodl. L Ij

Hrst He mentioned the degalim and the place uf the Tent and th.,;

posulon of it_~ servants and the arrangement of 1h~· watches for I F - dns -

pOri ing litL He [then] mentioned Ihe donut ions of the prl [lees f of the

tnbesl who brought the wagons which r:~rry the burden fo f lhe Tent ofMeeting! all the time they were in Ihe wilderness, and he completed

[the desvriptlonl of their donations at the dedication o r Ihl' uhar fromthe fir~1 of N isan, and after that He n:"W rncd to, the warning [of [he

Tsra elites] not to neglect the mizuab of PCs.3!;l,L~ as [Nab man ides] wrote

in his cornmenra I)',



"be Torub U-MaddaJournal

Rut his words ure not COf("('"(_1 in my view, R8. her. Lhe truth of the mat-

H.." T is that the Torah wished to tell in the earlier books lof the l\:nL~-

teuch, nainelv Exodus and Levuicus] whatever happened while they

were ur Mount Simi. LI, a....d in the fuur1l. book He C~ITl~ to tell what

happened ufter that, in the second year from rhc second month on-

ward, Therefore, he me ntlons f i rst the census which occurred til lht,

second month of the second year, and after that the matter of theLevitcs and their selection ill p~;ice of the- fi~sthorn, which also

occurred in the second month after the census, and hhenl Ihe matter uf

the degolim and the Levtte watches and their burdens, for ~t! this was

arranged ill that second month, After that carne the: Je,di(;.ukm of the

altar by the princes lof the [ribes], which also occurred after the oen-

~lIS. us 1 have explained ill its place, He continues tlft~~r that wilh the:

prophetic Mature of our master Moses, tilt: wisdom of Aaron, hi:")unique pmit ion and th~t of his desccnda nts I· the tligh priestsl, the

purity of the Levites a nd their j nu ugUl.ltion and their specific roles. l le

mentions after all this another matter which occurred in Ih,tr second

month of the second yetlT-! h;.lt is. that Ihe lsraehtes ofkn.::d the

pascha I sacrifice in its proper lime, wh lch w;~~ the momh of Nisan, and

that there W(..""T~~ men who were ritua ll y impu re due to contact wil h 1he

rlearl, and that He. Ill;! y He he blessed, comma ndcd tbm Ihey observe

a second Passover in the ~cnmd month. Ddwlrl, therefore, Ih is

;u':t~nLlId was recorded here to j nfonn r H~1 that in tha L St.~[ond month

He, 1 U ~ ' rHe he blessed, commanded that the Sei.'Dlld Passover lx.~ oh-served for those R~~L~on~. and there is therefore 110chronological disor-

dcr lin this passage].

Abarbancl here insists that the Aristotel ian unities of Ime and

place be maintained. "111eBook of Numbers is nmu.:::med with events

in I { . ; wilderness, <10 faT as concerns place, and 1ncid~~mswhich

occurred from the second month of the second year onward, :J~ far

as chronology is concerned _The open ing dale of the book therefore

~~rvcs a therna tic pu rposc. I Iowever, in order to de <11adeq uaicly withthe matter of the Second Passover, chapter 9 must advert hack to

matters which occurred in the fir~t month, OL1 ly , hen docs the na rra-

rive continue, at ·1()~II, with rnaucrs of the twentieth of the second

rnoruh, This interpret ation hard] ," expla j ns Ih e d:aLing of y~1 adequai e-

ly , since all that would be required is a mention of tbc First Passover

as a backgrou nd of the Second,

Abarbanel's essential disagreement with ~ahrmmides seems to be

one of emphasis rather than substance, [or all Abarbanel's somewhat

prolix comment s :iot:t: OJ to be enca pMI latcd j n three words w bichNahmanidcs employs, and which Aba rbanel q lIUIes: '·llli ~ fou I1h book

I= Numbers] comes to mention the mizvo! which lsrael was corn-

manded in tbe desert of Sinai at tbai ume tle-sba'atam), Abarbanel's

contribution i s . to spell Oul what those words mean in terms of the

book's overall theme,



Y£l.akoo Elman 2 _ ,

Th us, ~ceo rding to N~h rna n ides, the narra t ive covenant req Uires

that < l Pentateuchal book maintain the unities of time, place' and

theme, if :H all possible. 1 add that caveat because il i~ clear from hi~

remarks in his introduction to Exodus lluJ! theme is more- important[han place. The Book of Exodus b<:gi ns with the cnrrance into

Egypt ian cxilc of the patriarchal famil les, and concl udes with the end

of the most intense part of tlu: exilic era, with tbe "return" of the

Divlne Presence to the Israelites with the in.wguralion of the

Tabernacle, even though the scene is no longer Egypt ,11 ( ,

Rashi on the other ha nd, as noted al )()V(~,expla ined the d sronol og-

ical order of the opening nine chapters of Numbers as a consequence

of bibbab. Because of] Jis I()v~: for Israel, the divine Narrator wishes

lo obscure the sud fad lh'lt Israel kep1 orily one Passover in ,hewilderness" That Passove r is theref On: moved from its prop(: r place,

chronologically speaking, at the head of the book, tu iL~ current posi-

lion al 9: '1-8. In this he perha p:-; follows the i\Iidra.~IIH7

l11Us, both Nalunanldes and Rashi, dC0pi!e their differences on

matters of detail and on the application of the principle D f scquennal-

Jty, acknowledge the omnisignlftcant imperative; lilc-y differ in the

wciglu rhey grve to the various t'"ctors. which embody omnisignificant

meaning. For Nabmanides, God's love for tsrael is f.:XrH-(:,~s~dmore in

m;J1ers of proportion than sequence, for Rashi, proportion arid

sequ e nee bot h bes pe ak the th erne of I ? ibba b. ln nc] the r c.ase is

seq uentiali ly alone the only pri nei p1~ at stake,

m

Resumptivc ltepetitioJl

When it su its hi m , however, Abarbanel ri,!lU rou sly stresses the S.~~'Im-

less coni inuity of the books of rhe Pentateuch r~1her tha n their

rllsjunctlon. lie rakes Ihb line in his stricture;'; 011 Nahmanides' irnro

ducuon lu !he Book of Exodus_

Nahmanides points out that Fxod 1:1-7 is merely a rcsurnptive rep-

etition of Gcn 16:2R- 50:26,1 L~ serving tu join the two books togC-lh~f

in the same war that Cyrus' decree, quouxl ai 1 he bcglnning ()f I he

Book of Ezra, scrvt'S to link that hook wit h Chron ides, wh ich pre-

cedes il ln time. J I~ 111iBposjtloning also serves the thematic purposes

of lhe book, since it cnahk-s lts Author to !J.l:-Hinwith the theme of

exile and end (in Exodus 40) W itJ1 the partial mirigation of this exrle

with the erection of the Tabernacle. In hi;<;lntroduction to Exodus,

Nahmanldcs writes:



24 The Torah U-MaddaJournal

And •h~ Book of Exodus is devoted (llit_W/~'~Y" io the matter of the fjrst

exlle which was explicitly decrt:ed,·1(t ;md d1€ redemption therefrom,

He therefore resumed (hazar- t'C,·hilbt{) with tin:: names of those who

went down to Egypl an~l their number . even though lth L~manerl w...already rccorded.!" [This is becausel their descent [into Egypn "'<IS the

be-ginning of the exile, . _ . '11)1.:" exile w~s not ended until their ILium

to thetr pl:lct:" and lO [he {spiriturlJ) de-gree of their ancestors: when theywent out of EgypT they were still considered exiles n'eTl though they

had been released from serv ~wt1e slnce they were lsu lIJ -in ~ hll~L1not

their own,"!1l confused in the desert.'!' iU "'~..s only] wll~ they came

to MO\lO~ Simi and erected the Tabernacle . .and the Holy One, ble~~eJ

he He, cau sed ] lis Presence to dwell among them-e-then they retu rned

to the [spiruuall degree of thdr ancestors, . , .m

Thus, the need for , I thematic statement was filled by the resump-

uve rcpctltion with which the book bq;in;<;_ Exodus' identity is deter-

mined hy :d o certain un ity of theme, one w hicb C"'d n, wit h some prod-

ding. be see n to underlie the entire book. Nahrna n ides intcrprcts the

end of the book in re rrns of the beginning, thus provkl ing a frame for

the whole,

r n contrast, Abarbanel, fat he r tha n cxarni n in~ t he scheme of the

Book of Exodus in terms of the theme set forth by N"hrnankles, ap-

preaches the repetition from quite a different angle, Among his other

objections to Nahmanides' ~nle..:rpn..:taHonf the first verses of Exodus,

Abarbanel points out (in his long f ir .' il q l lt .' ry to Exodus I)that it is

ha rdly necessary to link Genesis and Exodus In •he xarnc way as it

might have been to link Chronlcles and ELm_ Since the former books

are both parts of the Pentateuch, , heir llnkage would seem to be

axiomatic, He: thus seems to hold rhe view thai while each book

malruains a topical identity, each remains so much pan of the gre-~lC'r

unity of the Pentateuch as 10 make any linking device, such asrcsumpti vc repetition, Unnecess ..1 ry. However, if 1h is b so, there is

even less need for such devices tottbin a book; indeed, in his discus-

sion of Exod 6:29-30, which, according to Rashi, constitutes a re-

sumptive repetition of 6:]0-12, continuing the narrative interrupted

by the genealogy in between, Abarbanel proposes instead that this is

an expa nsiona ry an d expia nal or}' repetition _I~~Likewisc, he j nterprets

the resumptivc repetition of Gen 39: 1 as emphasizing God's provi-

dence in having jose ph sold into servitude in Egypt. the sea t of high

civi li ' . . a t ion, ra ther tha n into abject slave ry d~t~w1C n~.

In his rejection of resumptive repetition as < 1 possibility, Abar-

00 nel' 5 0 com me nta ry is a harbinger of things. to come, 1n a similar

vein, he minimizes, "J S much as pus.sible, the existence of parallelism

(kejeJ 'inyan be..milim sbonoi), reserving jt for instances in which a

more omnisigniflca nt explanation W'"a ~ nul ava ila hie, much in' he way



YaakouHman

that 'Iosafot observes that the Talmud prefers casuistical solution;'; 10

those which acknowledge Ihe human qualities of Scriptum's dis-

course, as we noted above (n. 16 and text),

On the other hand, Rashi's reluctance to recognize Exod 1:1-7 ~s ares u m pt ive ropctit j on is pu zzH I1g, since he sees Ex ocl 6: 29- 30 and

Gcn 39: I as such resumprlons. J Iowcvcr, some explanation for the

repetition seems indicmcd, and he <;.uru::lests.hat lln~ repeated listing

of the lril)(;~ at the beginning of Exodus is an expression of God's

Jove (/!ihbah) for their eponymous patriarchs, both in lift: and death.

ThL~ bin line with his explana Ion of the aseq uential pla cement of

Nurn 1--8 (ad 9:1), where he follows the Sifrei in explaining its anom-

alnus location as a result of God's reluctance to db~l<lce the Israelites

by revealing the rael that they observed only one P~S,SOVf'r during

their sojourn ill the Wildernc0~,

it may be that in his hierarchy of principles, bibbab and nsump-

tive repetitions are- counrerposed. When the [Y.'lSS.lgt'S urc not posi-

tive, as in Moses' refusal to follow GOU't; instructions in Exodus 6. or

the descent of Joseph 10 Egypt as a slave in (Jcnt:;';is 37, he will reo-

ognize the resumptivc nature of the repetition, slnce the TCpCI ilion

C~nnot be an ex pression of I f f bbah, When t he event has ~ positi \0 ' c

connotation, however, he will opt for the I J ibbab explanai ion,

Altcmarely, he may not recognlze "linkage" as. ~. legitimate exegetical

rrx»...e.

In contrast, Abarbanel's proposal 10 view 6: 10-"12 and 2.9-.~O,IS

complcmen ra ry , mirrors h is more Menc ral tend encics, 11e categt )T i ,,_(~s

the repetition as an explanatory rather than ~ rcsurnptivc n.prtirion.

However, though he does not seem to recognize the existence of

resu mpti \"C' repetitions in t lu: Pentateu ch, h~~does Jd \'C"rE 1 ( } one in I I i~

commentary on the Rook of J crcrn lah, where, ln h is con uncru S on

33: l , he recogn izes tha t the word sben it se-rves. as a rna rk~~, thou ghnot really < I resumptivc repetition. Sec also his remarks (at _~"":RJnd

35:1) on the as cqucrtt ial order of jerennah's prophecies, ctrher

because they became scattered ;H1d the Men of Gt('al Symlgogue had

ga thcrcd Ihem, not ncccssa rill' in ch ron 01 og_ .icll ore k~r, or beca u~t~

Ihey were recorded a~ Jeremia h rccal Jed them,

In any case, judging from Nahrnanldes' analysis of rhc Chronicles-

l.::<:mlink, it would seem that his ttcutlnilion of a resurnptive repen-

lion In the case of G(~nesis-Exodll,~ involves not only the linkage of

two books, hut ~lso the ex istence of J cl IT( mologiGJ 1 ga P bet ween

them. Hc writes;

I.~~he resurnprive repetition ~t Exod 1:] links il wilh Genesis], in the

same way [we find lilt:" same phenomenon] reg:mHng the Book or



2 6 'lb~ Tomb {f-;'daddlJ.ournal

Ch roniclcs :md Ihe Book of I~~.r..i.\I:'hen lEzm I (~Htlpleted [the l\[)oks

of] Chronicles [with the vcrscl, "And ill the ftr.;.l y~al of Cyrus, King of

Persia, to complete the WOfU of Go(1 ill the mouth of Ieremlah. G(1o(.1

stirred up the spirit of Cyrus," etc., ~So ~ay~ c.yrus, King or Persia."etc.,lhl he rcsu med {behezid those 1\\'0 V~rscs ill their [exact] hHlgU.l ge

at the begirlning of the flunk of I::!zral~~ W connect the n'lH<lti",dsj

(k 1!a hbe r h~ -s fp pur )_ S.ncel~ IhL'Ywere two books, he completed theiirsr with what rXCUl'red before th~ building of the Temple, and th~

second book with what occurred after the buildtng. So tOO in [the case

ul1 Ihese two books, Genesis and Exodus, LN

Thus, he notes the narrative !¥IP between what occurred before

the rebuilding of the Temple, which is the burden of the end of

Chronicles, and the eve 111;<;w hich roll OWE:J the- rebu HJ ing, w hie h arc

the conrern of the book of Ezra. As <Jrgw.::dabove,"? the fuller ver-

sion of the decree in Ezra would seem to argue for it as rhe original

tex 1 from which t h(; Iast two verses of Chronicles \I,iC re JrJ WH. J ~ LAnd,

of course, Exod 1:1 reverts back to tlu: lime before' he events of Gun

47 -50 in order to begin the narrative of exile, enslavement and

redemptlon.

A third instance, which he descnbcs in similar H.:nns but, <lg<lin,

one which modern scholars would not, comes, as we: might expect,at the beginning o f Numbe r s .

Sinoe (the divine Aurborl interrupted [the detailing of Lho.~ mizio: re-

vcaled JI the Tent of Mct::tingl with the mi:;{-~)f of the sublx •.nk'll year

and juhike. of whlch he stated that lhey were lgrvcnl .It Mount Sinai.

He repc ..w : : : d here [the suuernent that I th is ~lIhhur W;}:", Igiw: n] ' i ~ ~h L~Tent of _...ccting. ;1~ J1e mentioned ~I th-e h-eginning o r the Book of

Levu icus, and so wi II ~~l of [the m r;v(Jtj Jrem here onward be [;I!:i,>'enar

the Tent of MCL1 ing . 13~

Here too we find u chronological gap. The Rook D f Numbers

r()CLI.~esn the revcl o l l ions gra nted in' he desert aher the rest ivitics at-

tending tfu: dedication of the Tabernacle and the celebration of Pass-

over. Or, 10 put it in a different perspective, it bridges the ga r be-tween the two great revelatory events of 1 he post-Sinai era, those of

the iniliJl weeks of the em of the Tabernacle, and that represented

by the Book of Deuteronomy, which was given while the lsraelites

were cncaurped on ,he Plains of Moab. This latter period <1(~H1Jl ly be-gins. when t he Israelites reach th,iI encampment as rcco rdcd at Num

12.:1y~ 11H:" separailon of Numbe rs from Lev il it.us, on the one: ha nd,

and Deuteronomy, on tbc other. GUl be viewed ; : J . f o O In integral part of

the scheme of revelation which Na hmanldes adopts r rom talmud k-

sources. and develops in his ow n way.



27

Nahmanides likewise recognized al least two other instances of the

phenomenon, beth involving introductory n:,r.~t:~_ Once again, exposi-

tion and narra live rnani fest similar phe nomena, thou gh, of co urse, the

shift is in logic rather than in ~j1TIe.Lev 2_~:qresumes the list of festi-vals begun w ilh 23: I, which wa S intcrru pted by the short paragra r h

regarding the Sahh~l1h, I~~ and nC~J1 4:44-45 echoes the introductory

U, which resumprlon is required because of the long hortatory sec-

tion in bctwcen.i" It should be noted, however, that Nahmanidcs'

pa ramcters in defining the phenomenon, once aga in, 1eat expos ilion

and narrative alike, Shemaryahu Talrnon, in hb important article on

the phenomenon, discusses only narrative examples of resumptivc

repetition; 1hese instances a re not cited,

In rhe case of Exod 6;29-30, which, according [0Rashi, ;st:rve,~

rru.:r~ly to resume the nan-alive irucrrupted by the ge-nealogy of 0:13-

28, Nahmankles adopts a GJ..~H~stk stance, L1.singthe minute differ-

ences. in phraseology and order to disl lngulsh the two passages. He

a~~erts that 1lit: <l(TOU Ills of the: d ialogu e bet ween God and Moses

refer to different conversations, each one l'elkt-I ing it diffcrcru ;,;I;~ge

In the ongoing dialogue between rhern.!"

Nahrnanides' position requires clarification, since he does, in prin-

ciple, accept the existence of the technique of resumpi in~epetition

as linking larger narrative units (~f)o[)o[)ks~), It seems 10 me that there

are two consklerauons which Impelled Nahmanides to reject Raxhi's

suggested rusurnptive rcperitlon, each one congruent w it h concerns

Nahrna nides expresses elsewhere,

c'irst, as Nalunanldes himself note-s, are the diffncm:es in strurt urt'

between the lwo wh ich promoted the a vaila bll ilY of the casu ist i c: op-

tion, The thrust of the latter two verses is diffen.:nl. In the first, i\Jos.{:'s

claims 1 hat Pharaoh is hardly likely to listen to him since rhc Israelites

have not done s.o, and moreover, he has a speech trnpedlrnent. In 11wsecond, he only refers 10 1he latter, Add lo 1hts an omnistgiflcantlv-

trained sensitivity to repetition of all kinds and a disincllnarion to

attribute them to literary causes, unless absolutely necessary. TItus, in

contrast to the other 1WD cases, Na hman k.lt:~ had rna teria l fu r Clsuisti-

cal differentia: ion, and ample re:awn to exercise hi;,; «lstlisticJI talents

On ii,

A second f.Juur is the very existence of ~wn seP:U1HCpassages,

Nahrnankles seems reluctant to identify such PJ.%Jge~ J S referring 10

the same incident unless such identification is beyond doubt. For

examplc, in h1.-;comments on Exod _~2:1l, N~hma nide_~I~lk es issu c

with Ibn Ezra's identification of Moses' prayer for the errant Israelites

at Exod 32:11-13, before his descent from the mountain, with ihat at

32~31-32,afwr that descent, and, finally, with the parallel in Deut 9:2(1-



2R The Tomb U-MaddaJournal

2)), wh.ich is. quoted after the descent. Ibn Ezra claims (ad ExoJ .32:1nthat Moses prayed only OJKC, after his descent ami his extirpation of

the Calf. and tha t .,ein mubdam u-me 'ubar ba- Torab.~ "If it is all one

pmyf.:r. which he offered in the forty days after tbis return to the

rnou ntaill , why t~ nhj(~(1;<;Nahmanldcs, ~sliould it be divided [into two

sections], mentioning pa rt of it he re, and the ot he r p~ rt of it after the:

descent! Rather, they are two [separate] pmycr.;~_mJ he goes on to

dctail the d iffcrences between them,L}7 On the 01 her hanJ, C,en < 1 fl

and Ex()(1 1 clearly refer to the same descent to Egypt, Chronicles <mel

Ezm 10 the ~1me deuce of Cyrus, Num 1 to the sa me .lent of Meeting,

Thus, his rejection of Rashl's classification of Exod 0:29 -_1O as a rc-

sumptive repetition of 6:1-12 is based on lfw);t: two fat1ur.;: the dllfcr-Cnc'"CS between them, and the very fact of their division into two sep-

~rate pa s,sa~<:.~argue, accord ing to Nahmanid es, aga inst the 1 1 " identlfi-

cation,

Finally, we should note one Instance in which N<Jhm,lnldc~ implic-

itly accepts Rashi's recognjtion of Gen Y):1 as a resumptive repetition

uf _ , F , 6 . one which serves to carry forward the joseph story which

was interrupted by the Judah and Tamar interlude of Gen _iH. Nah-

ma nides makes no comment which, as noted above, u sua 11y indi-

cates his agreement with Rashi.l'" In this case, as opposed to that of"

Exod 6, Nahmarudcs' harrnonizailon of Gcn 37:.~nt which refers to

joseph's sale by the Mjdianil~s, with Gen 39:1, which refers 10 the

]shmae lites, obviates the need for GISU isrry, and the two verses rna y

1)(::identified as referring to the same incident.

Still, when <111 said and done, it is d~<Jr Ih:.U, asid~ from hls gell-

eral statement ad t < :x o d < I~ 9 t Nahmanides did not see fit to note each

ocrurence of resurnptlve repetition in its place, even when his prede-

cessors=-cluefl y ibn Ezra-had. Thus, Ihn Ezra notes. the res utnptionof l.ev Hi:"I"I by repct iion of 16: (1 ; Na b rna nick-s docs not. FL II hermore,

his discussion at the begi n rung of his commenta IY to Exod us is the

closest he comes to a programmatic sta tcmcnt ~nJ acknow lc-J_tlt:me nl

of the phenomenon, but one which hardly goes on to define Jus

position ots-a-ois resumptive repetit ion in the wa y he Ia id down hh

1I1o~lghH;' reg~udingasqueruiallty at Lev 16:1.

Nonetheless, he does not trou hl e (0 note othc rs, « uch a;'; NLIm

13: 17a as a resumption of 3a, 12:_:n of " J 2:25h, .~5:')a of 53:5a. L3')

One mort: faLl ()r rna y ha ve had some Influence. The frequency

with which Nahrnanklcs refers to Rashi Jus been noted. In this res-

peel, he stands close to lh<: growing tendency to make Ba,~hi'~~O1l1-

rncntary the ceruerplecc of bibhc a l exegesis, While attention to K<lshi

..vould not displace direct mvolvemeru with the hil ilical text for some

centuries, it is clea r tha t , to some ex tent a 1 least, Ra_~his progr~ In



YaakOl.' Elman

shaped that of N~bm<lnjdes., NOll:" thaI Nahmanidcs' general fonnub·

uon at cxod 4:9 "'"i!,~ sparked by Rashi's nudrashlc "excess," While we

em hardly hope 10 quantify such influence. il W:;!.~ clearly beginning

to he fell.Before ending lhi0 discussion, it i ; < ; necessary to consider Shemar-

yahu Talmon's assertion, ill hb ~rtide on resurnpi ive repetition.':" that

though the medieval ,Jewish commentators!" recognized this dcvire

and "dullned it rn terms which are surprisingly slmilar to, n:Jy, ide.nti-

cal with, the ones to w h lcb lmodern hi br icists such as 1 Wi ener and

Kuhl had rccourxe," Ihey were not Sy~ l ematic in the ir approac h.

Those traditional exegetes did so [recogniz« (h~· existence of the

device] ('11 passau t , in their sometimes hamH.)llblic attempts to ~xpl~ l inan obvious {I isconti nuiry in n;-lrrntivcs which Ihey d iscussed, But they

diu not sysre mati:t:r:"!Idr ud bee exegetical iTl~tghL~,JlJ thus L~nUI~I not

fnm~1I1,He an underlying pl'inci ple.' ~~

NaIirna n ides did not compose ; 1 gra mrnar wh ic : h w01l1 d se rve in

part the purposes ()f a poetics of biblicu t na rrat ive, < 1 S d id R~da k arid

1bn janah, he was presuma bly satisfl t~dwith what W;) S o avaib b le. But

he displays a consistent inrercsr in qllefoOt ions in vol \Iing se-q II enoe, in

several of us aspects, as wen a scnsitiv lry to stru ct ural problems, J.

number of which we shall examine below. If Nahrnanidcs' discus-

sions a rc not exha u stive Or sysh..:rna tk', this shou Id nul he seen to im-

ply ~ haphazard disregard for consistency, ] think ileu the discussion

to this point has al read y indicated <1 deep ly f~h, and COilS istcrul y ap-

plied, set~sibili.y and sensitivitv to matters or sequence, In the cornlng

sections. a ~imilar seusibiluy will he seen at work in matters of

d1rtmology, proportion a nil s, fUO U re .

IV

Sequential ily

The matter of rcsu mprive repetition i;<;inex t rica bly con n~""f.:tcdwi rl 1 , he

wider question of sequentialuy in l-l,cnt'mt. Nahmanides' gen~~r;11slate-

ment of his position was quoted above: in the -~riril of resurnptivc

repetition we wil] repen t it here,

In my opinion, the whole Torah Js in order, for in all places ill which i tpostpones lnarrat ing] the €al'lit"r [event j it ex pia ins Ithe n I , l l ' c : rl, as, for

example, ~(,()d srokt': IV Moses at Mount S in, i i" in t his book, r 01'1 ror

example, ~OTl (he day MOSC5 compl~.~J ~cuing up the Teru" in the

second book, a nd simi IJr t...es, That i5 why it st,I't'S here -after the

death," [() rel I U~ Ihm this occu rred immcdiatcl r aftc r ~he ir dear h,



3 0 Tbe Torab U-Madda Journal

In order to sustain hts view, Nahmanidcs must account for three

aspects of this a chronological seq uence: he must ex phi in the reason

for the departure, he must accou nt for it in te rmf) of h ls read ing of

the whol e To roih; and, finally, hi".:mu st ex plain why the Torah seems

to treat time differently in different sect iom;;_Th C ' flrst two questions

he addresses; the last he docs not. L·'3

Nahmanides' explanation for the lapse from chronological order

ha,~ already been noted; the Torah wishes to conclude jl.~ description

of the Tabernacle anJ the camp in the Wilderness before guing on to

other matters, just as Terah's death is recorded out of sequence in

Cen I I:32 in order to contlnu e wit h the story of !\bra ha rn,l . ~He does

not dcu lin Numbers with the second requ iremeru no' cd a bovc _But,as < 1 1ready rneru ioncd, N ~ hrnanidcs presents. the r o l l owlng < J rgu me rU

for rejecting KIshi's view that ein muledam u-me 'ubar ba-Torab. "In

my opinion, the whol e Torah is in order, for in ,III pl<l"e~ 1n W hieh it

postpones [narrating] the earlier [event] it explains [the matter], as, for

example, 'Cod spoke lo Mose-s at Mount Sinai' in this. book. , , ."L.i~

Note that while Nahrnanidcs scorns to refer to three verses as

proof of his coruenrlon, in reality they all refer to the same event, All

concern the thorny chronologica I and seque nt i < l l pro b Iern s ~LI rround-

in~ the narrative of the setting up of the Tabernacle. These include

the relationship of the dates ~I Fxod 10:2, Nurn 7:1, and the reference

to Mount Sinai in Leviticus 25, wblch comes W!I bill the lDng complex

or material dated from Adar 23 (sec below), when the Tabernacle

was first ;'Set up, rhrough Rush Hodcsh Nisan, when the Divine

Presence descended after the last setting up on rhe (~ighth clay of

Tabernacle dedication t.mtllu 'im), and on to I{o.sh Hodesh of rhe sec-

ond month, the achronologica I sections of NU III 1-9,

All three verses thus constitute one proof, and thus SCrVC as ~proof 1l=);I, a binyan tW, to establish the presumption IIiat "in all

places inwhich lthe Toruhl postpones lnarrating] the earlier leventl, it

explains lthe maucr!'' cxplicitly, and so we may assume that it is in

seq ucm ia I ordc r uriloss Ul hurw isc xpc clf ictl , Nme that whi lc

Nahmanides provides more than a dozen categories to account for

the sequence of discrete terms, hi~ f~\·orite solution to out-of-order

narrative Of exposition )5 0 the need to complete one. matter before

continuing on to another,

It is noteworthy, however thaI in lilb c~_~t:"his general statement

must be understood as. providing a contrast to I he C"dse ~I hand,

rather than an exemplum. ] Iere Nahrnanides wishes to stress that the

section following the "date of Lev 16: 1 is actually out-of-place, and

thai j t should be p rope dy be P Iaced bel ween Lev 10: 2.0 and Lev ll 1 .

This placement is thus an CXC(~pt10no his general rule of scqucntiali-



YaakooIibnan ~1

ry, and jt is worthwhile to examine why this b so, especially .~ince

here Ibn Ezra, H6 and perhaps Rash l, take the sections as hE:ing ;U'-

T"'<:mg~dequentially. Why then does Nahmanklcs seemingly depart

from his ac.customed position, precisely when Rashi lind [on Ezraconcede the point?

Nahmauldes ;<;igl1<llshis intent with his introductory comment: "In

all places in which it postpones r narranngl ,he earlier lcvcnr] it

explains [tlw mauerJ"-tba1 ls, it provides lnrontrovcrtihlc evidence

of ith departure from chronological order, as in the ca~(·, discussed

ahove, of Nu III 1:1 a I1d 9: L In th is cuse, the refcren cc to the d(::~Hs

of" Nadav arid Avihu serve Ihe same purpose, 1G:l dearly points to

the revelation which [ollows as dating to immediately after 1 hat tragic

incident, which i~ described in lev 10,L1.' This then is one of the

exceptions which proves the rule, by providing ~I"date," the Torah

signals its departure- from the expected order, In a sense, therefore,

the inl ervening sectlons have been placed between cl lapl ers 10 and

16 for the usual expositional purposes,

'111e problematic c a ses are those in which both the needs of l:XpO-

sitional pr'ose and omnisign lficance are riot rlearlv served. And

although these cast's remain to an extern proble-matic, tht:y shed light

on the parameters of Nahmankles' exegetical stan re ,Tne most extensive. and intensely argued case of chronologjcal Se-

quence is that surrounding the inaugural week of the- ,~:Jnificjat ser-

vice desc-ribed in ExoJ 29. 10, tel,' 1, and Num 1-9. W'hile the hLige

block of Pentateuchal exposition bracketed by Exod ·10 and Nurn ~

are a Il dated wl Lbln t he week of 1-7 1\ j _~~111of the second YC; l r from the

Exodus, the <:x~H1 d<lling of particular segments remains unclear, and

thus became matters of contention between l{asl!i and Nahmanides.

Here are the dates n:J~btefedwithin these texts, together wuh

other markets of signiflrance,

p~

Exod 29: I

hod 39:<l

Date/Setting

~md!:,!eTITl in ed

IIndeterrni ..ed

hod 39: 17 ]/XI~!.2

Elro d 41 );2 J!1l.ev I: t

Lev 8:1

Tent

~wndard, '0 'IIndctermmerl

1.e~' 9;'1

Lev 16: 1

eighth d ay

after de;u h of

Aaron's sons

at Mount Sina iev ~5:1

Contentmstructions for tl It· inaugu ral S.1 [~riIkcsinstructions fo~ ~[fiTl~ lip the Taberrmr!e

nrl 1/1

description of the sen ing up

command to set IIPdescriptions of the ~aC1'.fic.i:l1 rites

8:2-3 tnsrnutions for inaugural

sacri ficesH:4-.'l{i descrlpuon of in;mgllr;ll t>.a{"finc~:s

climax of inaugural and death of Aaron's sons

Yom Kippur rue

SJ b lY . .tic... ra nd ju b ik e yt::MS



32

Nullt [;l

Num 7:1

Date/Setting Contenf

reference to

M ou nt Sina i ; , I I d~>S t= { > f l~ :lo nk o f L ev itic us

2/1/2 orga nization of census and < : : . .mp

day of completingTabernacle setup,

and following in.augHr . .1gif[s of tribes

l.!X]";l'.!2 P~aJ.l Sheni

day of setu r activ itie s of the CIOll J s urr ou n d iT lJ ol:1he

Tabernacle

Pa<;!'Iage

IA.~V 26;J4

Num 9:1

Nurn 9;lS

N;1hma 1 1 ides fan~d four cru ccs in dCJ ling wit h the chronology of

this material. The fi rst j nvolvcs I I I c exact rc lation of Exod 40: 2, 40~] 7and Le v 9: I: the second involved t he exact J~L(: uf lev 8:2; the lhi rd,

w hie h will not be dea It with in Ih is sed ion, involves the re lation of

r L"V 2'5:1 to t he rest of Lcviticu s and the events of Ihe second ha If of

Exodus; and the fourth. which was discussed above, involves 1 he or-

der of Num ];1 and 9:1,

In rru rh, only !h~ l<lsl two of IIWSE: xccrn dctermi ned by the biblica I

text, The first texts seem to proceed in reasonably chronological or-

dcr, the second actually involves only two verses, which m<JYbe re-

~prded <is lntroductory to the section as a whole,

I lowever, the introduction of .. midrashirally added week W the

proceedings, a tradition which :'\Iahmanides felt unable to di~rq~:.lfd

as he had that reg a rding !he d~n:mology of rhc flood, I~l led to a com-

plicated reconstruction of those seci ion~ de<lling with the scttinj; up

of the Tabernacle and the inauguration of the S;1('fifki;!1 order < 1 1 1 d

priesthood ,

The reason for this insertion of an extra week is as follows, Sifra

poinl~ 10 an flpr~H:n1 nm~r<u..liCli()n between Exodus. 'Wand Num9;15, 0 n Ihe one hand, ;md r .(~v 9;1 on Ihe oihr: r, Ac-cnrdi ng [01he

formcr, the Di vine Prcsc nee dcsce nded on the 'I'a be rn a cl e on 1

Nisan, ......en Lh(:"Tabernacle W~~ set up; according to the bluer, this

occurred on the "eighth day," presumably the eighth (by of Ih~~Ta-

bernacle dedication (m illu 'iin), which presu rnabl y be ga n on 1 Nisa n:

accoruingly, Lev 9:1 seems to dale the dcsceru of the Divine Presence

to 8 Nisan, a week later, ·111erabbinic solution is to interpose a week

between the instructions of Exod L 9. 40:1-16 and the flOn] day of the

inaugural rites, the dg1uh day of Lev 9:1, !hus ideruifylng the events

of E.xod 40: 17-38, and ~srn:b11 liledescent of the Divine Presence

mentioned in 10:3H, with Lev 9:1 and Num 9:15_ Thus, xlncc the date

of ExoJ _W:2 b, slriclly speaking, undetermined, ~jnn~ 11u:only date

given j~ the dare [or setting up the Tubcrnaclc, thic-;section com and ls

set b..ck a week, h) 23 Adur, The intervcnlng week WJS, according to



Yaakov Plman

rabbinic tradition, devoted to erecting and dbm;mtling the Tabernacle

SoOas 1U give Ihe Levite s so uffic i enl pra cttce in accom pl j.~h lng lhese

tasks.

However, once this week i.~made part of the narrative structure ofthese portions of Exodus, r .eviticu s and Numbers, some of the undat-

ed sections within them become the ~uhjcct of debate. 111is is partic-

ularly true of Lev B:2-3, which, according to Nahmanidcs, is . 10 be

dated to 1 Nisan, and ls 1 hus in place, while according to Rashi it was

gi ven on 25 Ad a r, a long with the relevant M':CI i{)n.~of Exodu s.

Nahmanides suggests that its placement here reflects the need [0

urge diligence on tlexarez) Aaron immediately before the inil i;uion of

the rites he was to perform, However, this proposal, a~ innocuous as

it sounds, contlicr» with two principles he- C:;'i.p(m~~ elsewhere, In his

introdurt ion to Deuteronomy, Nahmanidcx (-~xpl~~inshe lack of sac-

riticial laws in that book by noting that priests require no urging ill

the fulfillmeru of Ihc-ir dut ies. Beyond tha t is the qLI(:~[ jon of w11y

these verses have been separated from Iheir n~Hra l pla ce a long w ith

Exod 40:2-16 0 Ex.od 29, which is where they would have lx-cn

placed had the IK"L-·ds of d~l r ex poshion been pa ramouru. r ndeed,

Nalnnanldcs himself notes the anomaly of scparatlng a coherent sec-

tion into two part~·SlAs 10 1he first problem, the rule that "priests ;!W diligent" cannot

apply before their induction into the priesthood. I;~ s to the rna tter of

separating the instructions regarding the inauguration of the Taber-

uacle and the sacrificial service il1lo two sections. this is hardlv the

case here, where, as Nahma nides himself notes, R : 2 j.~ merely a repe-

ritlon of various parts of Exod 29, and is me-am as "encouragement at

Ihe Ime of fulfillment" tzeruz bt-sb 'at ma 'aseb).

The next \TrSC, 8:3, which has no parallel in Exnd 29, dlLI0 be-

comes subject to the objection Nahmanides raised ag;jill~t Rashi's dat-

ing. If H:_ , really bd ()ng..~ in Exod 29, why is it not there" The answer

Na hma n ides g: iV~~0.Ih,1! th e ga thering of the congregation a l !u: en-

trance of the Tabernacle was Jnrcndcd W give due publicity to

Aaron's induction into the priesthood, cannot serve, for that [unction

WOIS served by the rites described in chapter 29. The question then

recurs: why not place it there? If 8:) b 01supplementary expansion to

6:2, why then fTl:.ly EIl~ jn~Huctionsregarding Aaron's inaLlgur.-Hion be

spread over two and more passages, since the principle of sequcn-tiality, 10 which N ..hrnanldes holds with such tcnachy, m<J.Yon occa-

;<;10n be o....ercome for the needs of a coherent exposition?' YL

To understand why, we mu,...l turn 10 another principle enunciated

by Nahmanides in another discussion of the importance of the Taber-

nacle.



1be 'jorah U-MtJ.dd{~f)lJ rnal

v

Proportion

Nalunanides' sensitivity to structural concerns carries over to another

real m: that of proportion. l~SFor I.:X .ample, in his comme nts 0 n F . x()J

_~7:R,he enumerates the five-fold appearance of descriptions of the

Tabernacle in Exod 25-3U and 35-40 and <}.~niht:;'; them to the Taber-

nacle's importance to God (derekJJ btbbat» ue-Jerekh ma 'aiab), ex-

plicitly comparing it to 1·:;Iie7_(,~r·f>e-telling of his journey to Padan

Ararn in Genesis 24. He quores Ihe- mldrashic statement q ue H E . . : U

above:

The conversation of the servants ol lhe Pil t ri ,jn'ha I house ho IJ~ arc

more pleasing to God t l m T l Itw Torah ()f their descendants. lor the sec-

lion (J~I<lilingl Eliezerl';s journey takes] three or [our C(:lhJlnn.~lof textl

while [the Important rule] dm the blood of ;i ldcadl creeping llltng

causes ritual impurity L~derived from one lclt~r';':'

By contrast, in both cases Abarbanel opts tor }} technical, cxpan-

slonary-explanatory rather than a global solution; the repetii ion of the

account of the Tabernacle's construction, which follows the wording,

hut not the order, of God's instnl('! ions lO Mo.scs, is intended to

prov~~ rhat It was constructed according to speciflcat ion bUI not in IILC

order given. Abarbanel's preferred solution fur repetition is the time-

honored talmudic xerikbuta, a type of harmonization.

At limes this develops into a consistent ~~xcge[ka! account of the

slrnllarlrics anJ differences between duplicate passages, as in Elie7.er's

account of his journey 10 Lal.xm and Bcthucl, Abarbancl suggests thatus minute variations are intended to demonstr are EHe7.er\ wisdom 10

"rhe narioris and the nobles" (ba-'amtm m-ba-sarim-non-Jewis.h

readersr), the fmer polnh of Ellczcr's mastery of the arts of negotia-

tion, and presumably to teach us all something of these arts.'?"

A lX l rbancl, sta tcsma n to the core, dearly revea Is mu ch of hi rnself

in this. "diplornatlsi" lrucrprcration of this convcrsatiou, 1iere and else-

where, however, he never asks himself why Ilwsl: rnauers should

corisume dozens of verses in an o.nnisiflnifk:lnl Torah in which

every letter is wdghed. Wby divide Mo.sc;·s convcrsai i e m with Cod

into two two-verse packets. even though one may supplement the

olher?l>ll Though Raxhi provides. a "literary" soluuon to this problem.

Abarb anel ignores it entirely. ln his preference r o r (~a~ui~[ica] inter-pretations, if at all possible, he clearly fulfills the ornntsigruflcaru

mandate-kol beikha de-tea temtdrasb. . . .



Yaakor/ F.tman 3 S

Thus, Abarbancl's search for casuist k distinctions in accountlng tor

narrative repcuuons runs afoul of the usual failing of such attempts;

he loses sight of Ihe relative moral and relighUl~ weight of 1 he les-

sons he draws from these du plications. Should t he Tor}!h devote six-teen veTS1: , ;"So a reprise of Eliezer's expcrlenre at the well in order to

h.:ach us how to ncgotiare, or to praise his prowess ill such 1l1<111<:r.: ;,

or is t his, as Nahrnanide s W Qu ld 11ave it I an ex P rcssion of IIH: N< l r-

rater's concern with this sLlbjecel:A

Nahrnanldes' keen sense of proportion shows itself in lhn;e mat-

rcrs, and he will inquire as to why Scripture devotes more or less ;.H-

tention than he deems propE:r 10 one or ;HUl~her matter, In the cases

jllst discussed, his soluuon, which rclau:x importance to repetirion,

provides a more global answer, though one not less omnislgnificaruly

oriented. A.~ noted above, for Nahmanides, tlu: number of repe-l i t ioris

1 1 topic receives tcsrifies to that topic's importance. But this solution

LoO is not without il~ problems, Why no~ make this hnp: )rtar)ce felt in

a more ef fidc. .:nl manner? '? "

This. of (:0 II rse, goes to the Ix-art of the narrai ivi ~ en terprisc, tlx:

question of why the Torah chooses the genre: of n:Jrrarive to serve as

the frame and provide much of the content of God's rc v clailon, Any

concern with historical data, whether narrative, genealogical or 01herlyres of list, is genef""..lllyviewed by the commentator">. f()llowing mid-

rashic preccdcru , as an exprcsxiort of God's love ~Ind concern

(hibhah) for every ~SpC'L1of Israel's spiritual and material well-being.

Rerurnlng. then, to the function of Lev fU· 3 within the cUHlpkx of

sections devoted 10 Aaron's induct inn into the priesthood, we may

note that Nahrnankles in his comments to H:2 refers 10 the ma 'alab

and hibbah of Aaron and hi~ sons "before God" -the same words he

used in bi~comment regarding the Tabernacle in Exou 37:1.

Th i~ ~hor t section then k; pa rt of the f i vc- fold ,~(~les of repcti rions,in general and in pan lrular, which Nahmanides mentions in his com-

merits on F ; > : ; ( l . : J 37:8. There his enumeration includes. 1, d H ~ detniled

instruct ions of Parasbat Terumab, 2. the gent:"flIl summation of Exod

_ : ; n :6-11, 3. ~at the time- of construction (bi-sbeat ma'aseb) bt: men-

Honed them ill general terms."?' IU r.~ud 35:10: 4. ~Lderailed cxposl-

tion "which is missing in the TUr<J!I,but certainly \1o~es had to reB

the skilled craftsmen who carried out the work" what needed to be

done in d eta i! at the Ime t he w ork com men red, and 5 . f h e gc ne ra lsummation of the work done in Exod 35:),11'0 2 Mm afi .. mutandem, the:

deta i(:(J ex .position missi rlg in Ihe ·1orah ITl~y f j rid its ana 10gu t: in Lev

R:2-j. not for the construction of the Tabernacle, but for il~ dedira-

tion. In any case, this short section is part of the: Jal}jcr complex

which serves lo emphasize the imporranr'e of this project to God's



3 6 The Torah U-Madda Journal

plan of restoring the: spiritual fortunes of the Israelites, 16.~ which is

akin to the duplications of the story of Eleazar's geUin/l a wife for

Isaac, a mission which would determine the destiny of rhc Israelitenal ion to be, which Nahmanides also men t io ns in th is connection. l(,-i

Thus, once aga in , a ~ in Ihe E l iezer na rra ti ve, the importance of lhe

matter is in dirn1 proportion to the number of rcpctitluns i, warrants,

J mporra nee need not he mea sured on < I cosrn ic scale _ For exam-

ple, the twelve-fold enumeration of the dedication offcring..~ of the

princes, each one identic aIwuh the other. is an index of the lmpor-

1 ance of each prince. Why not, ash Nahrnun ides, summa rize a II bu I

the firs.t?

The correct understanding of this passage is that the Holy One, blessed

he He, wished to give honor to those who f~;'T Hlm, , , . Behold. the

princes all brought Ihis {)1T~~ri~gHpon which they had agreed, on oneday, and it is impossible but that one must precede his fellow .. - .I~~

BUI [Gud] wished to mention them by name and lprescml their ollcr-

lngs iii detad, mentioning each one's Jay separately, ~Hldn(Jt In men-

tion and honor the firSl-"lhis is the offering of Nahshon son of

Amitl~rla\'~-and then stale: "and thus the prmcvs, ~~;I~'hone on hi.~

day. brought lhis offering]," for this woulrl il~ftingeon the honor of the

others (ki;+Ur bi-khetxui ba-abenni). 1 & 6

TIU]0. rhc importance of proportion is also related to th(~ r"<lbbink

concern wit h repcthion_Here the imposslbilitr of giving each tribill

hea d his proper due wit hin , I Iwei ve-da r ccrcrnon y impelled a long

and repetitious account of the oFkrinH~- In con' [ " " " . 1 ; < ; 1 W hb usual pmc-

lice, Na hmanides negat es the sign inca rx:e prioril y b LI.~ual givcn I)y

balaru.mg that with the equal treatment accorded each offering, In

,his (~~~C, P["(pOT1hm C( suruers seq ucnce.The role of proport ion or re petition In indicat j ng iruensit v , Ipre.] rs

in his comments on [ega [ passages as well. to most cases, repetition

serves as an alternate me ans, a 1011g..~k le priori 1y in .~t:qut:nee, of j ndi-

eating relative irnporta nee, A heinou s sin will be me nl ion ~d before ..

less heinous one, as noted above; 1(,' likew ise, a heinous sin w ill be

mentioned more often. nH1~ ,the probibuion, Once again, of idolatry

in Exod 23:24 prompts this comment: "The TOrJ.h repeatedly vvarns

f;l!{ainfoOlidolatry], and even though these verses are redundant (me-

yuuariri), there is no [need] to he' concerned with this.'!" because of

the severity lo f the sin of idola tr y 1,.Proportion, or repetitiveness, serves other functions which the

classic rah hlnic system did not necessarily ~cknow ledge. In his com-

rneru t > ro l A . . " V 2 6 :8 , Na hm an jd(,~0 ex pla in~ t he pO Imil cl istic S lTU ct ure of

26~7-H (AilA'A"B)lf~ as occasioned by the need "to give them r m the



YaakolJ Flman 37

Israel i resl courage a nd va lor to pu rsue five hu no red." Th e need to

e ncourage and condole provided a roil ionale for jux1 apositions wh it:h

were otherwise dlfflcult to explain, as in his remarks regarding the

placement of the section on drink-offerings in Num 15, Since drink-of Icrlngs, like the additional festal sacriflccs of Num ZH-29, were to

I)(,~brought only in the land of Jsracl, the giving of this section after

the debacle of she spies episode served '·to console [hem and to rcas-

sure them (lehavti};lam), since they were discouraged, sJ,'ing: 'Who

knows what will lx- ..fter forty years" __ , , And therefore the Holy

One, blessed t J o 1 : : He, saVI' nr to console them, for hy insl nwti ng them

regarding: the mizuot which depend on [rcxidcnce] in the land H(~

rca ssu red f hem t11a l it was reve a1ed before Him tha t [hey ""'"0l11d

come and take possession of it."?"

As noted »bove, Nahmanides' sense of proportion kd him to in-

quire into either the len~th to which Scrip1 L1r~ dilated on various

polrus, or even into why the passage was included in the Pcnrau-uch

altogether, Al 1imes, the dispropori lonnte amount of ancmion ~ par-

ticular maunr garners in Scripture leads Nahmanidcs It)prefer a typo-

logkal Interpretation for the narrative. Thus, hb well known discus-

sion in his commentary w Gen 27:Z0 regarding rhe disputes. between

Isaac and the Philistines anent the wells Isaac had dug, opens withthe lnqulry: "Scripture dwells ;u length in regard 10 the matter of tlu:

wei Is. though there h no [moral] utility nor g~<ll honor to Isaac ill

the plain sense of this. narrative hut there is In this thing iI hidden

matter, for it comes to inform [us] of future matters." ·1hus, the very

na rra five of such apparcru ln consequ entia ls im p:1 rts a dee per mea n-

Ing to the story. Pl

ConvCTIM:: ly , his senseof proportion phiys a centraI roh; in hb dis-

agreement with Rushtover the identity of the ~king in Israel" men

tloned in Gcn .~6:3"J in connection with Ihe "k ings of Edom whoreigned before a king reigned for the children of Jsrael. ~ Rashi identi-

fi~s the king as Saul, and tlHJ;'; c<1tegorizes the paS:;.agt~ ~I~ a prophetic

~futu rc hb1 ory," whi lc Nahmanidcs ide: n Iifk~~ lhis IInna med k in,tl wi t b

MO~t:;';, and t hus sees it as history p Ia j n a I1d s.lmple: I lis. reason i ~ t ha t

"why should prophecy mention these?" ]11 other words, 1hough it is

important to fist these kinX;,; as evidence of the r!lll1llrnCl1l of Isaac's

1}k~~jJ1g IU J~sall,such < In intention b not sufficient reason for provid-

ing a prophetic history. Nahrnanides's sense of proportion thus pru-

dJc~ us with a f>{}1"1 of" law of Conservation of Prophetic Enc ..... - .' Y _ ~ m

In the same vein. Nahrnanldes will inquire into tlu: re!,50n for the

repeat ing of inforrnation aIready give n, ~s in h i~ com men t to NIIm

10; 14, where the list of 1 he trlbal princes, already provided in chapter

2, arouses his inter(~~t. His quasi-casuisrlc explanation. rhat this rcpeti-



The Torah tt-Madda faun/at

non informs us that they actually led Ihe ,rlbcs un their march

thrall gh t he w lldcrness, and that the sa me prince;'; rcrna ined in office

throughout thi~ period, seems to have been unsat bbclury to him,

since he: prefaces it wi th a "perhaps."!"

VI

Scqw;nce as SeH.Yalidatlng

One insta nee, whose hrevit Y is in inverse proportion to its impor-

tance in understanding rhc relation of sequentinliry and omnbignifl-

cancc in Nahmanldes' ext~gc!ic~ I J rk-rarcby, is the descr lpi ion of

J<lcob·s ~:rn~;,;inJi of the jabbok in Gen 32: 23-21_ Unfortunately, the

standard edil ions of Nalnnanides' commentary, both Ihal of M.Z.

Eisenstadt and of C. Chavel, m is int erprct the thru st of Nahrnan kk~s'

rcrnarks,

111C hiblleal text reads:

en) 1Ie rose during that night, wuk his rolf) wives and his two hand-

maidens, and his eleven children, and crossed over ttw );-Ihbol.: ford.

(24) He took them, and brought them over rne stream, and brought

OvC1' t h 8 f which was h is,

Nahmanides comments:

There is no seq ll~~Tl1;11 [In'kr to rhi~ verse jnsofar as "saving" is con-

cerned : rather it states tha L he g~Hher t. . '"4 . .1ib wive-s ;,l nd hi~ hand maidens

and his children to rhe bank ()f the stream.!" lrhcnl he himself uO~~('li

over the Jahhok ford alone to determine whether Ih~ w.uer W;lS ltool

high [fr)r Pli~~I~d(v. 23)- [Then] he returned and took all of rhcm !u-~l:thcr with him and brought them over the stream {".. 2-i) . and alter

that he brought over that which was his, b is c~mp ~nd possessions.

tsoth verses record . J < I cob' s crossi Ilg of 'he JIbbok ford together

with his family. and it is this duplication which prompts Nahmanldes'

remark, not the djfter~nu~ in the order of WhT~ and children in 32:23

and 33:2. j lowever, he seems ~.lIhfkd with M:lling these verse:'> in

narrative order. In this case, the question of proportion whicl ~he rais-

~~~in 01her contexts. as in E.xod 37:8, Lev H:2, < I nJ NIIm 27:9, habsent here, WJ.y is this incident important enough to warrant two

verses to describe in minute detail the order of the Ja('ob'~ fording of

the J O J hhok? Nahmanides does not say.

Not 1hal he was without possibilities, for eH Inplc, 1ic COlild e<lsilv

have derived < l moral lesson frum 11Lt f"~Hl:which jacob lavisbed on



Yaakov Elma n _W

insuring the safety of his loved ones, leaving nothing to chance.">

I I .pparently , however, determining nan-alive scqucnttallty may serve

as an end in usel], without reference to broader questions of ornnisig-

nificil nee, 1n this case, Nahrna nides' reticence reflects the olde r viewof Scripture as self-validating. JM This view finds. its cxprcsslon in

Rashi's note 10 Lev 12:8, to which Nahmarudes offers no objection.

As noted above, Lev 12:Rgives the sacrifices incumbent on a par-

turicnt mother as ~two turtledoves or two doves, one for a burnt

offering and one for a sin-otferi ng." Til is is in contrast to the LlSU;:!]

order of sacrifices in such listings, wbere the sin-offering Is men-

lioned first, l77 In particular, Lev 5:8 serves Rashl, < 1 ; < ; it did for 5'ifra

and the Bauit, n as .. binyau au for ~It matters of prcccclence

between Ihese ~'O offerings. H C " sra res:

"He shall bring that which is for a sill-offering nr.;t." a sin -offeri rig pn,~

cedes ;1 burnt-offering. To wh~1may this he comp';lrt"{l? To a defense

attorney who entered [ihc courtroom] to pleud fur his client; (he

defense attorney pleads, and the gift flo the judgcl comes 8fter,

So the gem.:ml rule, Lev 12:H is an C"XC(~r! ion, and Rashi, following

L e t , o a i ? t In 90a, rc rna rks on it.

"One as a burnt ..offering and un~ us ~ sin-offering." The V(::T~~ placed

[the burnt-offeringl Iirsi only for [the purposes oil reading [the Torah

scroll] (mrkm.), 17 9 but as to [the order o n ~)ITering Ithe sacrtfleesl, th~

sin -offcring precedes t he IJUrnLoffcring: ;';.0 have W~~ learned in /...eva-

}~~m,n IIK· chapter "Kot ha- Tad ir [8 ')b-9G-.d . ~

TO....:Jfot, ad ioc., already raise [he question of the poinl of Ihis,tfil

sinee a1 1 of the Tom h is lmended for that purpose. N(~t her here nor

regmd ing 5:8 does Nahrnanidcs address Ihe qu estion of p nxcc lc nee,presumably agreeing with Raxhl on this matrer."" Could this be J

reflex. of 1 he f~d.ng that a biblical text b self-justifying? Or is l his

merely another way of implying , h;J! "wherever we can expound

rnldrashically we dO"-bm when W~ cannot, we simply J(:"~i~l?j~~

Or, perhaps, did Nahrnariides discern a "secret of the Torah"

regarding which he decided to remnin silent? Did he understand

mMmz as referring to the names of Gut! which constltuted the text uf

the Torah, as he asserts in the Jntroduction To his commcnlary}I~~

One other unaU::DU rucd for departure from seq uentialitY requin::~

comment. Nahman ides rejects tJ1c idcnt illGIl ion of Exod 20: 1'5-18,

which seem to describe lhe reaction of the- Israelites 10 the revelation

a t Sinai, wi, h Deut 5~20-22, a nd dates these verses a~q uentia IIy to

before 1 he giving of the Ten Commandments. In contrast, lu: explains



40 The Torah U-/lJaddajournu./

the omission of Oe~H 5:22 from the Exodus account on the grounds

that Scripture "wished to explaln the mtzuo: and misbpatim in order

( be-seder ). " But if so, the d~pm1urc from scquentia I order, which re-

qLlirt:s that Exod 20:15-1H be placed before the Ten C.ommanJrnenls,

is a ll t he more inc xplk.ablc, sinee if it had been placed in its proper

sequeutra I order, the narrative could ha \/1,; ~mkd with t he Ten

Cornman drnerus, and Scripture could have proceeded ID il;o; ex p (ana-

lion of mizuo: lmmedlarely thereafter, Here, then, Nahrnanldes not

onl y interprets this pa ssage ;lg<lin,~! h is own .tlenenl 1 princi pie, btu

does S oD when his own exegetical tradition <IrgueJ for sequential

order. Coul d ilbe that, hav in~ partial] j' conceded the asequen IbI na-

ture of the jethro narrative in his comments to Exod ]8:12, ~H It~aSIhypothetically, he despaired of providing a thorough-going sequen-

1 ially-riricrucd reading for the narrative? Or is 1 he bel that he docs

not really hit his srrlde, methodologically speaking, until after this

point, sigrufica nt? After < 1 1 1 , h i~ programmatic statements on t h i s issue

arc mostly confined to Ius commentaries on Leviticus and Numbers.

Ts.k~II haVI.: more to s~]' on this below.

SE.-""(Iucntiality a..Pe.~bul

In several instances, Nahmanides rejects Rashl's re-arrangement of < I

pa;o;sagt: because such :,t reconstruction departs from the requirements

of a pesbat interpretation. The most ~trikin~ of Ihcsc involve the

chronology of the Flood, the order of elemen ts j n 1he dcscrl P' ion of

the process of purifying a house of scale disease. and the puriflcatorv

rilual of Yom KippLi r,

The latter lWO passages contain tk',likd de~:Tip[io!l.~of rituals of

some duration which assume ~ narrative character. and, in both,Rashl feels compelled LO n.:TTl()V(~ ~ verse [rom 11Le: [low of the narra-

tive in order to preserve what he consiclers to be the proper

st_'qu{:"nce_

Eilch of these bear strongly on the question of sequennal ity,

though in different ways, As we shall see, however. in traditional

terms, but ,lIypic<llly, ~ach involves tbe authority or rnidrashic excgf,;-

sis 10 rest ructure a long passage ra rher t han the more usu a I m idrashic

context bounded by a verse or verset,

First, let us examine the matter of the d,II~~S (:omained within tlx:

sc 1 l-coruaincd Flood na rrati vc. Rashi forc€~ each dal e into the f rarnc

work demanded by the midrasluc statement that tl ~e l'lood lasted J

year_lll- ' i To do so, he interprets "the: seventh month" of Gen H:4 as

';the severn h morn h from K islcv, j n wh lch the ra j n ceased." l~$ A,~ ~

consequence, he musi <a id the 150 days during which the floodwa-



Yaah:w Elman 41

u:rs receded !0 !he forty days of the Flood proper rat her IIian ta ki ng

the entire 150 day period as including the fUr1y days during which

the rains [ell.

This, is problematic, since the date of the beginning of the fortydays is the seventeenth day of the second month (2/17), and the end

of the 150-day period is thus the seventccni b day of the seventh

month (7/17). Nalunanldes, assuming months of thirty days each, cal

culates the 150 days as beginning 2 1 J 7, wlrh the start of the F loc x l,

and ending 7/17,11":\ Morcover, he nOL<:0 tha t in order ro SU S l ~ in his

interpret ~Hon, Ras him u st conti nua lIy changc Ihe da ting ~yst em in

'1-5-e , raking ti l c: da te given in 7: 11 as refcrri ng to sta r1 of the Flood,

that of H:1 to the end of ibe rain, lind rhat of H:5 (the very ncxi

verset) Once again to the starr of the Plood.""

Nahmanides himself interprets ~II dares as rderring to the same

em (- Noah's life, < IS is evident from 7~11188), a procedure mort' in

keeping with d1C' plain meaning of the text. ltl'l

There is . more involved here than the use of a midrash, however,

for the positions taken by Rash: and Nahmanidcs here reflect their

,~C"n.~cf narratl ve lime. Since R~.~h f does not ex peer seq tIeru b I order,

he is not dismayed when successive dates ill the same "as~;1ge refer

lO dlfferent M~lftlng poirus, N~Jrnanides i~ much more conoerned in

providing ~l unitary reading of the sequence,

Once: ~W l in, as in the CIse of the ch ron ology of •he ' 1 ' ; ) bernaclc

erection and dcdlcatlon, Hashi's invocation (implidl though it be) of

ein mukdam is compelled by rnldrashic considerations. However,

wh lle that of 1 he Tabernacle ultimately sterns from I I true: exegetical

problem, here the midrashic assumption which Rafohi brings to his I"C-

structuring of the dating system of the }-100d is essen:i<llly extrano )U$

10 the passage at hand, In any event. Nahmanides rejects b( )Ih the' as-

sumption (,JS applied In ihe Hood, at any rate) and Ilw restructuring.Rashi's interpretation of Lev 14:33-57 goc:s beyond his n.srrurturing

of the Flood's dates; it constitutes a GiS(~ill which Rashi allows. mid-

r~.~hk' COilS iderat ion~ to govern 1he very order or ve rses. As we sh aIl

see. here he bases himself a J most exclusi ve1y 011 the- Sifra.

Tn regard to sea lc d lsease (or fu n~us) aff ectl n~ hou ses, Ley 1 r J

seems ro allow for < IT least two way s in which such < l fungus m}ly

c;·mSl· ritu a I jmpurn y: by spreadi ng (v, 11) or by recu rrjng aftc r the al-

tectcd Mones have been removed and replaced (v, 43)- Ostensibly,

Rashi is concerned with the relative importance of these lWC) boors

which gOVc-rll the same ca~c, In actuality, that is not [he issue at all,

as He'er Yiz~mk recognized, J%

Sifra« concern is to systematize the WlriOUS dt:m~~111Swhich ~mTl

scale disease into a cohesive whole, ·111tlS. each possibillry must be



42 I be n.,.,Tlh U~MaddaJournal

gi ven its due, and provided with ,W OUIcome _ Either the eruptiori

spreads, remains unchanged. dlminlshes, or recurs after the affected

stones have been removed and replaccd=-durfng one. two or even

three weeks of qua ra rl l inc, F.a{2 of these possib i iii lcs b raised withi n

this passage, with the exception of the third ("diminjs~!ing~) which is

imported from an earlier rJ.~sJ_,ge 0[1 scale disease JS it affects gar-

rnents.'?'

Rashi's essential concern is not with systematlzatlon, however;

rather, he ..dapts part of the Sifrds analysls in order to restructure the

passage so as to deal with a case in which lhe eruption did not

spre ..d ci thcr during the first or second weeks. of qua rantinc_ l J . y a

series of g~'z"(!rotsbatot and a mi'ut, Stfra provides an ;Ul~WCr to thisquestion: if the funflw; rccu rs, the house must be d ismantled i i f it

docs not, it must be pu rificd. This solution, however, comes at the

expense of removing 14:44 from ils place before 45, since in ilS Cur-

rent location il iOlpHcs that if the eruption spreads after Ihe fir0l

week. the house must be dismantled. Sifra has extended (by means

of W ': ze ro J s b ao o t; <lone week process to one as long as three weeks

before the house must be dismantled. The verse must therefore be

displaced, 10 [ollow Y. 47_

Hrst ROI~hiPo.s(:s the question of the relauvc strength of "spread-ing" and "recurrence."

44. 'The priest shan come and ~(:e, <Andbehold, the eruption has

spread in the house." Perhaps Ian eruption] which returns b Tlu' un-

clean unless it spreads?

Following Sifra, H.ashjdetermines the- lrrclcvance of "spreading" by

means of a gezerab sbauah involving the phrase zara ' (4 ( mum 'eret,

which appears here and in 13:51 reg~uding tbc discoloration affectinggarmenl s. Rashi ti l us can now employ ]4:44 For IIb rcaI purpose, that

of ferreting out the proper COUTSf.: of action for an eruption which

rem a ins u nc ha nged ,If so, why does the verse say, "and behold, i t spread'?

This is not the place of this verse, !JUL "and he .~h~.11dismantle the

house" (v. 45 ) should have been written after ~;lnd if the emption re-

turn" (v, 4 3 - ) . "And the priest shall come and sec" (v_ 44), therefore

comes to teach only regardi ng Jn eruption whkh l-ema ins 11nchanged

in his sight during the f 1 N week for 'lu;:ua.-.t i11 ~1, and he comes .11 the

end of the second week and finds that it spread.

For previoll~ly the Torah did not explain anything rq.prdiIlJoo:la easel in

which lthe eruptionl n:;mairl~d [unchauged] in lns sight during ttl~~ fir~1

week-and it teaches you here ill regard Lo this ~pT~;~ding, that i.



Yaakov Elman

speaks only ~g<lfuing [an eruption] which remained unchanged dHring

the fij~t ami spread during the second,

Wll;! L shou Id he do w it h il?

Perhaps he dismantles it, as [Ia id down hy the verse] ad jacenr to it:

~:'!Il(l he shall dism:mlle rhe house" (v. 45)? The verse ~yl;; "and Itw

priest sh~lI return' (v. 39), ~;lnJ the priest shall (ume" (v. +n .

We learn "corning" from "returning." jUM 8S Hn l "rcuuning" he: T~lIlflV~·~

[the affected stones] and scrapes and plasters and givos it another

week, so [in regard tol ~~onlin~(e removes [.IIt.;"affected stonesl and

sera pes and plasters and gives ir another wee k-if it returns he dis-

mantles; if lr does not return, [the housel i~ IrilHally 1 pure.

The question of what to do with an eruption which remains un-

changed for tuo weeks. then arises. Continuing liis reprise of ,}'ifrd~

analysis, and building on the forciluin~, Rashi determines, again by

mea ns of ~ez(]ruh sbauah involv ing vss, q4 (" he shall come") a nd qH

C'and jf he shall come"), that the same proccdure=-remcval of the

afft:(~led stones, scraping, plastering and another week's confine-

mt2nt-i:<; followed in lllf.:.'case of u hmgllS which remains unchanged

after two weeks , "In conclusion, dismantling I is carried out] only with

an eruption which returns after removal [of Ihe affected sronc-s],

scraping ,md rcplastering, and rhc [eruption] whic-h returns docs not

require 'spreading', N

Having readied the desired concluxion, he now proceeds 10

rest ruct ure the pa ssage in acrordance with it

The order of verses is a s such: '·And if it returns" (v, 43), "and he dis-

mantles" (v. "5). "W 'll~:>t :;"t :r will come inside [11eh[J~I~- (\". -16). ~Who-

ever will em iIl:'ioidethe house" (v. 47), "The priest shall CUHlt:' and s~,

<"lndbehold, it has spread" (v. 44), ~md the verse sr~;lks of [un crup-

tionl which remains hmchan:e;cdl rlminp, the firsL [wcekl, that h~ f,ive- iL

a second week o r confinement. and at the end of the second week of

its conflnement, !the priest] come;"; ; ; I C L L " ! ~e-e~ lImt it spread,

W11~l shall he do to it?

He removes l rhe affected stones], scrapes, replasters and giv~,~ il :.l

week. nil it retu rns, he: dismantles [~ht huu:>t: J ; [jf l it docs nor return, it

~C9lji~8 ~purifkatjoo with] birds, {OJ k~.'>1..:;">) n erupuons [do not J . : J s ! 1

longer than three Wee:kS'~~

To clal'ify Rashi's conclusion. let us cxarume tlu: d.(~~wription of the

prie~t's actions as he comes lo examine :1 house ill which scale dis-

ease (;-ara'a~ or nit: 'ei battm) has broken out, The progression may

he diagramed us follows:



44 Tb« Torah U-Madda_/ourn.al

verse . ' 1 7 priest comes [or his examination of the. house

38 he q lI~ rantincs the house

39 he returns on the seventh ciay, Jnd finds the fungLl:'i

ha f> spread

40-i2 !he afft:n<:d stones are removed, the house b scraped.

news ..tones put in place, ..nd the house rcplasrered

43 1he priest returns and finds the fungus h~ .. returned

after the treatment described in . : : I 0-12

·14 "I f the priest comes and ~~:t:.~ [hal the fungus. has

s pre-ad in t he house, it is a chronic sea le disease, " " -~

45 the house ls dismantled

....6-7 status of those wh () c ntc r Dr rcrna in in the house/~fI " I f th e priest should come and .~t :<: that L i l t : " fungus has

not spread in the house after it has been (rc )rb~h:n:J_ . _ ."---the

house is declared P'l rc,An inspection of this break-down will reveal a consistem line ()f

development up to and includlng v_ ,1'), v...hich deals with a fungus

which continues to spread during a week. and some indctcrmmate

,lmounl ()f lime between the operation of vss, ~O-42 <lnd .I.(~ 1sriest' s

return in v. 44; with v, 48 rhe cxposttion doubles hack to v, 39, and

takes up an alternate line of deve-lopment, dealing with the other

possihlc outcome of the priest's examination of v, 4'); while vss. . w -47 deal with the consequences of the fungus' continued spr~!<~d,v. 18

takes tlp the q uestion of what 10 do j r il dcli.:.~nor spread, 19.<

This analysis is not new. It follows Nahmanldes' observations, I')~

<lccordin,tl to a pesba! understanding of the section, exrept 1hal we

have reduced N"<Ilnn~nides' two-week scheme to something rnoru

tha n < l w~e k, sinn~ 14:1.~ does not specify J time for the recurrence

of the fungus, and we may assume rhar it returns I~[(: on 11u: seventhday. giving us a total of seven days for the fungus."?

Thus, accord ing to N ;~hman idn> , Ihe siXI ion d t:a I~ w.1h onl Y one of

the m•anv possibilities raised by the st rurtures of t he ~~<1lier .~ccl ions

wh ich dC:11wit h 01he r [ypt:s of scale d iscasc, 1be other possibi hties

are explored by the Oral Torah.N(Mo~. important for our purpu~e-~,

since Nahmanidcs docs not insist that our pass ..age deal with each

possibillty within the parameters of 1 H . . : ' S h a ~ . ihc sequence of verses

may remain as set forth in the: ~l;';~lg(~ ilselF_ H(Tc. :.lS in the Flood

na r ra tiv e, 1\ahma n ides carefully d ifferentiates between requirements

of pesba; and the g,ovcrning assumptions of derasb, the latter king

the province of th e 0 ra1 Tora h_ 97 In rhis case I e it 11er the. rIa j n sense

rneaning or the mldrashic elaboration will serve the ornnlslgnificaru

program,



Yaa/wv Elman 1 5

Rashi thus takes Ilb cue from Sifra in .~ean;hin.g Scripture for solu-

Hans to problems for which the Torah does nor provide clear answers,

certa in]y a response to the omnisign i f i Cml imperative, w hieh incl udes

the inju nction of "turn it over and over, for all b in it . "l<JflNaInnallioc.~.in contrast, here ,IS elsewhere, rna ima ins. 1he line between the lwo

Torsa hs, between pesbat and derash. However. even Rashi will go only

where the Midrash leads: for there a re reatures j nih is passage which

might well merit omnisigruficant treatment, hut have not in actualiry

been ernpl oyed for that purpose. A" we might expect, ncit he r Rashi

nor Nahmarudes=uor (heir ~LI(Tf:~SSOrs,we might add-e-lias done so.

One such matter involves the halakhic sigruficancc of the term

parab used in Lev " J 1:·13 along with the verb sbuu. If shu» refers to

the recurrence of the emption, wl ml docs t«rail mean? If it ref t: rs ,0

the spreading of" the fungus along wlth recurrence, why no! use

pasab, as in the rest of the passage?

Rashl, who ordinarily takes. his cue from Sij lU, does. not deal wi1h

it, though Sifra does deal with It, < JS we shall SCt:_ Howeve-r, Nah-

manides, aWJ re of the prob lern, deals with it by exj ual in~ j)(m:1.1l with

sbut; since a "recurrence' of the eruption surely involves some in-

crcas~~ in size-i-trom nothing (0 the ITlin irnu m (hala khie) measure of a

grts. But of Lhi;< ;,more below,The use of this verb, which seems exi raneous but is potentially

charged with halakhic signific~nu\ would seem to call out f()T mid-

rashic treatment. \'('e might distinguish Dt:l\v·f.:c:nrecur renee with

spreading and recurrence without such infcstution. Instead, Sifra pro-

vklcs a purely "loca 1~ derasb for Ihe word, one wit bout structu ra lim-

plications, Accordi ng to Stfra ; u-J "a rtd? does provide a rl blmy, nol in

regard to size, bUI ~rpc<lI.mn~;that is, whether the rccurrunce is of

the same appearance as the earlier eruption or of ;1 different appear-

ance is inconsequcntta L199 Na hman ides incorpora res th is III idrash in

support of hi" conrention that parab and pa:...ah refer 10 totally differ-

ent phenomena. the former relevant only to recurrence and not

;,;pn::ading_ If 00, rhe recurrence may be of a different arpc~mInn~ and

even 011 different stones, Nahmanides, ad lDC., devises. his own

midrashic exposition based on the expression, "if the eruption nx.urs

and [lowers in the house ~ (11:43 )-in the house, but nul necessarily

on the same stones, si nee Ih~ \"t':r~ docs not speci fy tha ( t he flower-

ing be "on the: stones.' However, later in hi~ discussion his weakenstht: diM in~1on between the two, SUtlfwsting that, after all, as. noted

above, even recurrence involves. a measure of increasing size.EIIl

Again, though Nahrnanides is willing to limit the application of

halakhic derasbot in determining pesbat, cspcriallv when i~concerns



46 TheTorah {f-Madda jou mal

the structure of a pa$.~<l~e.,he- is not willing to ~nk r entirely unchar-

tercel halakhlc territory, This reluctance limits the runge of many oth-

erwise innovative exegetical attempts, since only so much progress is

permitted in advancing the orrmlsignificaut program,

Finally, let us examine the pfl~s.,.'J.g~~J(:".~crib.ng the Yom Kippur ser-

...cC' in Lev 16, where R<lshi, following the Talmud, dtsplaccs ·'6:23

from its posit jon,

Our Rabbis 5liid that rhis is not the [proper] place of Ihis verse, and

they gave a reason fur thdr words, in Tractate Yoma [32a]. They said:

All the entirety uf this section L~written in order. except for this en-

trance, which L~ after the olfcrlng uf his burnt-offering and the burnt-

otf,:ring of tb~ people (v, 24). rhe burning of the: crnrajls of Ih~ bullock

und he-goar (v. 27), which wert" done in [rhe high priestsl golden Wlr -

merits, latter whk.h] h[_:;inl merses and sanet ifies, takes them olT J nd

purs on. [his} white garments. "An{1 enters Ihe Teo. of ~·leeling"-in

order to take out the spoon and incense-pan wuh which he h;«,l

offered incense withi 11 lthc Holy of Hal it·51. ~And n~moves the line n

garments." alter he took them nut, and dons golden gannerus r ~ ) l ·(olTering] Ih~ perpetual [daily burut-oflcrlng] of the aflCrrlo[Jll,

Rashi with holds the Rabb ls' reason for rest ructu ring this. pa ssage,

tho ugh he mentions that "they W I vc a reason for their words." The

reason is that a Sinairic halakhah requires five- changf.:s of vestments

during the service of Yom Kippur. while no more than three m<ly bt~

discerned ill the rr.,j,~;<;~gt: itself, even when midrashically interpreted,

By restructu ring. Stlch an interpreta tion becomes ro~siblc .

AnJ this is the order of the [Temple] Services: The morning perpetual

f thHy burnt-offering] in golden garments; the Service of ttl": inner bul-lock and h{_'.goat.1~' and 1 he incense o r I I I L . : : fiTt.~-p'l n in white gal'm~ nts;

his ruin and Ihe people's ram aorl part of the additional ~aCfitkes<.'Dl in

~[)Iden ga rments: t h-e raki ng out of the spoon a nd fj [C-pan in white

garmc rus, and LIn:: rest of I h~~ add irional S - . 1 criflces, ~ I J : ' I the perpetua I

[daily] offering of the afternoon. and the: Incense offered in the

Sanctuary prop..:-r upon the: inner ~ lta r in golden g : ; . l nnents.

The order of the VCfS{_'~ accordi ng W tbe Services Ip(·rf(>mwdl 1., a~

SL!d~:

"[The man] shall send rhe goot into, the desert" ( v, 22\ "he shall wash

his hody inwater _ . _ and go out and do hls burnt-offering .... " {v, 24),"the b. uf IhL~ ~iTl-otTerinH ~ (v. 25). and [dH.:n] tlre whole section

unnl ~and afterwards he shall come into the encampmenr" (v. 2Jon, and

utter rhut: "Aaron will lthcnl (_~)m(·lin~o lh~· Tern of L"k~riE1g1" (v, 2.1)

N~hrnan ides rejects this interpretation as bdng unnecessa ry ; this.

section i~indced in prope-r order, if w c u ndcrsi and p roper l}' Ih C '



Yanko/i Flman 47

orne r intended. 111e narraUvc flrst descrihcs the en L irc specia I Yom

Kippur Service performed hy rhe high priest in his "white garments, ~

and only then Ia ke s up lilt: more tlsua I d<Jily Service as performed in

his golden garments, the vestments he dons on davs other tban YomKiPplir, Since the former is the main su b j ( _ X : l of this section, i I is men-

tioned firsr.

onee again, it is inporta nt to no. c that the same rea soning can < 1p-

ply to purely expository contexts. Thus, in hj,~ discussion or the struc-

iure of the Ten Commandments, Nahmanldcs points out that with the

fjfth, "He has completed [the expositionl of all those to which we arc:

ohHWI!ed in terms of t he Creator H lrnse If and His honor, and now

[the passage] turn;'; (l'e-qazar w:;WJf.!(){) to command U$ regarding mill-

rers touching on [God's] creations, . , _"1fI~ And further On, in his com-

ments On the next verse, he notes that concern now ;,;hifb to detail-

ing 1he consequences of the latter five commandments, the GlS.C law

of the Book of the Covenant

Tu sum up ou r lOUM and somewhat involved discussion 10 this point:

while the search fur ornnisigmficancc characterizes Ih(; earliest Mmta

of rabbinic Iitcn..sture, the prograrn which this kle.a! mandated was

hardly carried out in any thoroughgoing way, not only in terms of

cO{Jf . 'mge------ .chapu~rs ,ections, ver.-;e5-----btH abo in te rm s of pbenome-

na. in his work on parallelism, james Ku~cI has already called atten-

tion to the lack of ru rmal awarcn(~s.. .~20~in the cb.:'isic rabbinic era 10

this pervas ive biblical techniq ' l( . ; , ""_"_ ' In this study w e have Seen th e

relatl vc Iy minor role played by sequemia Ii ty i11 this period. J 1 is on] y

with the growth of comprehensive hibl ic,iI commcmarles that the

need for examining the chronological relations bel ween adjoining

and related passages was. fell, Along with this. carne the nc<.:e:-;s.ilyof

accounting for ~II types of sequential ordering in the Pentateuch,whether of clauses, verses, topics and passages. Slnrc not all would

comfortably fi t within the usual cmnisigniftca nl requ ircmcrus -

h alakhic or aMaJk rneaning+-a v~riely of doctrines were adopted,

usually from mldrashic sources, :.llld adapted [U Ihis requirenu ..ru:

bibbat»; accommodauonlsm in its various aspects (~tbe Torah speaks

in human terms," rcsumprive repetition, the need fur s~rn!,Ktic coher-

encc, maintaining the unity of place and umc), intensiry and irripor-

tance, the latter two close to classic omnisignificlnl lega! and moral

categories.

Nahrnanidcs' commentary on IJa~ Pentateudl represents a higl ~

point of this development of the ornrusiguificum program. Reversing

the principle of ein mukdam u-me'ubar ba-Torab as represented in

[he Bault and in Rashi's commeruarv.s" he forged a SYf.lC'Ul in which



The Tomb U-MaddaJournal

sequentialitv served the pu rpD~t:~ of omrusigruftca nee hy taking its

plan: with in a hierarchy of pri 11clPles. These principles included ex-

pressions of the Jove of God for Israel (""b~h), rhe importance of

particular doctrine» (W P\:f"nt.~::ISt':\'hk~nu.:d l) y the number of appl~(lr •

.Jnces they make or their order of appeara nee within a segue nee, 200

the use of rcsumptive repeihion to structure the thematic concerns uf

specific hooks, on the one 1Mnd, aod to coordinate L hose books with

adjoining ones on the other. Within those purposes, he seems further

to have developed a series of crlteria gon.: rn ing the use of tha lpri n-

ciplc, which limit it to speciflc sil uarions: IO join adjacent books of

the Bible, to join non-adjacent sections when the resumption was

shorter than the original, l(Ifj- and in syntactic use wit hill ~ sen renee _Furthermore, on ocraslon he employed it as an ~x~gt~lical tool, as in

Exod 4:9, where he rejected Ra;<;hl',~midrashic exposition, and Nurn

7:1, where he rejected n m Ezra' s use of Lev 8: l"5 :~~ a pa rallcl, 1111L8

was sequentialitv harnessed to the orrmlsigntflcam engine. U should

be noted, however, that, more often th<111not, rcpcriuvcncss wJS the

spark tJl:,lt st a rted rhe p.np.tn~ til rn j ng_

Moreover, seq ueru b iiiY a bu served to coord inate < I nd limit, ~l~ wei I

as Hivl: expression, to the ommsignificaru ideal. Even given Nahrnan-

ides' close attention to lhC"5C questions, r'10~ all sequences are signlfl

cant, and some a n: clea rly not, as the cxceptiona I lev 12:8 Of Ihose

resumpnve repetitions which he dO(;1; not note."? In a sense, Nah-

rnanldc....work outlined a program for future ~~X(:g(~f>i;';, no less than

did thai of the Sages of the classics 1 period, A 11d , Iike Ih~ ir work in

their way, his analysis represents the high ride of concern ",'all these

issues, By defining the problem and laying out the field, Nahmanides

determined the course of future study of these problems=-but only in

relat ion {O b is deba te with I{a.~i on these matters.For wit b the [urn of the omnisignificant program from the biblical

text to that of Rashi, it W'"J.S only Nahrnanidc-s' animadversions on

Rashi's musings on sequcntiality which took root .md which were

discussed, to whatever extent. Few of the classical, influential later

commentators advanced Nahrnanides' prlJgrnm on lhb issue.

On the other hand. in their super-cornmernarles on Rashl, later

cxt:gelt:s did in SOlT\C measure advance the omnisiguificant program

in this direction, For whlk 1b0h i "v~,~mn~. ofl ~~n~ 1bfieJ with mere 1y

noting the ascqucntialitv of one or another passage without provid-

ing a moral or halakhic reason for it, his commentators took up the

ommsignificant challenge and attempted to fill in this de-sideratum. ~I t

Nevertheless, as we shall see, the essential challenge of l~XL<:rlJi[lghe

omnisignmcanl ideal to verses and passages which hltherro had

escaped ornnisignlficant exegesis was not laced, in large pan beGIUS~~



Y aa kov Erm a n 49

the led In lqucs needed to Ju M) were tlniversall y Lick n owledged as.

no longer available with the end of d a ssic rabbinic derasb. However,

10 the extent possible within the parameters of Rashi's commentary to

the Pentateuch, and the Talmud's dbcut>sion of such matters. lateraLitho rules did dea I with them, m

VB

Our discussion of sequence in Nahmanides' commentary would not

be complete withoul attending to Nahmanldes' observations on the

place of time within the Pentateuchul narrative itself, It is . to that we

now tu rn OLi r auention.

The Historkal Dimen..o;;ion

Af>Erich Auerbach note-d, the scriousncxs of the biblical narrator ln

hercs in the presu med h istrrrh.i [y ;!nd StLpreme theolog ica 1 j III pm -

ta nee of Ihe srory to him,!h 'Iransferring t h i~ il.~ ig u 10011r stu dy of

traditional exegesis, i~ goes without saying tlun rhese narratives must

rcfl C'cL history to a significant degree. mTo the ex Ient t ha t they d 0,

they must reflert < J n understanding of human arbl!":'; ;1S < 1 sequence of

divinely influenced events. The nexus between Providence and suny,

narratology and theology, is thus assured. Zl ~

A~ Shcmaryahu Talrnon has pointed out, one of !he~ Functions. of

res um fit lve repetitions is to mark si H"l uhand Ly, ,IS in the resu mption

of the Joseph story after the Judah and Tamar interlude, which itself

co v'ers several years during which Judah's sons marry, die, and Tamar

returns to her paternal home to await Shelah's maturation. TIle omni-

scient Narrator's handling of time has an important theological Ji-mension, as Mc:ir Sternberg polrued out in a somewhat different con-

text.

Given the biblical narrator's access to privikged kno vr tt'(iW_~the dis-

tant past, private scenes, the- thoughts of the drarnatis petSOrl,H':: , from

God rlown-he must speak hom an omniscient posnion .. _ . Does this

episremologlcal novelty IJS rontrasicd wit h .g ncient Ncar F.•astern reJi-

gions-- Y . I . U in the sphere of world order t'xIC'IKl 10 [he epistemologv

and operation of point o r ~'iew in the na rrarive? I)oe.~ the monotheist ic

article of faith give 3 new he8.~r1& (U rhc inherited rule of omniscielKe?

is it, fur example, that the narrator assumes ornnlsclcnre because he

could not otherwise do justice ro un infall ible God. . . . ~ Since the

Omniscient mspires his prophets, moreover, does rhe narrator impliru-

Iy ~ppes J W L !le gi fl of prophecy, so [i S to speak wit h rc-dou hied

authority as divine histori;·mfl-'I ;



50 TbeTorah U-Moddafournal

Ca n a prorer u ndcrstanding of !J rovkk: nee be' weighed ago in~' •he

rule that the blood of a sberez produces ritual hupuritvi' Are the "piles

and piles" of halakhoi derived from each "crown" of the Torah's let-

ter.-;2l7commensurate with an appreciatlon of God's role in hi~.m)',

on the national and P{~rsona I lcvcP

The omnisignificant imperative requires the interpretation of every

vanation as mean ingfu I, pres umably Includln g varia t lons of narra live

de~nx ity, w here one incident i ~ g iveri iI larger-sea 1e I rea 1 me nt than

another. Why is Ehezer's. quest for a wife for Isaac given more spucc

than the binding of lsaac~ While Nahrnanidcs' linkage of propon ion-

a 1 ity to };ibbah ~nd ma 'alab mav solve some of these problems in a

general way, [11 <:d ew U s rem a in to be worked OlJ l--but never we re.By choosing na nat lvu < J . ~ His mode of exposit ion, 1111.:divine

Au. hor .~ubiccted ] J is lessons. to j I~ 0:m.~lrai nts. Of course, any E . : ! X posl-

tional Slr:;ltt~~y will carr,' with it the limitrn ions. of [he human reader

The need for recourse Iu the dev ice of resumptl ve rerc~ i.ion is on ly

one of the drawbacks which resuu from the human linear pef('(~ptjon

of time- The rnorta I rca del' requires cues I() foil ()W lbe plot line,

But that is ,.,01 all. The consequences. of God's dccbkm to adapt

His revelation to the exigencies of ~Ihuman bonk are fur-reaching. A~

Robert Alter puts it,

No writer. TlU~~".~n she most intently rellglous 0[1(:;, c;nl ~,,·er quite

escapc the momentum of Ibe Hl~~li~ll~l in which he works _ . . . ilV~Tl-

lively using such elements as rhythm, rvpctition, musicaliry, tmagerv,character, scene. ucl, ~nd symbol, . . . IFvirtua lly cvcrv utterance uf lJih-

1 ( ' " ; ' ! I narrative points toward the imper.nive conL~~rn:<;of covenantal

Ialth, it is ~bo ~kmons.hahl~' evident that virtually cvt:"I)' u~le-r~nce ofbilJli(.~rnarrative reveals the prescnct:"of wrucrs who rdi~he(l [he words

and materials of storytelling with which rh~y worked, who dclighicd,because .1ft~1'an they were writers. in pleasing . ;_.nk:nces ~.ndSlll'rl"i.~ing

deflerrions of syntax, in complex ~dl(jing dr~us .Hlmng word; ...._ . _~I~

CIC'~rly, matters 811ch ils the llse of n :_~rnpti vc rc petition to indi-

C~rc ~irn u ltaneu y, or even in its more common ll.~(\ rna y illL!~Ifatc A1-

ter's point in our context, Moreover, though our primary concern

here is the place of chronology wlthin the Pcntatcuchal narrative,

A11cr'~ pol rn is wore genera ll Y ill u stra ted by refc renee 10 an ot her

conseque nee of the div lnc cho ice of record ing reve Luion :.l s. a book _T

refer to a remark recorded by To...afot, and seconded (or origlnat-

ed?-~ee below) by Rubbenu Tam. Mos.. halakhic VU~L's in the

P(:BWtc uc h me in prose form; one of Ihe exC'ep' iom is 111(: col lection

of laws of the jubilee and sabbatical year of leviticus 25, much of

wh.ich is couch ~:d in loose poet k furm, th;)I is, 111 parallelism which



YaaOOv i :.1man 5 1

typiflcs biblical POC!ry, Of these, one verse is tightlv constructed in

synonymous parallelism (J.u!fel 'inyan be-milim shonoi)2I9, and legal

(..tstlnctious between the two stichs of the verse Gin fairly easily be

prop0S( . .- tl . .Doe exception to this if; 25:37 which is U)mpo5e{l in good ch las-

rnic style, with the fl rst word of the fi r . - ; I sric h parallel to the last of

the second, a nd the last of the fjrst with the f " " ; ' ; 1 of the last. "You r

silver you shall not ~ive for interest (neshekh)!for increase (maroit)

you shall not give your foodsluff~ ..~ We might conceivably dlstinguisb

between ue.'~.bekb and marbit, Or pcrhap: .. silver and food~wffs, J 10\'.'-

ever, the anonymous (redact iona I?) tntroduction 10 the first SU!tva of

RaiNJ: Me;-ta 60b will have none of it, and goes to connlderable

lengths to prove that nesbeeb (the "bite" taken from the borrower)

and maroa (the "mere a se" which the lender gets) camlo1 b e - separat-

ed; when 1 here is 1leshekb thcrt ~b ma rbit, and w he 1 1 the re is rna rbu

there is neshekh.

Th is discussi on serves to int rod lice < l st arement of Rava 's which

expla j ns the r(."'(iunda ncy of the C o n veruional pu ra IIcl i ; < ; 1it: st ructure of

biblical poetry < 1 S being halakhically motivated .. Au:ording to Rava,

one who collects interest l(""'".,"m~gresses.wo prohibnlons Ua'aoor 'alan

bi-sbenei taoim?" ·l1lUS. in ~Land<Jrd fashion, a mauer of biblical styk:is given halakhk: ~ignjfkance.Of interest here, however, b Ilw com-

ment of Tosafot ..m Rava's halukhlc interpretation [ICCOur][ ..~ for the re-

dundancy of parallelism, but why does the Torah use: two synonyms

for usury Cneshekb and marbsi) where one would suffice: why not

nesbehb- neshekb or marbit-marbit: The- answer proposed b purely

aesthetic. because the variation in w()rding 1 5 0 na'eb yoter- .. more aes-

II1e-IiGill Y pleaslng.?" Th c sa me poi I1t is made by R a bben u .fa m in

regard to the use D f ki!ret/ kir)'ah j!1 Prov 11: 10..11 i the bi blical writer

will not repeat the s..me word in succcsslve verse's if at all po.s:.ihle.m

Even halakhic texts may ~Ilow scope for tl ic wri tcr's a esthetic

sense-e-even, apparently, according to Tos~fo[, arid, just possibly,

accc mling to itabbenu Tam .. 1 < 1

1 f ~ est hetics is considered a particularly h uma n ;<;(~n~jbility ,~l.~ we

may categorize this concern as a subspecies of divine accornrnoda-

non, somewhat dlllerem from M~illlOrJkk5' usc of the dictum that

"the Torah spl;';lk~ in human terms.~!Zit It is noteworthy, however, that

N< I

hmanide s opts for a ha lakhie.!casulstica I iruerp retation, and dj.~1n-guishes the: two terms. As James Kugel pornted out in regard to clas-

.~i(~abbinic culture, the omnlslgrnflcant need overcame any nasccm

n..x:ognit ion of pa rallel ism m hiblic:;J1 ve rse, m

To return to the matter of !h(~ rheological impllratlons of nurrat lve

style, however, If Sternberg's intriguing suggestion is . true, and narra-



5 2 The Torab U-MaddaJmtrnat

torial omniscience carries a strong theological meaning, what of

~ -q uentialityi'

vm

Behind the debate over eln mukdam u-me'ubar ba-Torab lie ques-

tions of the nature of revelation and the proper means of ils interpre-

tariori. However, a view wh ich may reflect the peshut of one

parasbab may nol reflect that of the Torah taken as a whole. Lev 25:1

serves as a fundamental proof-text, a binyan alJ/]jj for the Sinaitic ori-

gin for all the mip, 'Or in the Torah, Nahmanldes' lef1gthy discusslon of

Lev 2'5:1 and Rashi's citation from Sirra/"l'.~which entail reconsi nlcling

< J f < J ir bi. of Pcntate ucha I chronology, as wd l as scattered com ments

elsewhere, enable us t() ferret out Nahrnanldes' understanding of the

Torah's expllcir asequcntial rendering of events.

''The Theory of Gcncr'"dl Sequentiallty"

As noted above. however, Nahmanides does not provide- an expluna-

tion of why the Torah ~n~msto treat lime differently in din(~ren! sec-

nons_ Note that the first explicit dale givt-~n in the Torah (aside from

those relating to the Flood, whic.h did not usher in ~ new era :"IS

regards d ating~_lo))s perha p~ 1 hal of Exod 19~L whe n t he Isr;u; 1 i t (~S.

reach Sinai on the third month, perhaps Rosh Hodcsh Sivan, ~}J Up to

thts point, lilt d,niJ 19of events, to the cxtc nt such dCItingIs done, w;'! s

by age and Hf~span; no era is cstablished until the ~xodu~"

With their ..rrival :;I! Sinai the tsraelires leave the UJ7eU, 1 heir pn..:-

history, and begin10date events by the pivotal event of the

HXOo!iL l , \

Ifu~ fjrst slgnificant occurrence of the lsraelire nati()nal expcrience. B~

Jethro's com.ing, the date of which b ~ matter of contention between

I{Jshi and Nahmanidcs, is given without a date, perhaps because he

too is connected with the time before the Exodus. and Sin;11.~~9Thb b

no different in essence from !11(: five-fold division of the Primeval

History in CcncsLSonto shorter periods by the introducrion ~these A re

the generations of, . , ,~~~~

Could this be the reason that Nanmanides' gre-~.tmethodological

discussions of sequential order are not to be found in his comrnen-tary on Genesis, bu. Ix:gin rather wi tl1 the second ha1f of Exod us?

Could this lack reflect ani rnplicn recugnit iun of The different W <1 y J n

wlnch hlstorical time is.handled in the pre-Sinai em?~~~

However, Nahrnanides only sporadically addresses this question

d irecrly. Perhaps the rroub 1esorne C]ue,~ron of why rank Libr Iitcrary



5 3

or sty listie devi res a rc employed a t one- pol nt and not a nothe r 'W'eF':

feh to 1Jt: cu her insoluble or impious. ~ Neverthe 1es,s, 1 have already

called auentlon to Nahmanldes' concern for the different densities ()f

Pcnrateuchal narrs..ulve, and well as those of Scriptural expositlon, m

So the mainstream Rishonim, Later commentaries as a rule rnani-

fest little in terest in matters of style and 01 nK1me unless 1hey can be

related to the more onlin<lry matters D r ornnisignificance. halakhic or

aggadic.~_I,<t

On OLL~.'_~on, however, the [Wo concerns fuse, and such rna IIers

are taken up. for example, the Maharal of Prague, in his super-corn-

men rary on R~.~h i, suggests a rea Son for the e l i vision of the halak ha h

r(:"g;ldi ng the impu rity of a carcass in Lev II iruo lW() parts, one deal-

ing with ritually forbidden anirnals in vss. 26-27 and the other dealing

with ritually permitted animals in vss. _ W - riO _ This division, he sug-

gesrs, reflects the different rules whlch apply to IIU..:SC carcasses when

they are ritually slaughtered: Ihe carcasses of 01herwise perlllilLt~d

anima ls an; rid of their neoeloh- impu rity, whik: 1h ose of a n imu hi 0111-

erw isc forbldde n to be t:aa~ 1 do not. zy)

This tendency also has rabbinic precedent, one which Rashi dtes,

Lev 13: 18--23 deals with ~ skin eruptlon wbich begins wlth a boil

(shekhin), while lR:2'1 28 deals with One which begins. with ;'1 burn(mikbmh). Rashi ad 11:2.4, and following Huittn 8<l, notes that the

two have klentlral symptoms. W hy then an: lhq separated into iwo

.~euiOI1S!'"To tell you that they cannot lw combined Om: with the

other. [Jf] an inllarnmatlon lthe si/.<: of] half a half-bean develops, and

lthenl half a half-bean of burnt spot, they may not be judged as a

lwholcl half-bean,"

1n tbe light of all the foregoi ng, it shou kl orca sion no su rprb~~ to

find that Nahmanldes converted this lruerpretation of the division into

separate sections into a rule fPT determining whether two separate

scctlons exist, when 1fu~Milsorah does not provide for such M.:rar.:J-

Iion. And indeed, such ~~case has a lrca dy been discussed a hove in

section Ill.

J n h j,~ comments on Exod 32: 11, r - ; ahma n ic..lt:~ , J kes issue with Hin

Ezra's idcntiflcstion of Moses' pmyn for the errant hmdiles at Exod

32:11-U, before his descent rrom the mountain, with that at 32:31-j1.

after that descent, and, finally, with the parallel in De-tit 9:26-29.

which i t > quoted after lh(: des-cent. Ibn EI_m claims(ad

Exorl .U:ll)lh~ll Moses prayed only once, after hb descent and bi;<;extirpation of

the Calf, :J nd t ha t ~ein mu kdam u-me 'u~ ar ba-Torab," 11tH,

Nahmanidt:s writes, "If u is all one prayer, which he offered in lfw

forty days aFter this return TU rhe mountain, why should it be dividt'd,

mentioning part of it here, and the other part of it after the descent.



5 1 TheTorab U-i'vtaddajmu-nal

Rather, they are two lscparntel prayers==and he ,tlocs on to detail the

differences betwee n Ihem,

The question does. actually occur overtly in Nahmankles' cornmen-tary, but in a somewhat different guise, For cX;lIHple, he notes ad

Exod 39:5 that Scripture provides a unique description of the a~dmi.

cal details of manufacturing one part of the Tabernacle's arrurtc-nances in j.Y:3--the gold tbreads for the epbod. He suggests that this

is bCCdUSC Df the novelty of the technique in their eyes, "for doing

lhi~ had not been heard of to rh j ; < ; day _"

The observation that Scripture accommodates the vjewpolrn of

t hose who rccei ved il fl rst occurs elsewhe re < 1~ we:1L Th is, in ttl rn,

gives fuller rnuaning 10 a doctrine shared by both Rashi and Nah-

manldes, though, as we have demonstrated, tlu:::y apply it in difterem

ways: the mauer of }?(bOOI). God's luve fur Israel, As noted J.OOvt'.

biblical hi~lm)', whether narrative, genealogtcal or other types of list-

ing, may be viewed as an expression of God's love (lnd C()['lct:rn

(f.;ihbah) for every aspect of israel's spir ltual and material well-

being-;}I~ As Nahmanides himself noted, this love and concern has as

its center the- gt:nf.:r.ltion(s) which receival the Torah, arul it is for

this reason th..1

the Tur-d. includes hulakhot whose details refer prl-rnaril y to those genera ti ons--~md exclude material which does not.

If bibbab leads to a disproportionate emphasis DB the matters

f~vorcd, disf uvOr should resu It in less ern pha ~is 1ha n smootl I narra-

tion might require: indeed, this is precisely what Nahmankkis sux·

gests, For example, in his commentary lO Cell 1i:2, he notes that the

reason for Abram's departure from Ur b not givel] by Scripture:

Behold, rhi;";pa5..<;agc docs not explain tilt" CTllj~ matter, for what rea-

sun lw~.s there] foT' the 1foly One, blessed he He, to tell him l=Abrarnl:"Leave yom land and l will OCSLOW Iavurs on you t h a t are lll1pr~c!",-

dented" without prefacing [this] wuh [;1 staremenrl that Abraham V.~dS

om: who served G o o . or a com pletely righteous person, or tha t he

should tell him the reason for his k~..ving the land, lh;ll in hi~ . r . .v~lljTlXto another land "you wi II draw nea f to God." llndeedl it is ScriptUf{_"Scustom Cminhag ha-kawl!) t.o ~y: "Go before _1 , , 1 . : , uiJt1' M~, ;Ul(l I win

treat YOLI E.Ivora IJ1y," us with Da ~'id and Solomon, [Here follow ot her

examples.]

But the reason lfur his leaving] was Lh~H 11K· people of Ur K;.!.~lim d if!him m LKh ha rm because of his fa ith in the I loly One, blessed be He

. __ but the Torah did not wish ro expatiate- at length on the opinionsof idolators and to explain the L~sm_'15hich I stood OClWCCEl him < l nJthe Kasdltes in lrnaucrs oil Faith, a~ it [ljkcw be J condensed tht' matter

of the generation of Enosh and the ir opinion teg.-mii oR the idolatrywhich they innovated.



5 5

011 another occasion N < l hman ides inqu ires into the reason for the

Torah's fai Iure 10 inc! ude one JM 11icula r aspect uf the la \VS of in he ri-

ranee: the right of a father to inherit the: estate of a sou who prede-

ceases him. Afle:r proposing several solutions to this problem. andapparently rejecting rhern, he suggC'S[~, with all due hesitance, that it

may be that "perhaps this did not occur (10 bayab) [in the genemlionl

which entered the Land, with which lthis scctionl deals (she-bahem

yedahhmj-Ihat a father should inherit a Mln,":!11

Here WO the condiuon of the wilderness generation determined

1 e contents of Scriptu re, .I11e man u rlid ure of gold 1 1 1n..:<ldwa s inc! u d -

ed heGHI,~(~it occasioned wonder on the p..J . T 1 of I hose who w ltncssed

it; the inappllcability of 1 he rule that a [ather inherits ~ predeceased

son 1eel to its t:xc]usion from Sui ptu rc.

l{ _ Yehudah Cooperman long ago noted the fundamental unpor-

tilnn~ of this latter insiglll_ 2,l2 hom 0 LIr perspert ive, it fu rth ers 1he om-

nlslgniflcant program by providing a ml ion<Je for the inctnsion of

sue h time- hou nd components wuhln an eterna IIY VJ lid .Fora h. arxl

incidentally provides the ba;<;bfor the historicn-halakluc interprcta-

Hans 10 be discu ssed below. 2H

1 1 also serves to solve, at least partially, the problem which

Nahrnanides himself raises in 01 her contexts, i.c., 1he varying dcnsi-Iles of narrative or cxposirary text in dlffcrcm passages. Not only is

the number of limes < l matter which receives Scriptural attcmion relat-

ed to ils importance, but so i.~he - amount of detail il b given,

IX

Nabmanides' concern for sequence affected ()llwr aspects of hi;,; corn-

menrary as well," < . I

ndcncou

raged an hist orical view of certai n a spcctsor (be Pentateuch's composil ion. In turn, this view seems to have in-

fluenced at least one important exegete of the ~~<lrlywentieth century.

The Tor ..h < It times, according 10 both Nahmunidcs and Rashi,

takes the trouble to inform us of hs own structure. perhaps as i t re-

lares to proper exegesis, or rt:rh~p~ to inform us of the mJ1U~ of par-

ticu 1J r historicu I r w riods, As. Thomas DOl: ' : : rna n writes;

Instead of establlshlng J. clear temporal sequence III the Sinai narrauve,

th e repetitive movement of _...o.<;CScreates , _ . the n::lr~'lliq ' conte)! , l fl)rIh~ promulgation of disti [l{1 Jc~j I nxlcs. wh ich ;In..~ no" .. all anchored in

the nne revelation on Mount SinaL, , , lILJforces the reader -to projectnul so much forw.mJ Cwha t h~,pJX:"115 next') a.~backward Of sideways".

, , , The reade r I " l . .-pcatcdly los; -s a sense of Ihe past, present, ;,Ind flirt ue

of narrated time, Bur this loss o r n~IT""ned time serves a canonical PUf-



5 6 The Torah U-Madda Journal

pose, f~>r rhe result is Ih~1 Lht'! T€ader's time bt~n)me$ the signifH:ant

moment t f . I ' interpreting the promulgation of ' 1 " 0 1 < 1h "on. th L~Jay. H u.;

At least one recent tra d II luna l approa e n , w hose antecedcrus go

1Y. lCk to medieval and talmudic l imes, gives the l i t~ to tlus antinomy

between narrated ume and literary structure. Indeed, Dozeman him·

self notes that Moses.'s comings and going provide a context [or the

various leg"! sections which lruerrupt the narrai lvc now.

TIu.:: emphasis on lustory is not entirely new in traditional exegesis,

but j~ has always been secondary to more omrustgruflcaruly oriented

methodologies. In part because of this, this. approach not been classi-

fled as hisrorlcal, and, at times, even masquerades as "halakhlc.' J re-fer W the evolution a ry hypothesis developed by H. Mel r Simha h of

Dvmsk (lflrl.~-1926) in his ,tfesbekh l.lokhm~h, and championed most

recently by Rabbi Yeh uda h ('.(xipcrman. ~·i~ Wh ilt: the latter t r'.J.C(_'~ i1

back to the school of the Gaon of Vilna, Ihi~ approach h < 1 , ~ prt:ce.:-

dents in talmudic sources, sources which Nahmanklcs developed in

hls C{ immcntary.

k. htHTl;ld says. "Inc general rules lof the Torahl were giv<"d~~ ~IISinai,

and thedel

:iib were give n linJ"( "V[~

18tions at] theTe-n t

of Meeting.btl

R. Akiva says: l hc gcn~r:.il rules a nd dew ib IIsot h I were give [1 ~It Sinai,

repeated at the Tent of Meeting, and a lglvcn n] rbini time on Ihe

plain:': of Moab .. l·P

III particular, N ..hrnanidcs' discussion of the first tWfJ of these peri-

ods, according to IC Akiva's scheme. is penincru.

In my view, the passage lregarding the jubilee year in lev 25:1-')')] iswnucn in proper order here, for lb~" mean ing of "~L :\O10~lnt S inai" is l~l

the time that Moses] went IIp to receive the sccond tablets, 'J he cxpl a-nation of matter L~that, at the ocginninll of the flrst forty (hy [period

when Moses went up to receive] the [irst I'd IJld S , {he I wrote a~! the

words of God and .1n t he statu tcs j n the Book of Inc Cry,..en a III as re-

corded there [F.xod 21-23], ;1lld lrhenl he sprinkled .h€ covenantal

blood 011 the people [Exod 24:HI. Wht::n [Ih~ Israelucs] sinned with the

golden {"~If ~nrl the tablets W~~T~~broken, it was li.~ 1 hough that

covenant had been TC~dnded by the Holy One, blessed be !~\ ;md

when 1 1 Ie] W 8 S reconciled with Moses lwhc 11 the Iutter in~ ribed] the

second tablets, H<.· instructed him r~gartHng ~ second covenant, us

[Scripturd sw ~t-s , "Behold, 1 am rna king a covenant ~ [Exod J4: 10 1 . He

reinstated (be~ezir") then: the weighty commandments ....hich were stat-

e e l in the Sidra o r Ve--eleh Misbpatim in the.: firSt covenant, and said:

"Inscribe these Wmds for yourself fO T hy these WORls wHl Tmake a

covenant with you and with Israel" l E ; o : . f x l 34:271 ....

Now, in the first lsook nf the Covenant. Ihe J ~l1.i;l}£lb of the] ~<thl);lti~al

re~r is mentioned in its gcnt.-""Tality,as Imentioned. as is stated. "As for



Yaakov Elma n 5 1

the sabbatical year, you sh<lll Jorglvc debts anti leave lthe land] unculti-

vatcd" lExod 2.~,1· 1 ] , while now all its rules and specifications and pu n-

lshments were recorded [II this second covenant. ll.ikcw ~,J Moses W~'5

Instructed rega rding the "fabema rk- [H the time of t h~~first covenant

during rhe first forty days. and when the 1foly One, blessed f . x . ~ He,

W;-!5 reconciled with him, and commanded [Moses] to rna k~ ~ second

covena 01 wit h llsraell, Mo~~~s desce nd ed Ifmin the mou nta in J ~ nd

instructcd them Teg~rding all that God ha J cornrna nded him at Mounr

Sinai. r including! the construct ion of the Tabernacle.

_ _ _ And when he completed [rh~ construction and tkd lcatlon of the

Tabernacle], he said to rhcrn that "God commanded me at Mm!!~1Sinai

to explain the ~abh:Hical and juhilee ye,l~ III YOlI and to m:l).;e u new

oo venant with you on every m i;p!(m with a treatv ~md an 03t h. IThert ~

fore.l he dirt r'lol need to bring s;acrifict:s and sprinkle half li1e blood on

the altar and half on the: people as he did at firsl ~ btu they a~plL.::J

the first oovcnunt with these h-e ..H les and oaths. . _ .

Arid, likew lsc, the oovena nl or [he plains of Mo·, .h was [made I in !isw:ly when they accepted the Torn]: with those treaties : : I T 1 ~ 1 curses, That

b the covenant lspokeu uf in the following verse], "These are the-

words of the covenant which God comma nded MOfi.e_~10 1T1~'e with

.he lsraclltes in rhe land of Moab, aside frnnl the covenant which l h . : :

IIWJt· with them ar Horeb" l])Cll! 2S:{)9FT)

Nuhmamdcs' comments thus provide a basis for a quasl-evolntlon-

ary view of Ha Iakhah, wu h . 1 pre- Sina itic era fo IIowed by period

which began with the Sinai covenant and ended tragically with the

incident of the Gulden Calf, This in turn was followed by < I new

covenant a.v;ud'lled with the Tabernacle, and finally, a new era asso-

d ..ted with the phi ns of MO(l b and the new g(~nefanon abou l 10 c rue r

the land of Canaan, Each was marked by legislative actlviry, every

phase of which has its pJ;lCC wit hin the legal materials scatteredthrough the narrative of Israel's sojourn In tbc wilderness,

This vicwpo lru shows up in small-seal c sequences as W~ I1 . Na h-

manldes notes that the li;<;lof fcsuvals in Lev 21 tiMer.-; from that in

Num 28-29 in that the musa}im, the additional sacrifices. are given- ..-

with one <:xo:.~rl ion---only in the latter, Hi,~ explanation is dl:J.l 1;ince

these offerings became obligutory onlv with the entrance of the

Israelites jme) rh c land of ca naan, IIt;y we re most rek.van t to that

gc-ner~tjon, The list which de .. ls with them \V<J .S thus placed in

Numbers, after the census following dw Midianite war, , 1 census

which numbered that generation. The earlier calendar, in Lev 23, nat

u rally omitted offerings wh lch were of no pmci k<ll conseq ucncc ~I

lhe Iime, We have a lrcady encountered a simila r line of rca Soning in

the last section, in regard to Num 37.



TbeTorah tt-Madda journal

In K Meir Simhah's ",iew, some of the repetitive: hulakhic material

in the Torah may reflect the particular cundiTions prevalent at the

Iime of the giving of these: pa rsb iyot, as does the c:-:r Iki IIy lime-

bound Ue-sh<J.'ah) material of halakhic nature which the Torah (on-

tains. Seen in this Wily, the Peruarcuch presents, at least in part, a his-

tory of lsraelne religion during Lilt' Wildemcss Period The stage of

prC'-Maaan Torah g<ln~ way to a short "honeymoon" period, which,

in Hun, was ended by the watershed event of the G olden Cal f_

The high spiritu a1 level <I!! ained at Sinai was lost wi 1h tlH: latter

t~pis()J(:, and this loss of stature b reflected in the minutiae of hala-

khic draftsmanship. One example is the difference in wording be-

tween Exod 23A and Dcut 22~4; in the former, 1 he Israelites arew-arned that "when you encounter an enemy's. ox or ; : I s . . ~ wandering,

you must take it back to him," while- the latter speaks of "your fd

low's < . " I S S or ox fallen on the road," Meshekh l-j(Jkhmub relates the

change of =enerrry'' 10 "fellow" to the fall of ]:<;f:ld a1 •he incident of

Ihe C. ojden c~f. llefore the worsh ir of t he Colden CJIf. one' s feHow

Israe~iH~rniglu have been considered an cn(:"my i f lie or she trans-

gressed one of the mizsx); given at Sinai; in Deuteronomy such a per-

son cou Id no longer be cons idercd a n cncrn v: since fa lie n brad rna y

no longer stand in such moral judgement on others.'>' "111US, varia-

Lion;'; in laws in the \'fritten Torah refleri diffcrcnl (:n1S even within

the rela tivcly short period of the dese rt \,,::-1 nde rings; the b.w codes of

the Book of Covenant in Exodus and Deuteronomy may be as.~igncd

(0different spintu al/h istorlcal pt ~riods, l~'1

N~IIInan ides' emphasis on seque nee < J nd pro pIH1 ion led him to J

qua si-evohn lona ry IIndcrsta nd ing of Jewish h istory , hom OH r pu iru

of view, however, n s Irnportanr:c inheres in this: by providing for < l

contcx t which permits the categorization of fu rthe r h~~ik 1 1 i c - clcmc ntsas primarily (or ,IIrno....1solely) directed to the generation of the

wilderness (that is, le-sba 'ah) , an hlstorlral approach give.~ meaning

to fell UH~~of the hibli(_"jl text which were hitherto unexplainable.

While cella in laws we re < J lwa ys dec mcd of l(:1Il1xn<lry applica bilit y.

a .. for example the requirement that a ny heiress of 111~~gc m TA 1 i c inen-

lering the land of Canaan marry within her tribe,~j2 this. insight had

nol been extended beyond the minimum which the Talmud had al-

ready spe('ifi~d,~~-~Thus, !h~~MOrt of Israel's covenant with God must

perforce include one of the basic componerus of Ihal rdatiu[lsilip.

the hala kh lc.

In esse nee, H . , Meir Slmha h e xtends 1h(~caxu lstica I 0 ption to Jnoth-

er arena, the historical. Rather than applying only 10 diffcrcru cases,

duplicate rr.t~~~ges now apply to different times. which naturally in-

volve different circumstances and different people,



Yaakvv Elman

Ironical] y, then, whe n the omnlstgn ifk<Jnt program .~ow Iy began

10 be renewed with the wo rk of Neziv (the acronym of H . , N;)hal j

,:..cvi Y{.JlUdJh Berlin, JflI7··189.3) arid l o t _ Mcir Simhah of Dvinsk in his

commentary of the Pentateuch, i\1c.~hekb J /okhmah, ~~ I hope todemonstra U: on anether occasion, histori cal pel'S pCUiVI..: rc-a sserred

itself but, ironically, whhout 11H~ sensibility that WlV(:" rise to it, For

Nahrnanldes' sense of sequence and proportion i~ fundamentally at

odds with the m idras h ic techniq ues w hie h hhlOric<llly ha VI:' been ~-".

sociated with the ommsignificaru d fUr1_ It is testimony to Nahrnan]-

des' broadness of mind and flrea1 nt..!~s of spirit that he could con-

tribute to both sides. of ril'll enterprise, Of COLl~(~, his greatness ex-

tended even further, to the realm of the Oral Torah, where the same

sc n~ ibillt y rnanlfe sts itsc 1_ B u1 of that, more else where J ;~

In a n this Nahmani des W<1~ tar ahead of h is I jme, ;1nd wh ile his

work on tbc Pc nl < l reu ch served to legiHrmll c ka bbal istic Jppro ..,td lt~~,~;

his struMIc: 10 determine the place of narrative and expositional M>

qu~~nee, stmet ure and prop-on ion wit hin the ru b ric of /)('Shat,2;6 which

were much more acn;s...~lble, hardly resonated c k )".,'11 1he genera lions

of traditional hil ilical exegesis, Thus, while bi:;. influence on the Tradi-

tion was formidable, it was not. in certain vital ~srects, formative.

Another irony concerns t he vel)' legitimization of ka bba listie ap-

preaches, for Nahrnarudes' lack of systernatlc attention to these mat-

ters in hts commentary?" discouraged [he use of this appm~ch to

~o 1 ve the chronic problc m of om ni significa nee. Tha L pur pose W ~ S o

served by his "pasluanic" readings, Thus, WhC'TC" Iw W,lS creative. his

infl ucnce rcmalned limited; where h b work wa s influe J1tial, it Jid noL

aid in Lilt:" realization of the onmi;<;ignificml ideal.

As to the reawakening of interest in such matters in Iln~ nineteenth

and twcnl leth centuries, the resulting works, as stimulating as lhe'}'

are, cannot be said to have a dvanced the omnisig» inca nt progra m lnany striking way, The reason is simple, Having been forced to devel-

op a halakhlc system without bencfu of creative derasbot of bililx.al

texts for nigh-on a rnillcnn lu rn a nd a half. halakhic juda i . ~ 1 T I h...s

learned to do w iliH nit, < I nd the power of precedent ~m I Irad it jon is ,

such that ttl,ll avenue remains blocked hLU for exceptional instances.

If the P"0t is any guide, this situat ion will continue in the forseeable

tu ture, unless. and urn iI 1he idt: a1 enunciated by R. ; : : : . l ddok H:.kohen

of Lublin (1823-1900), the ~lw rply historiographic ca~;[ 10 whose

though! 1 ha vc discusse ~d e lsewhe re ,2 " " . > ' 1 will 01ita in. whe 1 1 in messianic

times

... A~ it ls said, ~One man will no longer teach another . __ for all ofthem will know 11(2."Li9"And so too in lhl: Talmud: ~\V ~fe. i t not fur [he



60 7 1 : x : Tomb f/.Muddajw.J.rnal

r f;-l~ ·11~11;-1 1brA d sinned. only the five Pcnta touchal books would have

been gin~n to them, [and the hook of J05hual.~&J Each one wuuld

apprehend all of the Oral Toruh rmm the W~jnen Torah-s-so too in the

future: every one of lsrael will apprehend [the-Oral Torah] and wi l l lnolonger] need W learn from ulht:rS.,lf,1

'It is Illy pleasaur dlUY to extend my th8 nk~ to the fnllowing colleague» who have

either provided me with ("{)tTl rnents [m p{irL~ of the ful lowi[ ]g 01 " dlscusscd partkulor

issues l;I,."ilh me- R,~bbi Trwin Haut, Rabhi Dr. J ~mh J- :kbac!el, hJ't"SS01S Zv] Davis,

J~y HU1i~,Ricbard Steiner, RiC'h~rd \Vhit~, ~nd ~1Ii~'u Wr.,lf",,'r' ):Iy ll:lorri~' f.-lIth •...-'mln~

work nn rnbhini[: midrash and [he controversles It engendered, whkh ll{' w~n(~H.m~l}'shared with me and which is cued in the notes, w~ s 8 p:H1 in!!:1 r ~Iimulu» 1 .0 th i,~

paper. ArllOll~ libraaians, I wish 10 m~ntion. on("e: 8g::lin, 7.vi Ert ! "nyi , z~lm~m Alpert,

l'lli llij.l Mill"::l ;"I] ...i HL~llly KC:~I~it::k.. 4i1anm abaron, ] mu~ mernjon the s.llItit:'nb of my

flible 1015 courses at Yeshiva University. with whom ! have been d't'l).(lling ;J Illllllh~r

(If the issues dealt wI1h here.

NOTES

1. Thi~ phr::l~~ ("nm~~ frorn Eri€ :h A~ThKh"~ piolle~ri[]1i: essav, HUVo· ~ ~e[lel~tion

old, on lnbllcal narrative, .......lch rakes the binding of JS;l~(' ~~ ~ p..u::ldigm, ~c:

Mtmesis: Tbe Nf:~pw.,~nltJIiQjl of 1(~":dIf{J tn W~.~{I?P'rlucrar« fe , uans, Willa~cl R.

Tr~~k tl>rLrK~lon, 1961:l), 12, 11l,(lugn Auerbach tliJ rait use the pbr.m:' exactly a~ 1

00. h i.~ ::ln::lly:o;j~rc.<"TI?,n i7.c:<; IT.1tl.in In(~IORi7.in? , tt~nck:ncy ~I~ well C~e-!~1p. 1 " 1 -

15).

Actually, Nahmanides k m . ' l aWJ noted Scripture's L~ndt'l1(yIUwithhold mfor-matM\; see ht.s remarks on E.xod 10:2, 11:L 12:21. Hi:I, P': 1, let." 9:3·,NUiIl 10:').Hi_II , w. 21 . 3):;Jj. ; 'T'd sec Gc" '16 1 S ;">".1 E~0t.i 1G;2, "11,;.~ i~ nor '1LI;[C. 11... .<;.;L(1lC.

phcuorucnon that Rashi, Ibn f,7.r;l. ~nd R.1d~1:: term milut7 Im:;ar or tesho»: lm2 .".(lF,

wnk-h i~ primmily ~ynta.l::tk or ~in!lu i~tk- in nature, nU~Lly in'mki ng ~llip:;.{~~ of

one sort or anorher. N8hman ides f'I01('s t h e - absence of ir'lfofm~ tion Jrnporra nt fo r

narrative Ln :lmuch l:!~aL~r extern Il~m tk} h i~ predecessors, ror whom ~ EJ.

M~hmmed. Mf'fan;iJei ba-M(km; rmri?dht'!w rlP.-·;MffJU!ib~m (Jt~ru~ak~m, 197~),42,.-2.8(Rash l), 561-68 ([b Il Ezra), flj')-4.. (Had ~k), and cUlHpa re L ) f i 1-65

(N:oIlurunitk_~l. esp. %~-64, no~. h'i- Ul. N:.Ihm:.Lnid.t~~- ~erL~iLi\."il~' 10 rutuu-rx of

expositional proportion (see sectlon V) would se-em to g o o hand in hand with his

atteuilon to narrative tkn..~il}·_

At any rate, in comempornry (less [elichous) l i ler~I)· P.11 b nee, {he B ible is ~

~!Ic.w:rdy S<" '~~p<~dK;<;I.~

A p:lrti('L11~rly attracrlve theory or .\1idl·;Bh, recemly proposed by D,lniel

Boyarin (Imrmexruall~).' and tbe /a'Odfng oj A1rdm_~b jf:IkJomington, Indiana, 19901.

11-19), SuM~~b lh~t Micir.!.';.hbe understood ~~ nn ~ut:'rupt Lo umlle 10 terms with

the problems engendered by [he lex!- . l thoroughlv 1r~di1iOllll point of view, but

one expressed in t=TL~ whil:h increase our _~en~iLiviLy t{l El~ r;.ge of problemsinhcrcr,1 ill 1 1~ ~ biblic al W " I ;1 nd • tit: options available for Ihei r solui ion. Sec . for

example, the folk ......ing, Iron: Boyarin's introduction to a chapter on how the

Midm~h dea I s wlth problems l;I,. 'hch modem biblich1~ ~nriblile [0 th e confluence

of disparate sources (~re.'Llual Heterogenehy in II~ Torah und the DI~llectic of the

f l. kk L It .~ : T he : Mk - lmsh v s , t X ~ .lrc c C r h ic ism 85 R ea din u S tra ie gie s.' 3 - 9 ) :'!'he ~jblc, because of its textual hctero:ll:~(lc.irr, iLlk",,·~ r COr II....muh iplc _'>Clf-

gk}:<;~ln!! re-" . - Id ings of m i t l r~~h. The hercrogcnctty=thc ruukivocn lily of rhe



Y~Clkot.'Elman G I

lnbllcal text jt~lf_ us hiatuses lind ! !8PS. cieauvelv hUL nor open-endedlv

lIlIe-d in by the mid~ash llows it to generate I[S me~mjngs--it.~ on,qflttll

ltle;min!!r---in ever new socia l and { ' uhuml sJlu~tiom_

z. 11~i_~erm n~~ gained some mm:n.;-y through i[}; u~ hy ,1~mcs Ku~el in h i~ 11;(?

Idea of Biblical Poetry: PamllcUsm ~fld lis HJM(}~J ' (N ~..... H av en and 1.(lI lOOEl,19tH). 103-04. Mo!;t ref·.:-ntly. RJCh8rd Steiner na~ studied one ~"(m~c-guc.n.-~~ of LI~

principle at ·~I"Uund level," and traced iLs lLo;t~ven 8mona those (~"C&ClC5most

devoted 1 .0 "p:l~llmnk'" rcadmns. Se~ hi~ HMc~ning]es:llleS~, _" ' l~~nmgfulness, aHU

Super-Mean ing fu lness In Scnpture. A n A na Iysi.s of LII~ Con1nv.:-!"sr Surrou [lJing

L):m 2;1~ in the Middle ~~: .IQR 82 (1992): 4~] -5H.

3- Yerusbalmi K<!W!.'ol 8.11U2c), based on f1ctll j2A7.

4_ See mn~1 recently the remarks of M~r(' Hirshman. Ha-Mljz'·(J lj·.l.fidmsh: Bein

Ffa;zo./ I(?-Al- 'Ol ba-Kenessiyab tid Av i v , 19<)2) , 21-22-

5. The one conslsseut exn~pl ion m:lY be T;l~u][l, but rhr: f"(':t.~1on of ilus J.:~n~ in

earlv times Lu the I"""Ahhini('movement b ~!ill unclear, Tn "'Il~' case, 'I'u;t.lum in In(':

~trkl sense .. as represented by Onkelos, "~e~ms rd ; l . t i vc - Iy unconcerned wuh Ih(':

omoisi~njjk:lnt idc81,

6. S ee lev 15:2, 17:.~, 8, 10, 1.\ 18:6, 2H:2, ,), 22;'1, 18, 2,1:1S, Nuiu 1:4, 4: 19, ·W, 1j:12,

9:10. and the- rcspectlve Sifru and Sifrd p;l~8g.c-s.

7. As in lL':v 1\l-;:!(I.

fl. See- 7.<?l!(l~j im 108b, .....here the word I){>fokhum ill L~\· 17:l:I i~ intcl PH:'l~tI ~~

tnC"lHni [)g women an d ~I~H~~,.~ in Si ff a AI~an·t HU , ed. W (O i,,~, 81,1 Oil l!: 1 (J_

9. As in Lev J}2.'), j.H.

10. fh'kb(}rul fih; :-;.[~~r.~ !'csa~ltlj 24~-b. A~ KLJgd puis il in le"]. .!:~TtlLO the h.-I.:: of

l 'abbillk r~{~nitinn of the styllsuc nature of hihlirnl P (" > (,1 1) ,. ~ If ~ ~li~Lim"tion "'";:3.~

nUl to he dmwn there W,lS no!ht[]~ to ~3r~fJr. cir., lo·n I d~KU~~d lhh in IlK>!"(,

deta H iH mr "111e E~Cg('~k~ ot" lte~111[1JalL1E'~~:-;:;18t~~n ll.~bb inic Litertuu re: The-

Unlolding of ~n Fxcgctical pjin'L'ipl~: a p~ rt~r e l o ; ; livered ;1.[ the As.soci~tKlfl fnrJewish Studies 'rw~nty-.~(ond Annual C:onferenc~, Hn:o;IOI1,December 11, l')')t~.

11 This i_~ mdecxl p1"C,i~l}' the ponn lII~dt=in lJe"khfJm,6b.

12 '111i~ anonymous stmemem ma y be ~!l ~I~ nn allusion 10 K A~hr.~ fulle-r s t o re -

rnent in P=l?/m ;l.4~-b, or that of M3r b, R . Ashl In ;;'·iddusb'n 4h; ~t~~ n, 10. I

~L1~pt'd that R ashl so und erstand s it, a nd 1 11ma cc ou nts fur h is :l~:-;':"';~ll1(':nlof the

t:~1in!! ~,fpi!f5 meat ln l.lulUn 1()fia, ~ v, f?ad~ me-bam,

13. Note the trenchant remarks [ } f Danid Hoy;lrin ln his review ~~Iy. ·'On the St~tus

of the Ta nna l tk Mjdr:l.s.him,~ in .lAOS 112.3· (992): 455 ..65, t~~p."56-57 This is not

the place to enter inl n tile 50mC">'I~8t less ',exing problem "t a proper defiruuon

of {JI!"shcH. see my forthcoming "rfOgte"~sive Derasb a nd F lel r og ress l ~·e f'I<'.oJWI:

N{ m-ha lnk hie ConsieicrahofL.;s in T ah n ud 'I ' 01 "" ".-1 11 ," q uote Ihe fOllowing from !(':Ix:gjn[lj~ of sect. III of 1 1 1 ; n p:ip~~r.

1'0 arrive al the phin ~ni11.il of tbe [t'xLs, hUlh trnditinn81 Ic~mi[)g and

;.!c:~d~m ir .o;.tmly rcqulre J 0 accura L~ k nowlcdgc- of the ir prove n~HK"~ in

every ~(~n~(~of the word: rhelr II i.~l.orkal provcno nee, in ~1 I[S SCIl~~!;-

polirica I, {'ulwt~ l, rel lj.;iuus, sociocronom ic, iocllldiH).!; 111~iers of n~alj8~

their 1in~llistic, ~ffigr~ph ic - prnven8 nc(':~ il requires concern for srrurtura I

and lnerarv elernerus, for torrn-cruical and !;.ourn:-Hiticd rnorrers. i!

reqlli""'~ [lrsr and fu~mo~ (!stanlj~hjn~ ~ [~1{L,and tbu~ brin~ tcst-critkal

morters inlo ~.~purview.

it i_~ ~nm[~tiJllCs forgotten how e~'all~~:t~nl ~ phenomenon in jewish inL(!"llef'tL1

: II h i .s .tory the concern rm IJ(~IxI{ W~I~. The fOllowing jlLol:lg(~Ill(~nl,m~l(k by Salo

B~l'OO a gell.er<llion ago, _-;.tillhQlcb

The f i rst northem oomrncnrator ro pursue the r;llioml line- with consider-

aWe constsiencv w::t~ 8~flU1d ha r M(,"ir m~sh barn), , , , Ho)l;I,.'(':VC1, t here \V~~

enough a n1higl1ily in this &{~ncr~j approach for S~m.I('"I's .Sll('CC:~~(">~S,

including his yOLlnge~ brother, J3c.ob Tam, and ~tw bUC(5 pupil joseph

Bckhor Shor, 10 moderate it !l1 "( '".1 1Iy .L a te r gen crm io n s o f F~~nco-Gernun



62 Tbe Torah U-Madda Journal

~'hQI;l ~ jlWI""'l.~i Clgly·reverted to that im il1"'~1C blcrsd of ht(!"r~l and homibeti-

. . . . - 1 1 int~rp~br ion~ whidl had lent ft,j.~l i 's conuuerua des ~hci r unpara I lcled

d131Tn. wll llc the lancr retai ned their freshness UK] pupu kmly tbrol)~houl

tne':~gc~.

tllo~

hy ~~muclWCH~

all hutfm~Jlten

~fL~r their author's death,and thev were resuscitated onlr n r the ~ntiqua rians Df the ninet ecnth oen-

turv, Il is ~1lL<l1I......ul.1er. then, LkL[ half ~ century hHU D~vid Kimhi. ~('.uC"n-

in~ in Narbonne foi mate rial.~ in pre paration of his cornmcn t~1~' on

[XodU5, found there only e)l:(·g(~(".~lworks, "Ihe names uf whose authors 1

did no! know for rhcy mo~tly fl)lktw~d the hcrrnerieuuc method."

See Salo W lttmaver Baron, A socta! tmd Rdlglm.~ Hl,tfJIJ' of tbe . { e - ! I - . . ~ . , 2nd ed.,

\,1 {New York, 1958), 2 9 - 1 . .%.14. fI.~ noted in K Stotin-tr's P~P€t cited in n, 2. III ~-.;lrtj("lda~, note n h c-losin~ (:om-

menl~, ~ignin-L~nLly entiLlet.! ~nI~ Oil Lni~i~.Hm(";l.111I lnciplc in f'r:>;!:/:t(it F):cgc~l~,"

446. Much uf the follm.vinJ..!:m~iy I~ seen ~~ illustrative of 1 1 1 5 obscr .....,ri(">nthai "nn

:l.ttenLl:lI(:d version of the omni~i.KniflCam:~ princlple was a f~lC10l in me(liev~1

lx':':~t e'[(:!lt~~i~.hut il~ impm1am~ vuried frulll ot;.,;e~ele 10 exegere .... It m.,.,..

turn out that ;lltiHlOC t()w:;mb Ilw omni~ignifH::~nL principl~ L~a ~'ari~l.>lewhich

can serve to establish :I OCW cf~~~in(8t~.m or m(~di(~V;ll pw-blcmrm----;J. cla~~ifLi:8-

uon potentially more l'ev~ling than the (1lrrc-nt gcogmphic:al one."

Ol1e d(~whotd .. to such :l. c.l:l.~~ific.:l.tion, however, i~ !II~ "~ri~biliLy of the-

im POrt8 nee of j)lBn i.~iglljfj("8 nrc wfth m Ihe- work of a p~iticular ex~:;;~[e from

issue IQ i5-StI(' and from (1\1)0," to crux. M"Of"(':",,·C':r, whm :Lr-t" we lo (~) with exeg~L~~

who are "partial" pasN.:m[ j11' HO"-'- do W(' flW:~ ~Hr(· thdr /K !SMI :md TH)fI-}leslJu/

tendencies?

] 5. Unless, < IS uoted above (nn. 10, 12), lll~~' ;1.1t' interpreted "~u(irlk'i~ IIr" ~.~poi ntiflg

1 .0 HlUltiple proh ibiliOn~ for the same ~tCI.Al all~· rate. Ihe (,~S\Ii~tll' {cncicnc.,..

app!jt=~ ro hnlh biblical ami mbhi [lie L~xL~;for the l.uter ~~ U L . Wt:'i~. Dor Dor

1)(!-non>:Shal) TTJ (Berlin, 1911\ 9 -1·~ , anc] my ·I]rn~r(~cli~"e rlt'w.,b :m d R~LTO-

~rx:rtive Pesbat" f,!:..-tinn 1.

16 S(':(' Tmafot SoMI) ,~~,s.v, to .p. See, for exam p 1(', Its \1 se i1 5nt~h ,~;1.0, w hir'h 1 ) . - : , 1 h Isr n H~d th e- me-n n ing nf

"parasl.filll' 10 [he repeution ota word OJ. clause within a VC~5C, and w . - . .s C:VCflW-

ally employed '"hen IlU verbal R'p-ttili..-m was involved. Deyun~1[I~·H, [he rule W~~

taken to mean Ihe- opposite of lts original intent: trut every such repetition, vcr-

hal Or conceptual, inrplied a ~jJdfl>h.

Ul. S~r'! Sifw.! Numht!r.;. Nu.~o 2 :, ed, Ilorovi1,-, 4-5, where lhL~ L~<:ired ill ~ somewhat

difkwnt form C ' k < J /"". (>$/;1 a /; 1 du~rw {!mmh l"IP.-malwm {!!j([~t 1,r~~Jazur u-sbena ·(lh

be-malsom aher, lo sbena 'ab ela

' a 'sbe-birxer bab dm.ar ebad"). s~~ I). z.

Hl)ffm8~n. cr. ;1.1, M( ': !:Wo t t e -Tora : ba-Tarura'im, tf"::ln~ A. ". R~l:tinnwit7. \"T~I

AviF. %88: rep!". jerusalem, 'j,i'.W\ i-9.

19. See D. z . Ilorrrn~tf], "Le-Midreshei ha-Tannu'uu," if] Me.<il tof fe-'f (m.~1ba-] ~POW 'im,

7 - 1 - 1 .

20. ~ rhe t":x:lmrle~ pm vjd~d in SoWn .i:l-h.

n 'X-c Sljiv. 8: I ( cd . 'I ) ;'c i$ !i., .H:l).

U Se-e Sljn'j N I ~m b o'S ., K oP'I 7l?1l8. ed, ~{OJ"O~'iF. I·tr_)·,t.

B. That is, II is employed 001.,.to releci ~lmldrash lc exposmon of two phrases, ~itber

ish M), or an absolute mllmtive + linile verb (e.g., I)(nwd.: tu 'am"lV; ~~ ttav«

Me;ja 3la-b for ex;J.mp!es of the gellT't, ;llld [lore the 1wo rejection ~ (hy Il.

El~a~.u h. Azuriah and R. Shunon R'J.!:arui[]J.!: b{~'Wlt,"1.! W 'anik and ha 'aoetta 'aoiten fl, ~s~~"'Livdr) marked with tni~ nU:I: im on . '11h. \\'itl"1out ~ntc-ri I\g into

the vexed (11{':';tion of In (~('f)n~h;;h:·nC!'with which this pri nci pie W,lS adhered to

by one or :lnoth(: r T~mnn (S('(' Tosalot, ad ioc, 5.v, dlb/Jt'I'tlb), we Jn8~' note the

consistency with which thls principle l~ app!iet.I Lu llle~e (h·f"{~Slml. The n~ ex-

cepdon occurs in an tractate known r U T il~ unusun] L~rlllirl()lo~y. JVf!'f:/urim. where-

iL i~ applied [0 the coiubinatlou tim/or m!<t~r (~~I)_The ~:lllli~ situanon ohl:lll1~ in

LI~ "ud~"")t'fbtl}akbab; see Sif'~ ,\'umr:x!y\ SI:Nda~)l, t:d. I iORwitO':. Ul, where- it



Yaa.b:m Eiman

is applied (0 btkahi'l likani'l. 1100"'~H=r, the /kwH il~(~lf ~cm~ rully aware of tills

LJ~~g.e,sill",,", {11"-expression ernpjoved fur rejecting other t;'peo; of d..>t'a.~N i~ th~

Af":J.m:J.~~orlJmh dl-~ /.e"fsbu~lIJ'd bakhC as ill 'rf'murob 6b-7a. 21l~. lIa~hi too

is carelul [0 ditlerentiate between these two: see ]ll~ comment on r~~UlNm;!j.:;~

s.v. !.."...1dukb (fjr.;L occurence).24. See Jay Hanl~' forthc.nming wnrl:: on this subject, tcnmtively titled !lou..Do w~,

Knou: 'IbW, to I~ publishecl hy SI:r..y Press, .h:lpt(':1" . 2

25 . Thb doL ':< ; not L'AdLld~ other typ:,:,; of d r ! r a . < : O O I . (If course _ bu t we mus t be cau-

lioLl~ in C<ltcgori7.i['lg those ae ra sbo : attributed ro lum, For e.'l~t(llple, in MepJ"ah

2~ (- YctJawot Db) R. Yohanan derives tb~ various alternative davs fu·r the

~cgillab reading from ..he word hJ-2em,Uj~fh,~I'I' in l'_~lh 9::H, Ibj~ ~·.~~,,-,"~ilionis

not based OEl the extra leuers (as assumed h>" u~vid W Halivn i, /'P.sbat and

Derasb. Plain U1UJ App!lid M=m·f18 in RabbInic P.xq;e.~i~ r ~ ( ' : W York, t99I1. ;l.<;),

but on the plum!, 3~ we lind el~t~wh~H';~'C Ml!n(o!/,>(j/ 6~~ L~flalrm.'lhcm), whlch

in nus j'e~rea ts no different than the ([~HllL;}j[id Kidaustsin 29:i {tim 'u}; ~t~!~ :11~n

T~afnt. !'e!;afJim 2ja, x.v, kq:I1·k/uml If it he- : 1 . rgL lcn .h~t plur.~l~ ~f"t.~ expressedhy adder] letters, !>ee Yo?lianmr 74~, where the pluml t....umflt'~' ill Nurn 18:8

(spelled dcf{'("tivc:l}~) is wk(':~ a~;l r1M~,v (extension) even though the dllfcrcncc

betw een ~ jn_ s,;u lar and plum l involves no aililotd kiter, m erely a change of vowel,Uj.. See rhe commentary af R_ Eljy~11U Mizml_li on Nuru 30:2. H_ Jo,.hO!:l~ll.li exphchlv

auributes the r~bl to ellLploy this iecl msque 10 the ,.~althmd ba-Misb nab," On

1he otl 1'<'1" tw nd, he n'nl r;,~~~ us pt"rmi~il>il ily Lu them ....iLh it~; impc-rmi:>";ibHrty0

the Gconim; presumably lus formulation was 1W[ meant [0 be ~x;H'I. liT llt:~

JI~~-l.Im~J that 1h~ Arnornirn w~re merely ("iring t8nn:liti. tr:l(jition~ However, .1)( ':

seiam« ar-8,!!n!ufU ~I~l ~ploy.~ the !echniqH!".

I dealt with one aspect of lhis process in my pa per, "The Creation of H~iakhic

Categories Exegesi_~as Aprlied Listebwissenschaft," delivered ~! rhe Tw 't:nly-!hil"(j

Annua l C{lnf~r~n("~ fur 1h~ A .o ;..< ; {K " i ati onfnr . I~wl~h StLld~,:<;. Bn:<>tnr\. ll. :"-C"Ini:. .-:r 17_

1')')1.

27. 5€e l_la..~{~ab lOb. lJ.avo &#1"0 112a. and l.luWn )i~, where ~n'OnylhOuS ~u~~e~

t ions to this .~tf(':ct arc: not : lCTep tcn , ami t~..o jn~lan~~ (f.."Id,hL~hI~ -i b and ,.,ullln

37b) where ~1.ar b. R. Ashi rC~15 such anonymously proffered ~llg~C5{ion5.

CCmltl,;;r IhClol."i''''~.::1'~'''~;(l ~...hi['h ..he SLj8SI?~.o,) i~ ,.,):t,te. by : " J . T:\,"):l. on A"')0r::l,

as in Pe...ai_1tm 41~-h. Ym1U~ Ub, SU{{,jb jHb, KiJd~bfn 1&. /~V{,j ,t.1!!;;ja 60b,

111;). 113~, 115<"1.,MaWrot 1Gb. }l.{o]~jaf?OI 99b. where [hey ;\1e accepted, ; ' ! l " L < . . 1 only

Havina's sug~e~lion ill Pesatnm 24;). is ieiected by H. _o\.sl~i.1 dealt with tlus

lElilh<l~hk l~·~·h"ilJI'~- in _ . I ' ! , ( " : t:~(":8<:~i~ l O r H:,,,I"'fd;,,,1 I>;'~~;'jo!~·.~ll K,'_'billil

Literature" (sec nbovc, ~ 10).

28. Sec his Le-Heeer h(~-Mi(Mo! ·'ICefa! u-Ferat u-Kbelai" l'f~·}?jnrnq u-Mi'ti/'· l:tt:?-

Affdrasl)lm u~'-Talmudlm~ (100_ 57,i< i)_ and his forthcoruing LrJ-I/eWlt'Mlddol

Gezerab Sbal.-wb w.-MJdm~bim lJ.-rip.-T(.fmu.dim: ~nd .~(':(~my "Tow~r(l~~ Tcnta-

1 ive P~rio(li zation o r 11,1o i nic I .~g31 Exegcsi s,' A S 5 0 0 ( ' i a1ion for J cwish Stur t ies

Twcnty-fnm1h Annual C[}nf~r~nce. Boston, f)~u~mht~T1~\ 19')2; ~nd ·I~-'J'or~l(~

Mu~~g h:J.-'Ribtmy' bn- Talmud ha-Bavli," Eleventh World C'_m~r~~s uf J~wi~n

s. tudie:<;, June. 1 ' J 9 ' l o .

29. See 1i{ddu.~bei ba-Ra'ab, KiJWoot 6 O a , s.Y. kmab' ba-Ra» R. Mosb~'. and S~, con-vemeruly, YlIzhak D. Gilat, "Mldrash ha-Kctuvun bi-Tckufat ha-Batar Talmudit,'

in Y. D. Gil~1 ariel h. 5t~, eds., MilWlam !~-Da!'jd: S(fi'1"Zikbrcm ba·I«~~' L/luv1d

(lks z 'J (Ramal Gan, :)i*'), 210-3], ~~p_ 213-] 4.

3Cl_Sec Moshe Zucker. Pernsb .?t lUll) Sa '/~dfah Caon Ii - V~rohbi' (New Y(}rk, 1984\181-1:14 . tile sentence qLlol~l i~ frum un. See 1h{~g('n(~mldi.~nl!>~ion in J;I}' H~lni~'

fonhcoming How Do W(? KIWW Thj!;.~

_ ' U . 1h[(L. 1~-')(J-

J2 . If Is jrQ1li . e : th~IER . ' i<;L~fli~ h fell onmpe-lk«] tn j t:1ti5ol)1l vil~I clements of the very tra-

dition he .....i~ (lef(!,rKlinR--~nd that truncsted version of tf:lciitio(l became vet

another tJ~ditioI1. This process h.-1.5ecurred m.'-l.ll~' [lines in Jewi~11 hrstory.



The Tomb l."_Mu.ddc~lou r nal

3J- Couramed, <I~ 1 write, ill chapter .:j of Ius furthcomin~ book,

jot Sec above, p, S ,

_~5 A nnmoc~ of theories have been proposed (Ot the rsse of seq uentia] bibllcal OOIll-

rncntary as a genre, See Mlchael A. S~ner,

~n~Land of Israel in Mt:'Jieval Jt:'whh

Exeg.etical and Polemical li!er~nure," lit WWTt:'I1~~ A. IIOrrlll~m, ed., "{be Land of

f~7m!1: /eu.'bh ~r.v.IeClfl~· (r\" [] 1 ~ D;nToe, 1986), 2\ o - _ ~ . ~ .esp. z n a nd n. 9_ a nd the

literature dL~d .h~~in; idem, "E'xtg~~ et t':n~dgnm~rH: les cornmentaircs de

Joseph Len Simeon Kara,~ A ~,U{)('S .Iw'Vf'~ 18:4 (1982); 60-63. where he connects

this rise in "narrative emphasts" with the needs of p~[bgoJ:!>". LI~rl}', ~ hi.~

"I'i!~b~t, Si!IUU~ Litseralts, am! S~fluenhal N~rr~1ivt~: Jewi~1l EAt~g~~i~ and th~

s.::huul of ~l. Viuur in the ·"welfth UnLUT)i: in Harry \I;'~lf~o;.h,cd., T~ Pranl:

Talmage M(~m()r'a( VfJtumel (H;1ifu. 199~), ~O}-1 S.

Y1p:h~k f. Rler S 8 \ 1 , , . . the lise of interest m pc;~tat in I'rance as 8 reaction lu

Ch~is.t~~n ~l]eWHiC;\1 methods. see Ius "~~lshi ve-ha -Me {.i'til shel Zeuiano," in Sefi'F

~:H"hi, C"i.LY_1. Maililon (jerusalem, 19:)7), 4H'}-5H1. Howe-vc r, whatever it~ origi n

or u r1 g_ im .., il m ust be rt: 'ct)~ni~J that ..he interest in 1~.\-h~1 k ..d naturally to rhr:

need [0 ,~e I~TKt:'rand I.;n~erparts of Scriptu re in context, und 1hu.~ 10=L1~flh:11

lnblical ~-umlnt:'nLar}'.,\~ Sigrtt:'T notes ("The Lim! nf Israel," 2 : 1_"1) :·'1h(~ nH,1 rn l text

and L~ narranve W~~ in~t::pard hl~" cnn nected hy tile til rend nf Ihe cx(':g('hc~ I rom-

mem, so lh~t the reader was for< ' : t : ' i .1 lo see the hihlicil I~xl a~ a nmlinunlLo;. nnrra-

uve. _ .. "

3 6 . I::pbr.!im K.amufogd, "On the Role of Bihle Stlln}' in Mcnic~·.~1Asllk~n~z," in Rlrry

Walfbh, cd., Tbe Pranl: Talmagr? .'Iif«w(jl·tal FoIum~, 1SJ 66: IIJ~ quote is [rom

l5i'l. In tnj~ I"(:~pcrt. i suspect Ih~1 IllC"SCpletisrs were typicu] of the Tt:'sfxm~~ of

many {lH~rthe {·cfltmi(,:<;. l-'Iow(,:v(,"I",promotmg a place fOT Dible ,~lud~' within

(me's n.IITkullllll i~ harcUy the same as nL;.Inire~lil1,1;:~ concern fur umn i~j8nifi-

cnncc and its problems; and e,·en e~'inCI1J.: ~ t:Ofl(:~rn for Ill(~ h~d:lkhk ~~~V-"~fBlbJe SIlId~' does nut yet appmach a fu II omn i.~jgflific~ nt pH1gf":1 m T11(': laucr does

not appear until II j~ d 1<LII~nge~of ,ht~n irH~eefl1h cc nru rv_a matter I hope [0 dis-

cuss on urmlh~r occasion.

A.o;.In R~~h L · s role j n .111 this, q u lte 8 pa rt froui [he exte [L~iv ~ use of Lh~

mJdrcs.hd Ixltatoob manifested in his ~"olHm~["]Lary and hi~ (lj:<;("LJ~~ion~wit nin •he

commentary 10 the &~vlt,whit:h served 1n draw attr:nlion to) Ihi~ neglected Iltera-

ture, Sara Japl"let has recently ~u~t:'s.tt:'tl that the mm pib10ry form employed in

his commentarv !O the Peruateuch impired tile compil.11ons so characterlsilc of

later hench connneruaries. If her h.ypotn~~i~ i~ correct, the oompilatoiv form ;lbu

contributed to a ~rt':at~T nwn r(·n('~~ of tho:' poss IbJ lltles ~~d lillLH<Lliu[]~ nf ;1n

onmbiJ-l[]int:~nL commt:'n1.~ryto Ilw r(·nt~t('"udl. Sec Sara Jl~hel., "Peirush J o t . Y~~';t:fKar<l le-Iyyov. l.i-Dernnram ~1-k-Tdu?-<11...m Sl1('1 Peirushhu Kompd~ilmi}'yim hi-

Y~J"l"leibn-Bcinaviru.' in Moshe Bar-Asher, d al., ·Iy~'!.!md Mikm 1j-fal"'Sh(mw. Ill.'

Sr1 '~~ Zlkaro l' l/ o?-MO'Sbf2 Gusmm-(_,;oll~1!!hl (R:am~Lt(;an, 199.1), 1 9S -2 16 , esp , 2 13 -H i.

1o,.'hdl;;J.~l~ICompibtion~ such a~ h~n& Tom~I~o contributed.

yr The ~~l-. .ge of the tern I;'; "h~ilakh ic" ~nd "ex ro:<;jtk.n.~l" ~s ~C>l lK ' "W ll~! ~Ml:erent, :o>. inc~

the lauer inc] udes gt~nt:~LI(")gic~. hisronca I notes, erc., w hich ~ire 1101 !l<llak h i(',

IIowever, ~inn:: the two re~IIl15, whatever their boundarles, ~re IR~~led the same

in:o;of.u ~~ the exegetical n~lhod~ I.U he examined oclow ~I"Cconcerned, the equa-

tion of the two 5€ts_ which is for ~"(mVt:'TIitTA·(~Ik~ in an v case. shou ld not maner,

,W :Xc n, 11.

39. 011 accornodatlonlsm, :.ec now Davld Bennin, 'Ibe hx)tpri11t.\· of (;rld, nh'tf!';Accommodation Injewfsh (jnd O)riSlfun l1Jfl'Ugi1l (A~b<lt'ly. 1993) , esp, 127·n.

·in. This was not ahogerher unknown in ~~fli(,f times, ......en, fur example, Yifm

~IT()Urlts for the divlsion of tl L t : ' 'l'orah lnro p3 mgr~ph~ in e:l5t'lLli~lly ~t:CULlllluxla-

rionisr terms. "\V]ut [purpose then] {lid In(': breaks sCf\"e~To J.li~'e Musllt:' a breath-

ing space to reflect between ~:H:1l passage 8nd between e~dl mau e-r. I low much

more ~o fur an [mlin~ry pC"r.s.onwho le~lms hum :.Inl(]lheri 0)min.1 I)' pc-rson!"



ytwkr)(} Elman

(Wj',.,1 I. lUVf.b, 1:< ) ) . Bllt thi~ minor clemen. l)(:('am,,> l) ~)rt" w kI~ Iy used in medieval

oxegesls.

11. Scc ] ay Ihuri.s: di~u~~ion uf this poi nt in Ili~ fort h\om~ng book (a bovc, n, 2 . ' 1 ) .

12.. S ee n , 23_

4~. '11-Li!;s not to S3Y that C:~.<:1\ In ~':.~lly linlOi'"-SIU<::'IllP~~ were made to wrest moremea nlngfu I jnterprctMion5 from trcq uemlv ree~lci[r.t[ll texts, ~<:: '~ R~~h l.aki~b·~

oornmern in lf~JJ(n 6Ob. quoted above, p. 2.

M, M(!kllt(l SMrta 7, cd, Horovitz-Raom. 139; see also Sf/rei JVumbel~, &!;halla~ 7.

~(I, Horovlrz, tW. TIle other jIlS[:UlC~~ listed Lh~re are F . 7 . e K 2:1 (or altcmativclv,] 7:2), jer 2: 2, BOoS Hl: 1, Koh ]: 12., all marked as the arn inl hc-ginn ing~ () f tl1ej~respective books. SifNi Nr~mber.;, Ijdw'{Aol~ba 64, ~I. Horo v it7., c 1 Q , notes tkdllO[lolu~jG:l.1 prioruy o r :-Iu ru '): 1 u nd 3.~~.;nci~Ltt~dam.~hab over U. S('"('"i"eS(ll!im6b, aoo nur dlo;("l.ls.~ion t-K~low, !>CrtioQfl TI,

45, ::;(':(~\!wNm 6b.

4(~. '&11('tn(':~ the terlfl " 'JH_Vt~Ht'r m~y be inl", rl)r"'l",d ;I~ iJ~rlLic;LI w i th _~bsoretic fXu~-

gr;}ph~(pan:nr_wn)

l~ unr k8 r; T ("I< ' ;~ fot Clscwhcre poi I~{S oui 11~~1usequenua lit y

wilh in a p:1 raxha h i~ po~~ih lc, :t~ ",j"1('".$.5 t IK ir com me 1~15 1c G t::llesis l'j, at

fkmkhf"l.t 7b, s.v la,

17. I dea It with this in my ~le-Toledot h:1.-Mll S;:I~ 'Rihbuv" ba-Tahn ud ha-Ha ~·I",

above, n. 28 .·1 8. S e e Go}rj~ 'SfS Rabbil lJ 78:7; ed, '''b~xJor-Alht~c].;, ns.49. lev 5:H}_ "AI~at.l}'~ here m~an..~ 111,;11,1hml~h Itw r<")inl ix m~l(k two verses further

un, il n=d nul appe;.!T twice, ~in.:·(· ScriptLlf"t~wi II not 111~0 ; ( ' " 11)(,"sa inc" po int twice.

yD, A~ in the ("8~(~ of :l p~rturicnt worna n; sec Lcviticu s 12 :1.11dbe low, secuon \' LTni~ hlnn~ili{" t(':;l("ning nppears in SJjm /fCJ:.'(If;i 18:'i-6 ~nd Zr:I 'aQim 9Ol.

51. Tbar l~, cx(I\'~r)gcJ JOf ~ more expensive sin ol~ellllg, ;"L~ where rhe pooi <I~ per-

mine-d In hrin!! two bin:b ( ;- I .~ifl- :If](l bumr-offcring) in place 01 811animal oller-

ing ( T.. :. ". ~ : It).

5L Tbat is, ~ p~rrnm-nt mother i~ 1 i~hk f()r ~n .~niIl~~ I I:">ut one~ing; in povertv she

may bri ng two bi rds,';.~,5ljm Tazrt'a 1:3, ed, Weiss, 59 c , 1 r " 1 l 1 Soe! ' : 'ZwaN~'1 9(l ;.L S ee sect ion '''1 below fUT

Rashi·s use uf these mb'bm.l.W/, and ~ n. Hl3 for 11~ ~_~phm~ Iion ~u~~~~:J hy

R. Naft.:Jli7.t:vi Yehudah Ikrlin (·Nt?i'>',~ lHW-Hl93), in hi~ (nlllm(~nl~Lry Ha'ameh

Dacar (repr, J~ru.g5~I1I, n.d.),

54 . l[]z ..val!frn ' lOa.

55. Alb~iL willi talmudic warrant, a~ Wht~R~ Ruva pr0r<)llnd~ :1~olution 10 Ilw (nnLlf\-

drum pr(::-;t~nlcd by T.(_,"V1 ~;8

5 n Not~ ~l~o Il;lsll i's rrrm merit Of) i,(':v U: m , o o ~ on !fl I r tf jj 82J. w luc It denies

h ala k hic 5ig .nL tkao( IC to [he o rd er o f ten us which places [ he ~ l~ u j. ); II [! ': 'r o f [lie d ambelore the calf [}T lamb, ~Iaughter~ng n( tlj~ mulllt~r and her njf~rring in ;m~· (m!(~r

i~ forbukk-n, ~I rnin~wnicll R.~~11m~Lk(~~n h i.~ !;'(Tnnd ooru nu-nt ()n tn~ vc I ": '" .C " ~ nd

CN(' f which Kahman ides passes if) silence, It would seem that i t the talmu die

S(>llrce is de8 rly 8ul horil8 tive, ~n(l i11COI1~n~ nee w il h pes/)(jI. K~11manides will

accept it [hOllgh il vloknes the ordei of tenus in the verse. '\iOrt.' S!lIdy or tlns

a~p~l ol' Naluuanides' view uf the irueractkm of I (~ilakll ah and J.'f!~bal is 1~c~~-

~~I)' ix':fnn:~ we: m8Y fully undc rxra nd the (""(mil i(ting pri ndpte:'; :11work lwrc:

57. S= s. Z. [Iavlin, • 'AI ha-Hanmah lu-S,ifmlit ki-Ye:;.()d ha-Halukah le-Tekufot be-

Halakhah, n M~'~Mrim bI~-Sifnjj b.:l-Talmurlff (jerusalem, 19~H), I48_( )2 .

58. The ruidrasluc' theme of the Tn.r::{b-_~:nnc~rn and IU1i(!"or 1~racl poL:f'<·:I{k::-;l a_~hi's

t"f.lfnmt":nlary. k;idc from !\"um ~: l, 5C'C for example his comments on Gen 1:1.s.v, oomsblt, E . : r o .. . 1 1 : 1 , s.v. w-clcb s/)!1mot. Num .3}1, s.v, dd:J (~[]J}.

S9. GeP"j(Jst; Rabbab Go:8: eel. Theodos ·Alboeck, 6)0.

Go. id!Jm., ed, ·llle{x.Jur-AII~ck, 651.

61. S ee Norman Lamms Jis.l:u~io[l of [hi~ doctrine in his lomb (j11la{id{~ (Northvale,

1 9 9( 1 ), 8 6 ·1 0 0.



66 'ibe Tomb U-Madda Journal

(,2, 011 811 e. .,r th I~ i l ' l N~hnl;l.nk....:S ' IhOlLghl, 50eeekrw, -S.e(1 ions II· \ 0 " 1 .

oj. Pe.';{,INm tih. Sif"n!i, nf!bd{,jf()~,,4}j({ pi~. 64, ed, Homvit7 .. 6n-61. Two dera ..bo: are

("ombin~d; nnr:'"givr:'".~ n rt:':It~.Ml fnr Sniptll~·~ pro>·i~i(m of ~ d~tc ;tltOgclnCf, ~nd

Ihe {)I.n(~rdt,~r1v(_,':';k prif'oCiplc o r et» nu.kd(lm u-mc·rj~r M-ToP"(I/J from here,

MQth ~~ of intcr('"5r. The- I:lUCf parallels rhc BmoJ(s proof: the f i r s t sM('"5 that "the

verse speaks to the disiuvor (bl-R.~'7IlU(m) oJ Israel, smce tlle"~' had eleven mOlLlb~

in which [hey camped before Mount Siml.i"-;:uld had not made an auempt 1 .0

enter the- land of c....nan (~O R abbcou H ille 1 . ad kxs. This vcrslou is il$df ~iiffi-

cult, as Horovitz notes, since 9: 1 is dated to the lirst month. and not the second,

he SUW~1.00 Lh.al tlus J!!ms~h bekm~ ~L ]:1. Moreover, R~~hi mav huve bad an

;l.1[o~ther djjr~re[j[ version uf this ~1~k~nl.. S= L11~l'oId'~edluon, ( U J loc .• and

~=elow,

FQ!lowi ng til i~ i.~~ di~qJIj~itktrl (1) the Vf!rjOll.$ dating sy:'itC1115mployed by the

Jewish people, artnbuted to Rabbi UUd,lh the Princel, who prefers to derive the

p-lin...iple of dn mukdtlm fronl ,1sUlI~wh~tl~~ ~.~:TU~ ~(I-l.II1..·~,Jlxod Hi::'.). which

notes that the lsraelues ;l.tc the 1fl~1\n~lurull rhev reached ~ senled bn(l"_"en

though tocr had not yet eaten any. This usc of the principle Is reminiscent of

N~hmarlidC"5· observation th;l.t the T j)] ,111 prele1s to rompil"1l' ,1 n~lrl;l.{ive un it even

when il is Olll of sequence ..04, H()('~h here may refer to Rosh Hodcsh, the first of the monrlu see 111C commen ..

t~ ry of R . joseph Be khor Shor, ~d foe

6S. On Nahm.al~ldes' view of [he matter, see EluJJ'CIOptt:Ii(1 mh/ial VII] (jerusalem,

1982). eels. 68()~7; E. L .. Melannned, ..H~far.;b!!j IxI-Mihm, 43'1-Y;;, 5..W-i2, 939-~(I,

'1'0 Mel~mmeu's li~L of jn~!ann-:~ in whicll R.'1~hid~ill"l$ ·'e/H mURr lam tj ..nw'"harfJl:l-lhroli' add Gt:n 6:3, I':>;:[)d~:2(). am! 19·11. to hi.~ Ij~t . - : o f Ibn F),m·~. add L e vH,l ..~, Num H'd and 16"16,

A . . ~ Y~:ll:;ov Licht observed ..K ahma nides Saw his work ~i~ a supplemern to lh~tof R1Shi and Ibn fura. and so. in a real .~~n~, Lh~y n)ll~EiIHtt~d bb immodiatc

exegetical rrndlrton. S e - < 2 ' Llchr's "Le ..Darko shel ha-Raruban." 1"e'udo.b~, M,*IDI7m

( .> r :!" S ifm t h ~ ..Tatmud, Q I ..LcsIXJ-r l 1uz{~1 IHe-Fa rsba nut ha -M ikP -a (Td Aviv, 1983),

227 ..3.t esp .. 22:8-30. In parucular, ~~ hj~ corurnems on p .. 229: "One of the !!=I~

of [he muhi-Iayered p["()~r.lm of N3nmanidt!".~· ("(lmm(~nl:uy on the Torah is Ito

serve < L : S J a corrective ltnd .~lLpplt~m(':n.10 tn(': e1(cg{"~* which exi.sled at the tune of

his ~"rili[]1;...Preclselv tbi~: ~ t~ )rr~·1 ive and .~11pl(~m(':nl, h~ll 1\018 sunuuarion and

survev, and therefore Ihi~1 t~AJlmin8tinn j~ limit(~l to the- .""'0 exegetes par ..xed-

ieuce; Ila:oohiand 1fin 1 " . 7 . 1 " : : 1 . who .~rvc .1 S representative of [he entire p~nf.)pl y ."

licht Sllb:<;tan!at(~~•hi~ vjcw of N~hmanioes' endea vor, ". hicli i~ im~~d inrn i. ivdy

obvious to anyOn(~ who is f~milia r with it 01' even peruses Ili~ lH~1 ic inl rodu("tion1~l it , by the- statistical table on p, 22~: ovt'rall. N~ hmau i( k:<; ~j(lwrl~ 10 ll..1Shiin

3"7..7% of li b oonuuems, an d 1.(1 Ihn E'7 . ITl in 1 ~ J% of 1he-Ill. Conti ~15 t tbl~ ll} jU ~L

7.3% for-" 'w tkrekh ba-emet", spora d ic refc rences 10 : o . t l imomdes, aru, l one lone

rdert:nr(~ to R ~d 8~ (G C-fl 35 :16) .. though he i~ Inc luded ~tnony"llloLl~I}' :L~nne ofLh{~ 00 'a/fir ha-f.uhrm in VfjfiOll$ places,

N ahm nnid cs respond s to most oJ Ra~lli'.~ pmp<):-k{h; the t~X("t~p1Klfl~arc Exod1;20. rhc inverted clauses of whidL ~l~f}· a ~qLl~nliat inl~Tlx(~;llion, an(l Gcn 0:.3.

reg;::trding God's decree {~ the Flood, wh irn must be dared ..on the i(]l~p~l<I[ion

of the "hundred and lw~nty }~ar:o;' 8.-("cptc-d br ~II three exegetes ..h~rlLy }'e~r:o;

before J"'phers birth, and which is rhus all example oJ Naluuanales' ~i~n~ning

nh>eI"V""<lLi(ln.St':c the text below l'egatdi (I~ his prugr~ I11IlutM: ..~t~lemt~nt :t t tovltd It is 5ignfk':;}(if, however. that N~hnmniJes dot·_~not H::o;pof'odn~r(':, which, by

the w~y, constitutes the f ] r . - . ' " [ mem ion (]f Ihe prir'lci pic cil he-rby R....shi or Ibn .li:l:r~.

The achronologjcal placement of J.o;.a.~("~ (I('::uh in Gcn ;:l,,):28Is O)'clcI~'another

example o r Nahmanides' rule ,har one generation's narrative is ended before Lht :

next begins, wilhout overlap, even at IOC openS€" of an ~ld110ilOl~IC";"L1 death-

notice, as he mA~ b e ~ 11 Ilcn:: and nr 11::1-2..O[] [I ~ d.a[inJ," : of tl~ in:; lruc1 ionx to

tmild t h e - Tabernacle, whjch Rnshl declares OLt[ of place (ia hi~ couunents on



Yu~ko{Jtiman

~1;8), 5{'C Natuuanides' Jntmductkm ro F.)(O(! lS and his km~ =:on~11"11(1ion of

the checkered h klolY of Il~ covenaui in Lev 1.5:1 [!>C~ ~Nt;(>n IX bekrw 1; H~l~hi's

observnuons at t.cv S-l ...nd Nuui <j:] will he de:lll with be lo w . Finallv,

Nahrnankles dr.~I~ with Rashl's ubse .....alion lh~l Exod 19: Il i. s out of ~jueru·:~

when the (p~n1fkD narrauve of lli:od 24 i~ dealt wuh in hb 1(:11l~lrk.~on the httt~r,which he, to~ether with 11m !'~.rn, :;.(:(~~ns r.ol a parallel to II j~ ~iving nf the TCfI

Commandments in h.od 1~20 hllr ~I~ ~ subsequent development, whic-n i~ K·

corded in proper ~~lU(:nc(~,

A.~ tn 11mF7.r.1,N.~hrnanicks nnds place in his commentn ry 10 respond, either

t':A:plicitly or implicjll.,... to neatl~' every unt= of hi~ -';'lIggc.~tk.n~hrough Num Hi_H},

wuh the-exception of Exod 11:10 (see further), ThIJ~. Ill(" 1;"I~t three instances hst-

(':d b y Mel~mmed (Nu m ] 9 :1, Ikul 31:1. and DC_It .U : IS ) ,1 re ~eemilIJ,d~' ignoR~d.

However, there i~ rHlIhin!! in Ibn F.7.(~ ' .~ cla ims ill these i[]~L~n(:es wh ic-n c.ilher

compe] ~ ~~ron~(· or w h ich h...H· not been dealt with alrtLdy. Nevertheless, it is

~ignifk~r\t tll~1t f".,hmJnides' tem8rk.~ 011 these m;IUt:r.; ~Ir("much less plerullul ill

hl~ c.omrru: nraI).011Deut.A.mong the passages for which Ibn I·:zm d:lill\~ nscqucntiality are: Gell C"J:j

(rcgaldiog Goo's Jet_'~e of the J·1ood, ~c:(. nbovr-, ~nCl IC~~lldiEl~ 'leruh's d~:iLh,

s e - e below), ] L!:'")(the oomrnand to k.w(': Haran, K~hm~lrljdt:'~' ~s.~~nEialpoint h

ihat the oli,:;.in~l journey from IJr K~.~lim W~I~ at Tcrah's il~i[i~HivC',<IS Wilrl~~~

11:31); 1B:22 (lile arrival or the angels at Sodom precedes (,od'~ reruarkx to

Ahraharn in HLW; Nallm.~f\t.:k-~ assumes ,1 f o . n . A conversation eXLendinfJ: p~~t Ih('ir

arrival); 3l'I:1 ( . n r o : dare r:i Jo.5 Cph·5 sa le into slavery, llli~ illu~tr;lt~~ r-;~hm8nick~'

rule that ac.llmnologj(~f 01"(I("r ls a~11hi.ssibl~ when :o>igrulled}; !'xnd 11;I (wn(':r('"

1 l : 4 - 1 - I i.~ the- narural continuation of 11:b: Natllh~nw.le~ Ul(lerxra n(L~ 11·1 ns ~contracuon of 1ne latter p8 ~8 ge, ", hlch i~only re veulecl Lo Ih{: rcnck-r when

Mos.e~ unveila it hdore Phnraoh, thi~ partern Is lound elsewhere ~~ well, q.v. (u(

16:"l, ne. :. lr e-nd, ~md .o;c(': nn . l'j..6 be low and 1 above), 11:'} (J hn Er .J " :" l ~ ( .( • .~ t hi.~ ~ .s a

repeuuon of 10:7; Nanm.'lnid(':'; ~ce--~thb ,1 5 a ~t)J-lr<::'~~iT·t:'evelation of I'h.u:loh'~

sLuhbmm~!>'T- - -{-nmr:an~ 11s ~tf"iltcg.,..~t G:29-.W and NUIlI 1fiJi); 11: 10 (I IH : ir\t(~rr<'-

htinn or rirun I prescriptions at 1 2 : 1-2l\ j _ c( "( )~ li ll J. : 1 0 N:Lllll ~mi(l(~~ in 1 1 i.~ comments

10 1 . 2 : . 1 . ' 1 , Ihis section was revealed on 1 Nixan, ;md i.~ thu~ in p'led; 12:13 t lhn

l..!.Lr<lSu~sL~ thai Ih~ fitu;ll rr('~cripti(H]..~ or 12:·1}'19 were ntr~cteJ here by ;I~:;';)-

ciation ~\:ilh 12 :4l; Nahrnanide-s ~Hzg(·.~.~hat il would more properlv have been

pbc~tI hefm~ Iht:': description of the rbgue of the FimLiJOm at 1L:Z')-:~6, ;.!nd il~

arp(~:mln("( ' "'"8~ d c - 1 ; 1 , r r o until here because of the ~~s~xialiun uf n-1.9 to 1-20,

both rltual prcsclpdons which mi~ln hi:' dated lo 1Nix.m, fnllowefl by tt1c cxod lIS

M 3(1-·12,which followed imm.edi;\!ely-; thus the riLu;LI ~(1ion he-re now '-(lnlpktc~

the rmuer): 12:50 (repetmon o r 12:W, lnu hUlli rdkcl tlu: ~1~I(Titywill~ which

Israelites fuHIlle-d lite divfne comrnund, ~(~~ N8 hman id('"_~'ooru mcrus ~ t: J \ ' . 2;8);

](i:j2 (the corumand Lu pr=n."€: 11w m~1111~at rhe Tabernacle clearly n[~eitherhere trr in one of the Tnbernnr-lo passages: j{ is placed here 1.0 t:'llLph~~i~e lh~

rnuaculous nature uf lilt': manna; th('rc is IK>4hi(l~ here ~vith .....hich Naluuarudes

"'"(l~lld find reason to (li~1gr('"('): 17:14 (the prescnpuon for recorr ..I.ing the .~lri(1L1IT:~

;l~pinst Amalek cie;.llly prellgures Deut 25: 17-1'), hm nct~l r\CoIhave tX.'"Cf"Lwntrcu

in LI~ fortie[h year, a~ Nahm:anitl~.~ not(~~); 18:1 (lI~e comil1g of JCdHO. whether

1)i:'rUT~ Or after th e ~T·i:'I<lli~ )Fl;jI ~illaj, is ~ cause CI . ->k ;mrof JC "W ~ h Bib le co mm cn -

I.0r;'; Il~"" 1'-".>N._hm~nid~s' :ugu~nt~ for .~c:-gll(:"I)[i~ Iil rowe pci haps I~K'J c lu h~~

b~nerul ~pprillH:h than lne inl(':m~1 evidence, as I~i~ <lg_r=lEIerl[ willI 'I\"Xl<lful endl-

('~tc~·, sex- f "L. 6l: I below), 32: 11 (Mose~' pmycrbl; ~(':e dj~"LI~~jon hdow, .~,v.•

~Resumptive Icepetnion"): 32:2') (the devation of the Levites. sec n. 1~), 32:35

(the dare of rhe p~~~u~ mar not have been dming rhe tirs: ~~~I", ~ill("c th(': rium

ber of victuns i~ no' f"t~·(mlt~l. ~md Ihe rcnsuses at .38:26 ~lL'd Ninn 1:1(j ~'ield

cq\t~1 nltmlJt:'r~; N<lhm:lni(l~~' harrmmbtk rr.~p(>'lS'" i~ [lO~ ~-U111I-'dlir'lg), jj_7

(M():<;~~' tent is LI~ fulur~ l3b~rnadt:' and tllc. V(""I:SC i : s 11Ien:,fou::;O!lt ,-,f rl.~01':

N.~nIT];lll ides i.J~!eTpre!~ Lh~ whole n~lTali ~e .~{~q l('nti~ II~...~Hld di5~5soci8t('"_~ the



68 "'bf. ' J arab U-MCJ.Jda Ioum al

LWU); Lev 25:1 (tbis Si[]aiLic section is out of place, see ~e-I."LiunIX below, where

f'\ .~hm~ni<:ks' rc~p0n~ i~ di~OL~f.Nl ;1 1 ~;lil); 26:2;:' (sec ~rt;(m IX)o 2(d6 (thi~

5\lmming lip mentions the category of ml:sbparfnl, referring to V~riOU5 ~558f!,('"S

earlser ill the Pennueuch, hardly ~t IlI:H!!':'r ol' eiu m~kdom); Num }] and Deut

In:7~ (the elevatkm [ } f the l .ev iL~_~ ~f~r:o; 1 .0 an earlier penrxl in the wake of the

Golden Ca If meldcut: Na hmanidcs distiagulshcs between Ihe elevation of MroL1

to the prjcsthood and that of the tcvncs here. given Aaron's role in the incident,

:l~ ("{)fltm~t(~d w ith h t.~triIJd.

( . > 6 . The- reference ~~ to Lev ~")-l. wh i.ch comes ~ft(~r 8 kmg ~U':H~..~jnn nf !>(:c1nn.~

which mus t 00 (I~t('(1 later, 10 •he period in which f"Cv('l~ tj()n~ we r e givc.n at th~

Tent o r Me(':ting.G? Kum 7:l.

68. See his commemarv [0Lev ]G:1, and our discussion 1 k - 1 0 \ ' 0 ' in section \.1. TI1e last

sernence Il ~aE1S11J;'I.[11~ follow in~ !.t:'~tton is displaced, ,lnd that ns place is 1~~11y

between Lev 10:2(1 and lev 1 i:1. J k Loo ~=JLI~ Lo have ~en !hi~ as ;.t prograiu-

Il"L,-U1Crateuieut, and refers to it in his <llLiIH~1J,'~r.;~)11,~~1g;LlnS[lbn k: :~ la ~t N um

16:]. as the sillln~r wordin~ wUl.Ild indic:{[~. cba~'d-_~ n. 11'1,whidl PtJinL~ to L'(oll

uu. Lev H:2. und finally, tn F.xnd 2"1:1as lilt!" reference, mi:.;.scslilt!" mark.

Tht L~,N~1l rna nidcs H:fIL1I"(':~ dr-fin itc- ehmn()logic81 cvldcncc for '~:<;{'"(ILJCnti~ity;

rorurast Tn:·;3fnOl. 'AlxJdah 7.mah ~·~b,.v, Yllm, Whcr(· the- ~llgg(~o;ji(ln i~ mack-

that Exnd 1fl : 1- 12 o.n !rr.:-d hcforc M(ltt(m Tmab, .~11d1h~ rest ~ftc........ut1$, bwt 11.(':';(':'O 5CC"Ions were rom bmed III 01del 10 Piesent one compi ehensive Jelh~o

norrarivo. Naluuanidcs' couuuent to sunilar effect {la 1~:12 (·iL is also possfble 10

explain that rhe Torah ~n~H1g!':'dIba-kalu!' ~id{h'rI the wllolt:' neuter ol' jethro") a~

l;I,.'cH15 his tollowmg comment Oil ]8: U, would 1Ildic~n~ ~tSill~il.~r ~~ih0H. 'Ihe

chrofl0logil:~1 si~nal here l~ the "next t~LY" uf v, U, which must have rxcurred

after Yom Kippur, smce "there was no tby a'>~Lil:lhle (pl.muy) for j_I(!gm{:nt from

the day Lh~y curnc In :;;jn~Ljunti] ~Lf.c.~Y(")mI>:ippm of t11i.~ir:-;t ycnr,"

N<lhm:f.[]i~- statement has a modem ring. St':e ,'t!"ffrey Il. Slllitt{~!l and Ann

D~ghlo;Un}'. SI~lfaJ Jiorm in rhf? Narratio« n!h~(,:;I, 1(81), I·i-I")·

We read n;1lT:3h~"(:~nn(~ word ah.:·r anothcr _~nd in! 11s sense .~jl narrati ....s

8~ rh r(lf)ologi(';ll sequences, But {he ... ~1l~lr1~~En~nl 0 1 " ~"!':'nIS wiLld n this

lille,l r Ilov.' oJ words olteu depa ns III V~iT)"lIlg d~;Ll.R'~~from sLr~t d mmn-

hgjC":l1 ()rci.cr, At~, portions of a narrauve JH~l~'be (~mn~u~J without

regard to chronotogv Ihr0llgl~ such d~'"ic~s ~i~ im;lge p~l'Ierns, lcitmotjf»,

analogy, and contrast, "Sr;.uI81 fOml- i~ _~i1hplyLh~x~m~r;LI r;lhl:1 D r ;IIJ th(':·;(~dllferem narrative techruques,

As we sll.;lll S-e!':'this is exactly what Nahman idt~.~pr0f1'")!>(:~.u 9 _ Needless to say, LII~ super-comme-ntaries' ~Ittt~mpt 10 m~l.:('"good Oil R.1,SI1i'~ snis-

~i[}n i~ of impmt~ nru for tile pmpn llllc1c~~fl(!iF1g of [he ~;o,e~~[ita! pnJhkm~

im"QIvc-d_ bu t 001 a lW; l, p rOt Ulldt1:lt8 ndinlo-:kasl rl\ vit:'w ol' the ruauer,

70_ See ,lbove, o r course, be could r~("{mdl~ R . f':1pn's am Iy:o;i~wir h hi$ own posluon

by ;l5Sumjn~ trut R. Papa wished only to Eu"Ota"Lthe rule of ki!lat Il - j imA.t t~-tb{ '(~/,

and igr:.o~ the 11lf.on:-~n~r:;L1 ~1~11(:nl('["Lthat ein Illj~M(ml refers only [0 tw o S~p{i-

mW pa.~.~;l&(.~,n pr8 C1cc, how ever, N~hiu.m ide ~ 111~1lLLaim h i~ pn~ itinn of

sequentialiry both in leglrd to v~r:o;t! '~ wlthin u r:j~s.;I~t~~a~ wdl 8~ the relation-

ship between two separate pass~~~~. ~ bekrw, y-w.

" 7 L DlI[ IW[, I IhiElk., One ""hidl had my~ti .....1 .~flt("('( -c k-nt~ f(l~ him, 85 argued by Dr.

isaac Gottheb at the EI~'enth world t))nf('"r~n('('" on J('"wi.~hS{\lche5 in JUlle. 19')3.Enuu~h indications [] f 1 1 i~ scnsitiv ilY 10 issues of order ~l d proportion in other

contexts ~xL~l, :L~ 1 _~t- . .~JIshort ly dtmunSIr.'LLe, 10 ~eUrun[ fOr his view nn rtlLr.::-iy

•pasl ILarlic~ or •{lU~I~i-pashtanic" ~tUtI nds,

:-;L'l!" nnw C(lulich'~ srudy on ~ related tnpsc, namelv, NahmaniJ~_~· view of the

introductory vcr!K~~ o] leg,ll passages, -S'LJd ,,~-Signorl be-F eru ~h Il~mha n Ie-

Toral'1: Ma~an(i '1m} - 1 (5i5Jl: ]G2.-6~. C[]11lieh :lr-gL1C~ll;11 Nahm;mi(k~~' concern



Yaakm_' Eiman 69

for locating ihe auribution of ~ mi:p:ah 10God in the introductlou to a paro.,bah

~t~l'Il.~ fr(llY> II,~ neecl Iv proo...jJe ~ divine o;·O\hC€r.-,( ~'h'h nti~tldl), f lowever,

Nanf"ll.:}nidC'$' .:"(>Il("C(1'I ! O : " > l {he partlcula r funn ~rUJ content of •h('"_~ciatrodu •.~ions

owes ~t 1~8,;t;\~ much ~nd prul.>.al>lyIll.l)re W his imcrcst in conslsreucy or p<l!l~

and !;.trlc :;}~1 .0 rhc n~cci. for a d"'~T divine aunbution, Hl~ c.Dnc-c:rnfor consisren;lormulattons g O t = . ~ far heynnd rnnrtcrs of mtroductory aursbuuons 1 .0 (T(xl, and

extends [0 much more pms.aic :md mundane matters: se e his couuuents L[} (;~n

27: 29 , 1:);.00 1~: 1 j! and 20:)_ He- also nun ife_~L~ c.Oll.t'ern fOT t·UTI~iMt'nt)' in mat-

ters of p€ts.cm and number, "'~ in the ~-w~tell f rom second to Ihiroj, sin].!uiar to

phrral, cte . Sec h Is comments to Gen 2 : i ' :2~, 2'):£7, .:10:7, F.xnd 3;6, Lev ~: l l , f :.2';,

25: ]5, In-16, 8nd Dent 6:-1_ :100 note particulartr Gen 27: ~'). whe-re k ;lU('OOS

both to the clunge in r.11tNI'I and number,

Moreover, Gottljcb note~ il1 t'€8'l<'<i 1("]E~"d 1:;!;l 111:.N8 hrnorudcs • ~ not pre-

pared to sec lht!" introoLlrtM)n fto rbc p..155.l,gd ill l12:JJ smce i! l~ later in the

l~ru_~lmh and (lot M its beginning." Cle;;:Irly-,Nalnnarudes' {:on("t~rn with scqucn-

t i81ity played ;1.(1 nnponam mit' in thi~ n~g;1T( ~j.~ w(·II,

In short, ;-.11The questions {O wluch Goulieb righLly poi ntx :L!;mane rs of con

~m IQ Nahma nides are ~e[]Uine ~x~h~ii.:~ I quc.~1ons fLld(~l ny ~ (""(lll('t'm lor

omnlsianlficance. rather than hi_~my_~lk~ll view of the Torah, However, it is clear

lh~t neither n j~ my:o;ti(';ll vicw~ nor his concern willi umn~~iW\ifieallt:~ may ar-coun t for aiJ hh eX~~d.it:~l mo vt:~. I'Llrdy ·p:;L!;nt8nk~ oonsiderations pl.~y a role

as well, :!.~~ shull note- in r("~ml to svntactic ascqueoualnies. such as ~YElLactit:

repeuuon, ur when ~a_~in Lev 7;25), N;l.tlln~ni(k5 decades LII;[[ the '·<tri~ti'.Jn (uf

~ 0 > 1 . . . - 1 f*~I-"~ slIl[j;"hr ~nrl plllr;.I) i~ nr.ll ~~njflcmt.

71.. On thix .~pdILng of tile name .. sec S.7._ l..cinl~n, "Aburbanel and the Censor," jl S l';l

0%8); '~9.n I.

The dclxue over scqucntlallty extended to non-Peruateuchal t)()nk~ ;l.~ ".,.dt:

~L--':: El,,:: " ·JIJ" " "" [,,, ... " .)f A1) . , ,J_,;" Il-l u rul K f.iil..- ~T of B~;'HIJ-,"='l. . y o on J~ 6.73_ For Ibn Ezm on thix lo; . .~He, sec .o\vmh~l1l Lipshitz. !'t~t..w 'fy').-"Un be-M~bIWl R.

...lnlbml! 11mFZFUOt~m", ,~l~rn, 198 .2 ) , T?-7a, a n d csp , 011. 25-.)1) .

74. See, for example, r -; ahmanides' trenchant com IYlL~rl!~n.:g:m.tir'g \~u 1 l · ~ ' S L b~' irnpli-('.~llon) Rl$l~i'~ llr"ldel~1.~ndil~ of lh~ S~fi-d~ rrudraslu« handling of Lev H:,i_~-·irj II)

his coiumeruarv On ] 4: 4J. in wh ich 1~ as.~t':rt~, inter aha .• I \o~1 "il is impossible to

(,lIl 1hem w ith a knile. [0 move them LKk ward and fOI"W"".ud (I.mawtlm u - I i ? '(7hm1

in :lmatter whi( h is nor at .1]] their meaning (111l~sIJita 'am)"

75. From hi~ comments ad 21-1. ~ll("h comments arc common, Lln)u:;;h Nuin ):)

~Ilo~lld he .~i)g I ro out for m('n tion, beca use I[ accounts for the incmpor;11inn of

r ima I mater ia I l;\,ilhin a narra tive contex t.

1his concern fur the ,~equence < if t()pk.~ wlthin a l~g.:.ll . ....:<..<;;.tgL~ .~l~:~d~lbe db-l i n ! l u L ~ ~ 1 fmm the ( " b . : - ; : o ; j r . J . 1 mhniniC' hcrmcncurk- prin(';plc of ~'jjIIImW, where

the mere iuxraposirion of two topics is considered of legll ~iAr"lificance. 6~' tkrmi-

tion, yo,tHkhtH involves only [uxtnposirlon, while N~bmankles· con("~m i~

sequence. moreover, iuxtaposltion mvoives only 1"'0 l-'~ss8~es. h.Hth~rmor(!.

N ahmanidcs docs not ordlfL.aril~' draw novel l~1f11umdu~iun_~ from ~iIher juxta-

posirlon UT sequence, though that L~ not :ll",~.iy_~the case, See fOI" example '*cornmentarv on l : J l o o W:.'\. where he ' interprets the bara t t a which Ilaihi cues a.~represennng an inJividllal opinion in Jarge measure because of the :'".CCjUCflC~ ,-,f

prohibitions rt'g:udin_g idolatry.

76. Se-e hls commentary on Num j~:1..

T7,::;~ G~rI 6;11), J6:U. 1lJ:HH9, Exod 2"):1 (the order of the Tabernacle vessels,with the most imponaiu f i r . s ! . ) , lev 2.3:40 (the [:l!mn menttone-d fir.o-:Iof rhr: "Four

Specks"). 2GA (rain is [he most crucial uf aU b!~s..~ing:o;).r\"Lllll I ;.'12(tile trioc of

Ephraiin bdmt': Ihat of ,1,'k~n~L~t:':Il;(~.Gcn ·i.J:U7-20).BLI[ compare his discussion

of !l~ placement of japhct a~ la_o;tof the b1()thu~ i'l Gen 6:]0, h~ "'~i~ the [lrst-

born, but ~~·cnnci.ro 'ihc-ru in rnnk, ~nd h is status as fusr-born was msulficient to



70 TbeTorah (f-IHa<lda./oumal

overcome Ius lnlerionry 10 Shern. "Th~ rc~-ult wa~ ~n8t <;lloC"mW~$H~h':-C1IrSI, II,l[l],

Ihe }'f)-Ingc~t, second, and japher brought up the rear, SlH:h i~ the pt:m"Cr of

scqucntia IiW!

rs . Deut 28:] 1.

7 < ; 1 _Gen 4fi: 1 ~ 1 ') or r\"Llm1 : : $ 2 ,

HI) F.){OO35;22_ whe-re those ""'hu b n:.'U J..!;b !h lu nn -w o od a IT " mcntinr\t::.:1 aficr th o.~

who donated blue and purple wool. since the former were ft~w(:"r in number,

HL Exod 20: ~ and Dr-ut 2.:~;5, rKJXX~ Iv·dy

1 ' 1 . . 2 . HL~ oommcms Oil lov Ud m.l~i be mrerprered in tlus W~i~', llUuJ..!;hin Lhi~GL~ il~

placement m . . ' 1 y he cnnn(':('t(':d t>,·ith Il\('" unportauce of rain, but see l.)~ul l::~,

w here (iO{r_~ role i~adu rnbrated hdmc the- action which H..::causes IS dtt<lih,:'d.

Mj_ S= on I.L~""16: 1, whCT(~the .~cUions (le-.1ling with tile Issue of [he prevention oJ

Ib{~ consequences of rirua I un pu~il~' for she g€ neral con uuunn y of J srael ~~

pl~<"X'"dbefore those whlch ~jreCl onlv one individua 1, in Ihi~ G~. Aarnn.

&~ (;(,"11 39:8· 9, .....l-.e~ Potiphar's wir~ shows W~~1~r ft:8r of her tUl~b.~fld than or

Cod,

1 : 1 - : ; Num 8:1.

8G_ N t! m 11 :2-1 .

8i _Gen 17;26.

88_ LeT· ]554, where he ~Llrvq":';the- .~Cq11e-IKCof sections ill Lev 1.3-14, and ~xrhin~

Lln~ir order in term~ of ff(':(j-I~1l('r of occui euce.

H9 F.~"f)d 25: L Lev 8:}O. Of L'OlIrS€, birth order (~e n. "76) ~md injti~ti v(' (sec r.'LIlH

11:2,,) lll..-"ly be considered under Lbi~ rubnr, ~~ m8Y ("~lj~~lion (sec n. 82).

9Q _ The excepdous being Lev l2:i'l and ~2: l . ! : \ , t11('tormcr ~l$ noted ~lbOT·C'.

91. I[ i. s uoiewonhy LlI~l no ru~lk~~~d cornmcruator scorns ever 10 II~"·~ ~u%~~ted

lh~t ~(Iu~n~~ might be att ribllt(':d mcrclv 10 mcchankal Or lilel~ll)· Clm~~, ;I~ Ihe

WOjifolppn·nrip, where rhe ordr-r of clements is detenumed by their lc-n8lh in .~yl-lables, ~e S. Y. Priedrnnn, "K .. I h~-K.1?1f t\.~I\L" u'w(Jmmu j:; (57:']) t L7-29,

t 92.-06, and the lneratu re there dt~..:j in nri, 2(_

9'<:.But see n, 'it.91 S ee [I~ discussion of Lev ] 2:8 in sccrion \ 0 1 below.

'N. So LDO in bh comments ()n Gen (j:9.

A~ !o 1be "fll:l~ter5 of ~1n~1I~l~ ~1ud~'· (ha '(Al!'i ha-Ja,hon), see Ibn ):l:llall, S!!jel-

bu-Riknrab. ed, Wikn~ki. ~. lines lSL and see Ch;lv(·I, (fa toc . n. 27.

9:). ~~ hb rommenl~, M loc. One uf Iht~ ~Llp(·H·nmme-m~lr~~ Oil j{~~hi ~~m.~ to

ha vc: nor iced .1similll pl ~mm lermn. ~N~ S.yh· b4molt on Lev ~~.6.

96. Borh pl1l;J.se~mikm IjW.\YJra.~ nnd $!7I·t'S d')(~-"lif.!m ~'/,.'-i.tel·{L~hp.hu. arc to be

(oul\\.1 in the 11Ijdn!.w~i ml/al?hlh. For the rUl1lL~T. ~=.{!NHt(l H{!.~b(JJJahVadss.:~4, ed, Horovitz- i!8 hi n, Wi'; Sljl"{l 2:') , eel, W6~~. ·i.;;b, Sifn~f_iva,,,, pi~~ W·, ~d.

Horovitz, ·13: 1Jat·li_ ~b _~~; and for 11K'"atter, ~e !:!"ijn·i. i\i~.w, pi~, 68, cd.

l1onWi[,_, (}j; S ifj~ i, ntW (I '(jJow J.W a, pis. 113, ed, Ilomvil r, pl~. I~l S l ji "r :: i. P iubas ,

~L II( m"lVit7_, 177.

_" ' l ( ~0;1 irnporra nl is h js d is cu ss lo u ol' the pbt~nom(~n(m in h is comments on (ien

1:;: U. where he lists &en 3'): 17, 41: ~7, E~nd 12: 1';;_ls 2:20_ Ps 66: 17, Jl{l~ 1·U, nnd

M~I 3 < 17 as exaiuple«, ln acldi t ion, he himse I ' SuH.K~_~ts lb{~ follnw ing in I he

course o r Iu s t:ommt:nl:uy; Gc:n 8 : < ;_ 1 1 : ]5 , l:\:U, I.t~V 25·2f), Klml 19:2. In Gen

Ii: J . S he rejeru J.tI~hL~ in tt~ rrrct8 tion a nd slJMe.~1;<;ll.~E{::id t h;11 ~ncr('" is 8 n invert-

ed clause, Perttneru al:;;-) i~ impli('it acceptance or R;1~nj".~ suggcsrions of re~·er~ing

tho> ,- ."It>r ( , r d:'ll~"!; (=-= r:!1ha mi!.tl'u, .1'",."·,,hH [~-d,~r.;bd~u) at E"od 1:2, NLJm] 9,7 and DeLli 4:3H; ho ......:VCLsec lI~;,;t note.

A~ not(~·dabove (see It. (5). Y~;.!b w Ucht ralculared that Nablll~nitj~~ ~I( lvertx

1u f t~j .~ll i 'scomments ill }7_l% uf hi~ nm1fll('f1ts overall. S.."Jll~wh;11 t~.uht~r ht~ hnd

W'i t:n an csnmatc of a th u d; .~t': /{11C),(·fopedUl mbhca VIII (] ')IH)_ cuf (Xl). (jivcn

lh~~extreme ~~~u and care with which ['o;~hlmnid~:~ tJe-"tS J{lshi·~ conuuemasy,

Ih..::natural axsumpnon is r h a r he ~r~e~ wuh him unless OlbCrwL~ n(~~1



Yaakrut Elman 71

Note, llnally, that 1nis phenomenon was accepted wuhonr disagreement hy

N~hm8nidcs' oxegencal 1rdJiLi[}n •. ~(': F..7. Mdamm~(], , ih :furm !!1 h a-M II?m .. < ;7 .\-

75 em Ibn E~.fi ~mtkm mesnras" uhough he win ocn~ion;llly U5~ the terru

Hh(;lJi~kb· or ·rlluM~m") nnd 8j5-,~8 00 Kimlu's "mikm nafUl:1Y ' OJ' "muWwn

me 'u~~ r." In is i~ .. f ('()_Ijse 1ess siJ.lnific~ n t t h.~ 11 mig 1H be rhou ght _~n.-~Nalunanides hacl no C'Q111Pl11KliOil ill rejt:'[:ting lht~C01l.5CnSlIS uts-a-vts muhdam u-

me'u l !ar .97. See Gi=n 2:19. F.xod ~:';, tov 1.1'}, 22:2, .....urn 14:2:1, and 27:1-

It i_ ~ perhaps rcvealiug. lIOWt:'V~, that h(': wi l l more often Elwin not labe-l hi~

own ~ugg~~tjOIl5 with the neutral (loe)-.I'h,,'um (sec his counnerns on Ct~n ·i;2~,

14: 15, 13;9, 27:26, 3/':2, 40:'} [in hi~ mmment~ Ul .~7:2l_tev ,j(), 2101,7:ji'l. 11·.~6,

Num 1: 16, 171·5) than [u call them m ikP·(7 m~om . s oULn~ht. '1l1e te-rm .o;h~'um is

not excluSh'd}· employt~d for invcrtcd clauses, wilh il he (";-(·8~j(">l1~ly refei S [0

other ~yillaCLi(" iI'on:mni( ifi,c·s (see uod 2L~H-21, 21,_,1), or even el ynll)logic~ 1

CUIu;i~r..iLi(}n_~, :l~ in Fxod 12 .41 in hi.!; comrne r.r~ t .. F){0<.i 0 : 2 he ~wplo~.,.; the

tenu in explammg lbfl f7.r.1·5 5ugge~led "Juuble~lLlly" pH·p(l~i.ion there.

[\"tc"'>~rth[~le';~, in rhc light or his pm1ol.r.imm~ltiC' starcmcnt ~. Gen ]4: n, thix

must t - . . : ~ lakl to stylistic preference rather thn n to) his inc! irl~n~m.~;10 wb81 cxrcnr

~tyk: mirrors ~pl~· held bel id_~ rr-malns m004.

9tl. A.~ in F.~()(l 2.2, where Aaron and Jo.·firi.1'll'.~ 1);'111 m~ umi!l~J, ami .~t~(~N:l.hln~I)F

des' attempt [0 account ror th i~ in his comments 011 2:1.

99. S ee his lOflJ.: discusxion ad Fxod l8:1, but see nn, M ~r\ t: i (~ 8nfWC.

J o o _ See his introduction 10 l),r.utc-ronoIflY, and S~ Mizm~r nfl T.ev 2~·1 ..S('l~below,

101. See below, s.v. ·'R~~Hmptjv{'" ilepeliHull: for ;L disCII~~i(ln of Ih('" luncuon of the

diy Jslon of !he Pent8Wl.Ich into "books."

102. See ~nLnn TX.

1Q3 . l'n:nn bi~ oommemarv on I~v 8 - 1 .

IO· · t This point was :.Ilre;dy rc.(""(lgl1i~~(1 loy fl. Mia~l.li in hb (~~lel\d.::d C"'-"lwnCIll6 W

I.('1.'"2~:]. q.v., but exception In H :lr(,:OOKcl as well.

10") . See his cornu LenLs1 .0 r\"L1m1(',-1,wh('r~ he expla sns that the pl;H"t~mt:Ilt f)( the p8s

~gc devoted to KL}l;lb-.~ ~hdlion provides mSI~h. uno II)L' Hlllillg ~LlHI 11l0liv~tion

o f Ihe ;111empwd ("011p; se e 0. 136_

106. N8nm:lni<le.s [0 Nl.IEIl 9:].

107. N8nm:-.nid('-s, (,itf I O t · _ II~ makes ~ ~ilnil~r comment II) 111S l~!lI~lrb on {ien .'i~:2H

and Lev 10 :23-

Wt' 11k"}" nute in p.;1"~ir\g that the word het.juelltly used in (~~nc~is to (\enu!e

"hi!>l.my" j~ wJoof) t , luerallv, "prU;l$'lly.~ or, m(!l~phmi.c811}', the events wlncli issue

f~,rth in the course of [;.n",. 'l'I.i~SO" r ' ' ' < : , , _ ~ ~ ( ' con nect s c q u entia Iity a n d ,l,I";J1 i y , " ,

108. That is, rhe w1iter's covenant wi1h th~ ~~(kr as the crite1b ~o~eming lilt" g(~nr(~being used, ~~ I)a~·i(j D8IlUO<:;Cl1,Tb» iwu,-aUw (.(WoI.'HWll: 1i·aH:lmmrHtOIJ$ of

Ci~.'m~'in rtw C,'mrab of RJM(caf Lucrutun: (~~m I"rand~n), 191\7), Z

10\1.• "Lsin the case of G~["] 3?: J , ~xnd I; 1-/, (,:~':J·;I(J,~l11l1NUIlI '):1. Tbe lirst and third

U~ ~~L1m [lI ivc repetitions. and fOI the ~{MtJ and fUll r1 h 1w h8 ~m idrashic ~vai-r;II'ot. ~:c Fxoous R(lbbtJb and 1{wl!tlPPru Huher, ad loc., for th e ionuer, and SI!nd

i ', ,· um l j(>~ , B (Jba~/OI li "k ' ){ j M . ~I. Horovitz, 61), for rh c lauer, J[ ] G~1l 6:j, ::15:27,

1 : :- ': '0 0 19 : 1 1, 31:R, and Lev 8:2.lle. rloes nUl cxpl .. in ! ] 1 1 : : " departure,O,le o r IJIIt' ironies of tntellectual Ili~t()r}' j~ that ]l••shis super-comruentntors,

ever vi~ib n! in his defense, in essence 8do["l ' f\:lll m~Jrljdl;'$'5t.\nC€ in this mutter,

<lno:.loften aucrnpe to d'OK·'......r Ih"" reason for ~~equcmiali!!' i . . , hib! ;.';,1 ""rr~1 ive,

110 . S ee fur example (len (} :.1 . :l'i:2 9, n nd tev ~:L and compare N~hln:jI'Lkk~ on the

Iauer two,

111. Ra:;.hi\ use D f S I / F l ! I in Ihis. matter, and tht:' rd~l inn .. f th~t !Hid1ash I<Jothers on

the :;~H~ lOpic, 8 re ~ m~tter of discussion among 1;1!~:r (,()nl m(':m~l{OI~_ S~ tl ~

rcoiarks of Gur A1J«-Go,ur exam pic:, Of greater CO[K"~m he re, bOV...:: cr, i~ th~ ~~tft-C'::IC"}' of such treatment of a Sh3I\!(!"fuIf8ct, whi('h, il) the ersd, does ~ppo::::1r if] th~



Torah in any case, W~ sha]] huve •he- oppOr1Hn it}' to r-xnm iI\C: "tho In.S{;lfi('t-"sof

R.'I~lli·!;u~e of the: theme o r God's love for Israel as ~n ~Ju':'!I:~LK::.i1ool,

II;:!. Sec below, section Ill, lor ~nUlher ~x:l.mplt= (Exn.;..11:1-7) in wllk-n Ila~ni prci('"1":';~

f!tboob centered explauation 10 one which rnerelv KK nowlt~dge:,; tile 8cllmnolog-leal order by po..~ling "' r~urnpohv~ refK~titinn

113. Reft~lTin~ to t h o r - rq1(lrt (If the: movement of the camp ~lrid ' ' '~nIn !:hap1t'r ').

114. lJnlit lhi~ puifl1. r\lmrh~nf"1 quotes Nahrnanidcs' comments Oil Null) ~:1 \\'old for

word.115. It i. s important [0realize that Abarbane] often takes the opening pllr::l.~ of:l bibli-

cal book, lISLl8.n~, the indpil, ~~ reveu 1ing il~ therne-, ~=i~ dj:<;(jll i~jl ion~ in hi~

introductions to 1~lrstProphets, for example. Thus, here he imrli(:~ that tile title (If

ll~ Book of Numbers, Bemidbar in JIebre-w, Td~.(:~ ro the t11CIlK'"of the book.

which is to giv~ an arrount of the- I~f~dl.c~' experiences tit tilt' SUuH J~'Nrl, as

oppo:';(~.d to tile .~(,(,O\Lmwhat transpired at MOr~.1/Sim#, eoiher on the mountain

(c.g., Lev 25) or in the Tent of "\kel.n~ (Lev 1-24) wllkl l nn·lLrit~~ mO:<;lof

Leviticus and the l..-.ttCfpart of Exodus. S ee i\1}.;l,rh;1ild"_~·Ulllm~nl.~ [}n Num 7: 1,

116. For a more detalled all:l.Iy""~iSof lhi~ {:~~e, ~e~ section TlI Ix:low,

117_ See Sifnri iliumberx, l~bu'~/rJtekha, ri~ 67, cd. Horovitz, 62_ and n. (j_~ abuve;

H~~hi ~em~ 1 .0 pr{_,'"S(~n. mci(l of pis. 61 and 67. Chavel in hb ~JiLion o r H :~ ~lli's

oomrllent~T)' (~d r\"LlTTl9:1) notes rhnt TOO8fot. Y(!,l!tmWr f2;l.. S.\ ' . nltslJull/ cite

Sifref a~ the SflHrTe of tllis midr;l.~hk' comment.

1lH. A~ R.~~11i (k·_5<:'ribcs the: phenomenon in hi s reumrks on l~ > ;.ml 6 : jl ): ~rbi~ i.~ [3 I"(:p-

ct itil)n oil the- storcmcnt made ~lhove. . . . Scripture ~p~;JI~ il he re ~in("e it Lnt~f-

rl.Lrtc(l the na r(m lve. Tlus is the method luf ;1 narrator], jLl~1 as a pt: rSOfl who snvs,

'!~I lL~ return to !hc- f'(5. subject.' " See Shemaryahu Tulnjon, ·111~ f>rc:<;t":n!~tjon0fSync-nr(lf]clty and SimtllI~ndI~' in Hiblical Narrative," in In>-L:ph Hdn~m;lnn anct

Shlmlcl W'elses. ed., 51mb~''>" in Hfflf'l.'W I"i~n-mil~! ...rt (- S'fjpt~ Hicrosolymiraoa27) (jerusalem, ] 9;8), ?-2(}, UK] the IH(~I"""At!ll"(:it0l1 there, csp, on 1J. U. S ee also

H. Van Dyke p.m.lnl k, "Or~! Typexeu ing: Som~ 1J~(~~of Bibl iCJI StUIcture."

Blblica 62 (981): 153-6.f!.

~SUllLpliT·e ~~~ i{}n~ 1l3V~ been observed in many ~lncient texts, ht~inniflg

wit h t he insr-r ipt i(l ["ISof Godoa, k Elt~ of 1..aJ.:~ ~II (ca. nZ:; BeE) Sec Ada in

Fatken~(':in and 'l:'olfl8Lll von 5o..1~1l,Sumeriscbe und AbJmJ(<. ( .h~ JI),IIlrjo},j !+lui

C;~e (Zilrich, 19'53), Hi·1'j (translanon of Crlindt~T I, col. XL 5CC" 11.1 8 L1d 19,

I:mt ci, rranslanon of S. N. Kramer, "Th~ Tt:mplt~ in <;Hm('"ri~n Literature." in

Michael V. Fox, ed., 1elllpl e (1/ SUfje,_.' rwinnn.~ Lnkc, 19881.3J. Se-ealso rabbmlc

teXIs such as i'o:.~ Mesjff~h 1;), anrl S Y. Friedman, "k-J Iithuvvut Shinnuy(~i

ha- G jl:sa 'ot b~ -"1'a1illuJ ha- E~~vli," S f dj·(I 7 U99 1): (i.? -102:; ~ H2, n 2:6:\ ndYerushalrui (~~ Yerusbaimi J\'edamn 5:7 L~9hJ. ed, Vilm 5:(i IWbll

Dr. Richard ~'hlte has C ; 1 ! ! e - d Illy auenuon '0 ~j 1"(:~Llmr'ivc rcpctirlon in f'il"~i

de-n(lbbl EtI ..: c o . . ' ~ , cl L~pS. 11 and 1'$. where in tllc first, the <':1e~lion or rnan i.~

described as occunng in ~ "pL1IT: pl;tcc" while chap. 1.3 h~~: "Ar!{~rman was (re·

:lIed in .1pure pbc~.~Mich~d Friedhnckr, ill his edhlon, explain» Lhi~ repetition

as Oll€ !O <I conllate U.~At("'c-olk'l ion of three vanant Kt:uu[]l~ [] f 1he same leg-

cnd~);~ Pirkl! de R~(*' Bttezer (11ft' (."'bupi~"'s D f Rabbi f:t/{!zm· Ihe Gn ...~1) .1~.-

conifng u» t~ T<'!;rt 0 / tIN Mm11~!'-'nPi /Ji!lmlJ!.l11J!, to A {m:'1/)OInj EpslNrj q{ Vjenna

(London, 1916. rcpr, New YOlk 1981), fa, n, 6. Tni~ i~ in llnc with the modern

um~t~ndln.g of Ihe device; see 'ralmnn'~ flh.russion 0 " its modern in(:;:l.rrmIiOll.

11oj. ![e ~I~ seems to understand the mention of thc Tent of Mee[inI!: in r\ um 1: l ~S arosumptlve repeuuon, SinCCIhe hulk of tev it"-'ll~ was revealed there, with the ex-

0fP[jOEl {If ch~pI(:r:<; ~5-U., ['\um 1:1 resumes the nurrativc- of revelation in the

TenL

"~in("(~He- inrcrrupred U)ljm~) willi It It" m i;r)f)1 of d1C s.~bb~.ical year and

",ubi Icc which He siated were [glven] at MOl l (]I Sln~ li, lee repearecl here

(~;:-ar W-am.-~r kan) Ih~l l.hl~ H~~lMion (JiNmd wa~ 19i~nl in Inc: Ten.

of :o.1eetlllJ:, as in all LI~ revelai inn~ l;>..'hch I k ruentioned [rum the hcgi n-

niltg 0.[ 1I~ lJouk of l.eviLkm.



Yaa.bn; Elman 73

Li kewi~~, N~ hnl<lnides seems EO ,,~w DCLll - I A4-'i", 85 ... j esumptive repent ion

of Ikul 1:1; ~t~e11~ remarks on 1:1 and the di:;(_·u~-.;ionIx~km'.

BU. AI the ume of ttw Covenant 8e[w~en the I'k~ct~~; ~(~ G('n IS. and in particular,

-~~ Nail rna nides' understandlna of the ~~~nn~ for this exile in hl~comments on

GCfI1dj-16.!21. Geu 46:8-2,..

1U. As set Jmth ill lll~ inil i"l dt:":cTe!:':of Gcn 1~: l3_

12::1- .Madt=l~J on E x od l'U .

12"1. Tlje I~~t statement doc:<; 1'oOl ('"X~ l·.ly rellect ['.~h[l]anjtk~' views on the IflMtc(; [he

Tabcm;lc-lc W.1S erected 00 1 NI~H, hut the Divim: 1'f" t~~I l("e- (hd not descend

nm]] ~Lw(:-ck later, even .hou~h [he 11r.;[seven th{rte~ or l.ol:viti~"I$ were revealed

;It th.1' time. S ee Nahmauides' oouunentx on Exnd , . n · . : : ! ;lfl(l,O l7.

125. lle does the .~~Hlle in bi~ cnrn mt~nt~iFyon Jere-i f l ia h. see hts counneius on J~r J7:4

[';~hmankk:<; ~11:<;oc.c-ngni7.cd rhc existence ol' ~.'lplu!.a!or}' repeutlons, IhOllgh

here ~t jnyolv~~ ~ c()ntr~d;n ion ,1 s we 11. In tll~ 1.:UlIIrm:'n' act I·:xod 12: < j I, h e : 11otC"$

111:).[j!.al verse-« "It W;I~ nn Ih~t scl f~M1].('ell" thai God Look uuL Lilt: children of

ISr~d [rom ! . l ~ land (If E'gypl if] their hosts" ----I.'OllL~~Lu correct Lilt: irn rn:~o;..~iOI~left

by 12AZ, which (k~r~Ix_~ the flight as 8 "fll~ht o r waLchinB In r a k e - tlwln our of

the l~nd of F.gypt ," Permissloll!O leave W~~ wanH~1 at night, hut the exodus itsell'

took place: during the day.

Here we have a resumptive r-el~iliun (lJa;mr Ijlt!n',~b") of a different .~OrL

Each of these verses serves ~~ ;.I sLlIllm:HI' nf j he preceding section, ln L] ~ [lrst,

verses .17-39 describe the l~xodLl~, nnd ..j~)"~2~Llmm~ri7£ .I~t>~}'p!bll ~'O,Oum and

exodus, 43-4') r~~(:lih~ 1h(~ritun I oJ the pascha I S• -"l.Clllce, ~Htl ,'er~ .,0d im~10;(':<;th i~ section wit h the ~.~~(~rtion tha t rho IS1~e Ilies tulfllled ~itl ,he rcqui rem« ntx,

Cnn.o;j inn ing 8 section of its own, verse 51 serves ~s anol her <urn 1\181)', rcsurn iI)!l

and endl ng the na rrativc 8flcr the in'Cf"CIlIE1!l rnual di~r~$~iuli.

1M}. II Chron %:n-~3.

127. '11.e us~ of the word hi!l,Jezl1· n(~red[}C~ nor refer 10 ~1repetirlon of lb~ decree

[rum Chronicles, since it h dear fmlll the conrcxt {ll;"u rhe more cUlllpl~t~ version

(If !he decree i~ tn h < ' : fOlLncf if] E7.m, and Is therefore presuruuhlv origin~1 there

Th(~ pnint i~ t hnr, h8Vi Ilg Oc('[ojng to [oin the ! W U narrat ives by rt=pt~alng P O : ; L r t of

the decree at the end of Chwnides. the author of 1 - : 7 . [ " " " . 1 or it~ e-ditor (jin r..o. ~JiI11i-

nat(~ tile f~rM tw(l verses from the begjnoll1g of hi~ hook. I'roof [or Ihi~ rc.8(jiIlg i.~

to be f(lll nd in the continun ion, ",..he]"~ [';~hm~mitle~ ~tres..~t'~11'0:11lw (:ditor "rofll-

plcied the tlrst book"- [h;H is. Chmllkl~s.--·wi.h what ( . . . - ( 'Llrre-n before !11e

l'tuuilJi[];t;: of the Temple" and "ic-ompk'tc.il th~ second book_" Le., I::rra, "wlth

events fn·)[I] the bu iI(ling onward." T11~lt l~, ~ degree of cdh fng .~n.,j coordiuation

~·~I~ n(~C(~~81)" ror l : x : o I h.128. Heb, c i a o , see Chavet's (]~, iJ d ksc.

129 . f'rom hi~ comIl~L~ry un EX{Kl 1,1.

Em. See n, 127.1 : : 1 1. The Ll~ of thi~ t!(~vi("e al llli.~ pnin I h~i.~bo::f"OflK a bone of oorucntion between

tlln~ who au ribmc •he- nuthorsh ir of Chrou ides ~1d I : : :a - . " I . LO the ~m ~ p~r_~m,

usu<l:II~'Ezra, , " I . view which can be traced back to the Talmud O~[){1 natm 15:1.)

but \V bkh migill:![etj ill modern tnues ......th I.Llnz, and 1n (~(:v(~r-ifl(·H";L~ing m Imlxr

()f ~.dlOt",.,,;",..ho folio",· $~1~11 'r't":fer i,~ ~'~~~Ir'~ f~'r :;.t:'p~raL(!"uu thors. See her "The

SU("lt'Jol1~ Cnmmon Authorship of (llrnI'lLde~ an d Ezra-Nehemiah lrwestigated

Anew," Vf.'/rj~ Ti:~l(m!P."!nWI 180%8): 5;W-71. I hOI}€' !O iake Lip .lli~ issue d~-

where.132 . I'mm hix rornmerus on Num 101.

133. Ful!owin~ l-!aSiww 6 . a and :t~~I~im 115h, N;lhm8nicks dn'ides [lie Cl3 of M o : s e - 5 ·

pmphocy intn three pal1.~: lll~t of the Sirui rx:rind. trnt of the era l} f R". elations il l

the T;tbor.m~LCk. and that of Lh~ t:u"..~nanl :11111(~rI~ins of f I o t l . ) ; . l . l } . ~ee his deta lledjm.~ly~i~ ad Lev 25:]. presented and di:;.t_·Lls..o;.edtx: low i I~ ~~~tion IX. Though the

I~rndil(:~ reach !l~ Plains of _"'lo~h only ;.I! Num 22: 1, rhe Biluru and I'lIiI.I'18 narra-

tivcs, and ~~~l(iaL~d :!{·!ivitk~ (the ('('n..~11.~,h(~war a.g~iml Mif:km. t':tc.), the Glid



7,i The Torab U-Madda Journal

a OO R o::-u bo ::-n n~ i r ra u ..'t:'~ <lnd th e list of campi n~ ~IOI-'~ !;tkt:' lip th e utllk of re-

rnaindcr Howcvr-r, C"haptC':r,;28-3(1, _~_~-SO-yj :15, :mrl C " haprcr 3~ ronsnturc a con-

side mhk ~ml)~rnr of n~~kh i(, m~ t o : ' ri~ I that mil<:hi pC':~h8r>~ hc-rrc-r haVC': h~~ r-.

lncludcd in Deuteronomy.

l}t See hi.s commentary on 23: 2.

HS, .~o he obse-rves in the oourse- of hi~ comments on Deut 1.1.

136. "';"e llL<1}"note, inter ~~Ua.lh~l <II It:'a,~ one o r III~ ,_liIr~r<::'Hn::.~ll On.....r lll<l)' cut lll~

~l~t W ,l~ ', and support Rashi's l l l" ldc~.s1.1Ildjn1 ' : of lh c rcbtij)1\ Q r Ih e rwo P8!;"~8gC.~.

" 1 11echi~lS!lLic reversa l be l ween ih e !WO, whei e ( i.JOb h8S "Be r.ol(i, T ;1111of impNl-

ed speech, how then should Pharaoh heed me?" .....ule 6: 12 had " 1 1 O ~ · thCL1

should f'hamoh hoed rne, a man ot" impeded speech',' may consriune .. 5(;:,KIl-

Wd ~ ~ chi~~mk p~ltt:'m, wluch, ~i~ fo. .1<.J-Sbt : '_;r~nl~rH lias show n III ius oonuuen

t~I " y on f.7d. id. mi!!hl indimt~ a rb~hhwk.

On the btter, ~(~ M. Seidl, "M3ktrilm bcin ~:fcr Yishavuh le-Sefer Tehillim,"

Sijl~i :)3 (.,716); 1·W·n, ZL")··,W, _C'l.-ISD,In-),L N. \t"~l<"'~," ·AI kl-Ki";I~ml!~ b8-

'1ik~: in M~h~ml Mlkr~; &hlm}l Nw;~1? l~!-/,a..fNm. 2:;,)-73. Om: (If the imr-.iL,:<;

of this l;I,,'ho.Jediscussion is th.~. Abarbnncl (foll~rl n r 1kM~lbjnl) i~ the- nm:

(Y]m(ll~,~[;l.!'-'I w h0 fioti<""€d the t~\ ...",r.~;].1of el"'!1\f:tu~ il1 [he dcscr ip!ion of rhc

Chariot in E~k l anc:!9-11. Wbi]!':' Abuh:u~l ]Jro.ff!':'r~and prefers a metaphvsicalexplanation of lhi~ reversal, GH':'ent:.e1~ p;:Il ses i[ as ~l Seidl- We Iss chiasmic repcrl.

uon intt:'l"ltkJ to : o o h o w t h e itknliL y of L!It:' two Jt:'~~TipLIOH~. s . . t t : ' M(J,;:;lle Gn: -eElbe l " ; ( : ,

h"~x:kM J-ZO (Gan1en Citr, ]'>'lij), 1911-':J';l_

The- K o m l J rwrmti."C is ~ O C > I h ( ' " r instance in w h i o : - I l N"ahm8r-.id~~ f(")lInl;l,.'~~ xirnl-

Jar inrcrpretlve 5 lmte~~" , and to some extent his Jntcrpsetarion owes more to h is

gc ne 1~ 11 S ~ < lod 1113n to i l1 le l l l ... .1 evidence.

ln ht.~ (nmm~nl~ nn Nurn 16:16, h« I"(*n.~ 11m E'zm'~ nlm~rv;l!i()n 1h~il Mo~~'

proposa] W K.or~l.1aE l(}:Hl-18 i~ a reprheo o r Hl::\-7, interulerl to .~[Tt:'~~ that [lit:' the

action recorded at 16:1~, wluch p;trdlld~ Mo~~' proposul at 16:i'l, was ucied On.

l1 \L l~ , ~~ w~ is",~ r "1"1"_~ in .,i~""II j",. ~ .r 11)11 !':~r.JO",n '~:JI",,, I, 1 '..176). 160-61, lloi~

repetition i~ =rbn8tO·fY or ~llppkl1'o('"l\t~1. W(': m8Y ~n ( l to "lo;\'~~c(~ observation

the sddhional pOillt thut th i~ rt:'p~Lirion GHlnol be d:i.~~~nt~da~ n~~l!mpi ivc .~irl("(~

lhere w a : o o no inl.t:'mlp!ion_

N~ IIII 1<11Ikb"'Hlj.'JUp LIl t: ' ~1 . [1 l t: ' interpretive' sLr~ tt:'gy h~ ust:'~ .u E xod 6:29 - 3() ,

and sees the two conversat lons as reflect ing 1",0 ~1~lg~~ in rII~ 1"l~!!UIi~ion~

hetwee-n Mn:';r--_~nd Knmh.

In addnion. he rejects, in the course of lus couunenrs (H\ ]6.2, lbn I : : . .:H·~

pl:wem(:nt of tile n.'m~tivc as a whole as h~~'il:;! occurred in the Sinll desert; i[ is

there fo re to he considered o ut o r place, ' lk1l ile 1 1 ) 1 ' 1 r :7 .r .l d ~ ims r1 uI rh< '" iflciclt-:ntoccurred in tilt: Sill:li (lt~!>t:rt .~hflrt1"..~IfW~ tl-ic CICV:;Hon (If tllC tJiOC of Levi in the

wake of the- Gol(kn Cllf 2f'<"'~L~~~',N_~h 'ld,~id .._~ph~~ ,I " "l 11,« f!:,,:m .-1"'."'1, "",ith(:n~foH· in i.~rm~r place,

1.3;. hom h i : o o conuuerus on I':xo(j :s2: 11.

138 . See [1. %.H9. s...T ); ...ob Mi1~I'-'ill" u·! ..ltGr~~ J-/6; .'L ,V~'!I.'Transiation lelia /rltmducllfm (mel

Comm~mary (Anchor Dible: New York, 1':.191\ 1024, :m d .o;.{~t·, where - rdt~VMlt_ h is

remarks on these passages in h is jPS Torah (_~mrmlmlulJ": , 'VunJh. ' I~· (Phihddplli:t.

199()) Add, to these, Num .22~35b~ltJ 21a, cited b~' Mi1,I(Tolll in the formt~r but

not in the latter, and C(,"n "'i: 16 8nd -1<;:2, noted l o y . Talr..ion (21·2.1). III none {)[

these ino;l;u\{:~_~oc:<; eitner Ibn EZl ~ Or N~hlll:UliJt:'~ remark Oil the r~~lihun,Though the resumprive nature of thc~(': rcpcririo os I1l~}' h.n·~ escaped

'\I~hl'll~ I ' I l < : 1 € - s _ [It", ir repcunvcncss ~ur~ly .....oHld nor Bi"~ll •h.. ~"'(l~'tivit;".~ :l ~"lrnll-

nie" education fosrers, 11b reje"-Llion of 1hn F7.m'~ pmpo:<:c.d rcsurn ptlvr- repetition

at Lev : = : I : I). is no dilTt'Tt'nI from his usual approach, here lus proposal of .1 pr'l)-

~ r~ .o ;..~ iv e d e sc rip tion o bv ia te s the need r U T Ib n E " :r :I - .~ ~ ~ ~ l~ rernial resumption.

bo. :i.<:'t: 'S . T<llmon (ahovc , n. 1H:I), 1- 1

H 1. He rctcrs her~ ltl Il;.l~h i, N:-thrnan id~~. Aborba ncl, Bell nor Shor 8nd "po.ssibly(}[her_~•



Yaakov Elman i 5

] 4<':. IhiLl., ] ~, T:llmon SL.lAA~s.I.~that l he (ii.sIIIK'1JO(l 11t'Lwee-n "rcsumptlve re~)eliLion ~L ~

a saructuml nnd not as a ~Iylhtic deviIT., I.e., wjll~ an arranger's Of editor's rather

than wuh an author's technique" {·~[lnot have been in .ht~ mincl of a "pre-modem

exegete li ke Nach manides." Th Is is because "he h'l rdl y would d iff~re-nt late

between these two types of writers ,",'M h.~d had < l lWILJ in the creation and [heprese rvat ton of biblical lite ra LLITe. ~ B owcver, the mean ~ for differe ntiau r"lH

between th~!;(: two funcuons were re--.l,diy ;\t hand, as H<I~hi remarks in his rom-

ments 10 !'7.d:: l: 1 , "the Holy Spi ril intt":rnlptoo the matter" in order to provide the

t:hmnolo!!jal cL1.ta-lfi verses 2-3-nt:":gk-ctc-d by tile propl ~. (irn nled that this ls

Iikely nnl to be the C8~e with regard 1n Ih e - Pcnl;·Helleh. ~erthclt~!;.~ Ihe: concept

would nn1 b t : . ~ entirely fOL'el~n to a medieval exegete.

A~Klc from .hat, [I~ Force [ } f T.~Irnon '5 connneiu est:~pe.~ IlW smoc a resump-

rive repeudou lHay he (:ilhr-r cd itonal or autlumu 1 . \I:'ny rl( ,:11Y the medievals the

.I.n~~[ Liley dicl hnvo ~jmply because 1 1~y cnn~idercd it onl ~ ~llI[l~.:m~i

l< l3. See ~cLiun \,1 fK:1()w, III this he ~~no tUffer(~nt ff()1]l 01hel J"'w~~h corn rncntarors

who seldom (!ir-t~"tjy address these mauers in their wider context, unl~.~~ ~pmrod

lo il by nHt~klc pressures. One exoept ion 10 th is '('j~~nC)· i~ j{;11I}.;I~. w iln the re-~~1It5 we sl:t.1.11see below,

Hi. As he comments {In 1] ;.~l:"This is the t:u~[oru of evcrv lbiblicall t~};l (b(~-htl uv)j-eg~rdill.~ all ~I""".itinn~, to recount the f;Jlher'~ lift~, 'hi.~ kgcttinu lus stJn, hi~

death, and [nntyl .~ft{':r th.... ITbegins the ruauer [] f I r . . : : - sonl's Iir~J. 5 < : J Jo Ibihli .... l]

kJ{L~ conduct themselves (rjab~u)." !I~ refer~ to thi.~ plill(iVlt:' in hj~ comments

on Gcn J): 28 as well.

1~5 From his commentary to l.ev 16:]; ~;e(:~(it.Qn II ahove_

]·i6 According!o Ibn Ezra, "after the dt':~l h nf the- two SOilS of Aaron" R~k rx dir.::'"('tly

In tho:' preced in~ 1S:3 1. "and yuu shn II W8 m tho;>dli ldren of Israel frorn tht~ij

uncleanness, th~l! tl"1cy not die in their u ncleannc-a. whe-n th~'~' nl~lke .\1y su nc1u-

ary, which ix if l the if midst. u ncleun." .J1 1~ L up in d suru rna f ' , . ' of II~", lolk."".ing two

verses hardly count wit hin ~ nnrrativc context.

147_ NoL~ N~hm~mkk_~' crnphasls 00 this }R)inL: ilHmNli8t(·ly .~ft('"rthe deaths (i.e., the

next d~y, since an cm(.!"i, j ~-alln{)!.~c~ivt": divine revelation ill ~1Slate of anl1t": sor-

row), God hastened Lu warn Aaron :l1pin~t ernerinj; .he ·blx~m;I(-lf: in ~ M.1K of

uncleanness, a stare willl which rhe imervening ~~·tion~ (1c.~1.

1 4 8 _ If I?od~'! ih ref ers to R o : o ; l l f:T0<k>sh,as it should in 1 ight nf 111(':1)fcgolng, X - r.

14'). •..hat h, the .o;l:ln(br<l mrroduction [0 Le~'ilicil m~Lt~rial: "Goo spoke lo MO:';e~ ~IS

folkm~,>

J")O. If I;Mesb is equivalent to H:o:·;hl-j"0<k-:sh,X - 1.

J';;1. sec sectlou VUl below,

]52. In hi~ corurnenrs on 8:Z. ~11d sec his conuueuts lo Exnd j~:ll noted lOO'"" " sec-Li{m H], ~.v, HR~ll rnprlve Repeli[lC'n."

1:)':1,The apV1 re-nt contradictlon from Le v 6: 1 (~('C Il~ shi) m~}' be sol ~·~tIin the- s.~rnc

wny, but note lh~t Nalnnarudes inlL"l"J'ret.~ ~a.I) some w har djjr"'r~rl[ly lrum Ra~ni.

1s . ~ . Sec his remai b 011 Gell 11:j.2. j5 :2t:l, r.i.·v 3:2, ltd, 1u:.U, NWIJ f: 1, ~:1.

J lowt:VM", rnuch ~I~ lj;.'J l~ problciuatlc Jo r N~tbllldnkk:<;, ~) l~ 1l:2:problematic

for Ra~hi, 1f both I..cv 8:1-;} and E.xod 29 are" lo be elate-d In ':U Ad~r, what pur-

pose did 8:2 5 I3 jV e, s in ce < :"~ er y p~rt of iL L~parullek -,d in Exoo 29?

]55. Ya:1kO\-·I~,ht briefly refers to Kahm'\.[liLl~~' "~~n~ nf proportion": 5CC "Lc-Darko

shel ha-Ramban" (8hove, n. (.5), 2 . : : 5 3 -146. G..nesi« Rclbooh f il :Hl ; ~(~~R.~~h(itt Ceo 2,1:42, s, v . I){I~I)I;} b.:.o-_}'<)m.

1S7. See his comments to Gen M :28 , thi~ i~ n i~ if\terpret~tion o r R. ,\l.~~/i'~ {:ommcnt iI~G t 'r J .e s lS Ha .b r ul ).

158. See Nahlll:l.Eli~:;' connnerns W F)ff.-.d .U: J I, whei e II~ T " " . i . i ~ ~ that ohj(~t iOf"lto Ibn

!'7.ra'~ intt=rpre!atinn of. he rclnlcnship of UI:.IIverse: to 32 :.~1.

159. Etalnag, f~r ahe:ul of 11s ume, but ~quall}' OL11~idc Ihe 1fI~ insrrca If! of tradiuonal

~xe~i~, ~Uribute.<; Ihi.!; repetitiveness uf the l;d)(~rn8('1c descriptions to rhe mode

of narrative (minm.g) characienstic of the Lmlt : ;11 wh i('h the TOI~lh ~vlS .':i~'en

(soc n j~ commcflt5 to Ex(x..I : : ;5-:17). w~ flOW koo ... .. ..hn LIIi~ W~L~ in{l~ed S[) in ~n-



76 1 ' J : x > 'lomb U-Madd(~Joumal

ciern N~~ r ru~Lem li[er;~h.I":':. p~.tin LIa~ly that from Ugarit. Raloo!.(~ reb, [vizuig

rc:<;pon~c:wa~ totally rejected l . J y Abarbaue] wj{ll {he full >\:d~!lt m cxegettcal tra-

diuou belund him. See ArurOOncrs disrn is~iw~ re';["Mln~~ in his crnumeuts near the

end oJ his oommcntary to C(':~ ~7. t : : " { l . J~nJ~~lem. j 5 5a .Even 1 .OIb.~ ', . .. ..hh the ancient N('":1r P.~~t(':rnp:ar;lllds a~';Lil~hle, this solution isHuL a~ ~UI~uiv~·<I~ i. ml!l:hr ~m ,~t n r : o ; t blush, at 1~;~'Itnot wi.huuL ~lll_,~i<.!j;~ry

hypOlI1C5C5. B iblkal narrau ves ;ut'! not alwap repetinvc (~C N ahrnarud cs' obser-

v..tlons il~his jCm8rks on Exod 11:1 and also 16:4, El~~Telld) ;I~ th~ lJ!l;~riti c oncx

im·ariably arc {~C for (':~m[J!~, M.D_ (;;'s~uLO, Sifrw Mj~'~l"'lt w-Sifrul Kenauntt

[Iorusalcm, 19721. 31-::;.:0 . _~u there [mIS' be other .118r-. ~tyli~ti("" rt:a_o;.;m~~itwork.

Nahrnanidcs does m.1I ~uggt" '-~ ' ;l 1 t> .1 f. .G 1 l lo r Ihb i[lrnn~i~cn(y. um see also IU$

c ommen t s ou 11:9 , a n d see n . I ~ hovr:

In the end, the IillLit~tioEl of rcpctnivenc ..~ in nnrrative may be acoounted [Or

by the use of K ~hI1181)ick~' ru 1 (: (] f proportion, R~peLi[iOr"l 01 lu l I n es s of O{po~iticm

or nurnu ;V~' lnu~1 he 8 . sign of :t rnaner's import:lnn:'-,md 1he in~t~l~L~ n . . - 1 Y hold

as wcl I. However. if Ihi~ is ~U. :LElJ Ili~ conml~nt~ 0n Exod In:2 would st!~m tu

bea r ~l~ out. how c<ln •he E1 tO .: .L l' ~ T I. .; 'l T; jl i,.(: n.-.. he (""Q11~ickrc--d of prime impor

t;l.nr~' II~rt":. onc~ ~gain, we ;"\ppl'o~l'h the limib of our im·~~rig~Liu[]. fOT

N~hmankjes II~d appa rend}' not >;I."OrK.::;-1ut ~III•he n m~lu~lln~s of his SUMC5-

lion_

U : i O . R. MIzml) i is aIw:ay~ _<;(:milivt!" to lhi~ is..~u~. but does I~Ul go b(;~'on(l pC):';it ions al-

R'~d~' staked out by his pr("(kx-(~~~)f"S.~t~~. for exan Iple, bis remai ks on Exod 1: 1,

where he cor-te r-.(b 1hat Ihe H~t or the Lrihal puumrchs in Exod l: 1-6_ ~.1f"(~8(ly

recorded in Gcn ·i(i.. tll(lugn an (~~[1res..~iunor divine love, would n04 ll.w{' OCCn

repeated but for the fact that Goo wished tn C"nLlflt 1ht~m ;!gai[l "in tlle"tr Ji=<![h~-

a~ in 1 L f ~ , as the ~L~I~_LOwhich .1K.>~·)1"( ' .-0111paH"ci. 81"c counted on Lheir risinlol

;lno setting. 1 - ' 1 ( ' : f"Cm~in~hoLlf'Aj 10 1!'",Hli!ional fOri uulntions even w hen II~e~'m8ni-

rc~tly add f ' o O l h ~ n : l ! : to the in ltial solution.

161. Ibid_

](J2, .~ he remarks in his comments on J'i;~.-Il~hukl, _'iose~ had {O tell the whol~~

~~m.l:!r~gaLiun [about] all the work which Goo had commander' him [to have

douel, to OlOO' 10 mlorm .hc·1ll (It tll(,: r-.(')("('_~~~tyo~ hrir-.ging 13rgc donauons, fUT

rl.e [amount on WUTk. Ito be donel ....,15 great, And Ih.("rr:fm(' n ~ rold them: -th~

'I'.lbt"T1I;lCle and il~ent. and Il~ cover, etc.'-hc mentioned all of it j'j 1,'fflfff«tterms,'

16.'1 &"e : " > J : lhrnanic k::,;"inl HKiuctiOn EO b.fKlu~. dlscussed above in section m.1 M _ 111his extended comment to F~ ~7;!:J

165. Since they could not b~ brouglll snnuhuueouslv. b~' God's command. see Iuscomments below.

166. !'rom his 1.:umm~nt~ on Num 7:2..

167, .~t~t·n. IH and rex l.

H:<x. In consonance with the Ao~'"emmA omnisigmllcanr assumption th~t nothing i~

extraneous,

1 6 9 . "YOlI wil l PUI~ll~'}'(>u~ ~1\(>lni(":<;/th~y will b.H lx- fo rc Y OLJ~sword,

Five ol' }·ou w Ill pursue ,l lwn(l~.;-dIa hundred o r you will M!ll rcn thou-

~ln(l/thc~ wi II r : t u bdmc y o nm :>w{)Hl.·

170. See his con uuerns on Num 1"5 _2.

171, On N3hm;mitj~~' t)]lologkal tnterpretatkms, _~~ Amm Funkensteln, '·Par~h;.muttJ

ha-T ipologit shcl ha-R arnban," ~j{Jn 4) om/fl()): 35 -i9 ; ~ (()[ld en~ t:rl,Io;l~hvcnsion uppeared in J,-,~ph ()!In ~nd f'mnk Tallll:ISW, ",(!oF._ Slr,(li".~ in j(''"''~~h

,~f'ysltOYljJ: Proceedtngs O f Regtonat CQ~!/~·I·crlce.~ tI~1d at tbe Ulj/{!(:I'SUY of

Culifo mt.a _ L os A n ,(!" oE'k :,- ,u,u! M(CW i..}rit!'lJnily in Apn i 1 978 (C urubr ld ge, 1 < .-1A ,

198D . 12.9 -5 0. ~ nrl set' D;Iviti L ieber's response on pp. 1 ~ 1 · ')2.17L. S= <..ien H:Z (. Lbe Torah did mll wl~ IL to (~r-.I~~t~ on Ill(" nrin ions or kkJhilUr.o;"),

14:-6 (on the prok·pli(' naming of Am~Lkl.-)_ an(l sec fl. 1 abov« on Lilt: do:.;dy



raa.l'Ol) Elman 7 7

related mauer Df bi~ rccognidon uf S[:ripl LlT(~'Sendency to .~hortt~n 500menarrauve

· '>C8I1JoC1US at the expen~c of others,

173. See bet,ow reg;mHng Nahm~lnlde.~· comments on ~\Im .37:i'l. An cxplormlou of

N",hm~H~kks' me of the wurd •uiai, " ~r1'sbm',~and ·yitt,jklnm" in denoting vari-

()U~ b·d~f ~ur~y i~ a dcsldcratum.t7'i. Note Nalunanldes typir;\1 blendillg of [I~ lWO V~fO,('S in his paruphrasc, tne: word

"stream" appot'ar_~ in v. 24, wl1ile jacobs wives, h:lfl<1I1l~id~mUK] {:hildr(,:l) Me

rncmloned ill v, 23. For a similar bJelLdin1i: nf n~r:o;C'_~ in order [u ~t forth ('k~rly

•he seq uenual order of the se-ction, see hi~ Cf)m rnc-nrs to) Lev 1"1Ad. Tni~ i~ 011('

ploof l.h~l hi~ cnnrcrn here is the exact relation of ~5. 2j aud ~"I, and 1 " ' 0 0 ' .h~t of

,~2:2)and jl~, mvolving .h(': order o r wives, C"On(,Llhil~~'S.ml l·hiIJr~n.

17,). Though no mldrash seems to make a p<)in.t of this, llli~ would hnrdlv have

deterred Nanm:lnid('"_~.

176. The talmudic pr(,"(,OOC-nIfor such ~ L~n~it:l1lnu r be lound il l tl H = e~("h~ ngc:. " m . - ~ I

de-baua h{JI/<~"J"with the response, ·{f~fJII.~Ij(j" tt'l't;n'r (see Ym11G <;h), or the

t{u~ry,·''"&'h,u dirfcH~nct:' does

th~~ mak(':~ 1t ~~messianic

law!" whh the (C-5pon..~~

"d~.n.~h 1'e),~abwJw.hm~" (~(~$(1Pjboorlll 51 b). ·l1H~prd(,:HC(1. uuswer is to

derive a ieucl ling wh icn ~ pphcs JI orher hm~~ .a~wul I; sec rOil/a j7.a. ,\'azfr 2:1~1.

Makf.wl 5 b, HorlJ'flJ 1(11) , ZL't'a~lm 1UOb, !Wddo.h (l~,

177 . se e lev 5 :1 '1 ,~,2, _~, 1 4:1 , 6 . 1 6 :3 . 5, and _o;.e~ .o;.{~clionL where .11e"~a r l~ ' d~I:-:.~i~1 l i t-

erature on til i~ p~.~~~g_~~~a s reviewed.

17K .\"Ijm Hw.!Qh 18:1el. W~i~~, z.k and 7i!tN:l,!/m 00.1.

17',), Fl)llowln:;l Rava's corumern on 7(?(.'(1~ljlj 90~ ~ '_-1~u.brnn~I'cc TI:~3hi,ml Ioc.laO. "Mflb !:!r.d(hdJ bu zP.Jir" ;1 .n(l. in rhe .~xr L J f Sbntab : l 1<?#uNx '?N, thev adt!' ·d~2"i'

t.tal'ei be f ml' hu!" An et, in de ed . the expressmr, ( len L'.~ f)nl~ iI~ LII~~ t",.·o places,

both in tlu; name C " t f ll~'.·,l

Hl1 .•~C:(': fl. %.

U:l2, Scc: above, p. . 3 .

Ul~. 11 W8~ no. urnll the nin~I~:c[\th century tlun it N~phl;ili 7cvi Ychudah Berhn

C·> . J l~~ ivH ) ~ l I: ;; g t: 's . t~ that the l"cv(,"I~81or lh~ usual order j~ ~rigg~H':d not l_,r the op-

posirlon of stn/bu rnt-{]ff(~ri ng_ but by mentlon of Illt~ r~111n d~~ bii ds em]Jluy~d.

Because turtledn v t~~ ~ ~ (1tl.l.oa:yslis[e<..1 bdo~ pigt~ m~ (.~('"c:Lev 1: li. 5:7, 11, 14:n..30, ]:): 1"1, 2'-), Nu m 6: lO, 1 - 1 : 30). N~<j~'conch Hk~ th.~. thev ; " 1 . 1 e considered tile

roore pre_~ligioL1~(~Il~1dc~ of sequenrlaju y'). Indt~t'(l. ~(C'Ording [0 his nuerprern-

lion, pj~W{}f1..~~rc preferred j i J o T a ~jn-Orr{:ring fo)f [usr that ~a~orl--l)(~·~H~ such

all ~~ffCfjnp, does IlO[ merit 1h~ more prcst~iuu s bird. 11 i~ 1h~ .~pccics of bud

which 15determmaru, 3nd n o t the 5~~'1ifl~.

Thus, the reversal nf Ih('"usual OJ de l " uf turtleck )\·t:-tl(~f(ln·-pi~(""(1il ill 12:(} i~ e~-

plained b~· Itw preference for pi~)n~ fur ~in-ofkrillgs_ whil€ [ll~ reversal of tl-icmH~11 ~in-.)ffe:ri ng/bumt-ollering ~~·quer\C(,: i1\ I~. 8 is ;! ctm~qu(!"n("(: < O f the !I~~'~I

preference of tu rtle-doves over pigel)l1~. The reversal uf ~f~ck~~ in 12:6 ~$OllC to

the separate ruern if.m of ~in-olfcrl 1l_il5apart Irom burnt-offcri ng.~, in 12:8, [ltougll

the order of .';;:HTifH:·(·~i,rcvci sed. lhis lII~rdy rdl{'rt~ t Iw usual prelererue of

~pccic~.

In .~sense, in his eleuant lour de jnlr{'. Ncriv Stlb~liLlIt~~ a S~lIJ{:n.n· with(l~lt

the drawback of ~m in~x[11ical"llr: exception turtledoves u n c l rig{~nn~, where , I l t : :

prcfcrcnc~ fo~ rhc lauer IlJ.:L}" be ~J{rL~ifled---f{lr 011C_ l"!.i.!lJLt:ly, ~in-urferillg~ and

h\ ,mt-o f l "c - r in ;L l_S, for which .~'l)1!,.. ,n.~·h.,. lnexpllcablc ~_~(""oCp[k",'~bl~ ;It ~v 12:~.

184. /1 . solar year; ~c:(': ll~~ni to 8_1~ s. v, be-sb i»'ah Till' source uf til i~ flpi n.ion is

.'W(<:h~wb'£duyol2:JO ~nd CP..W.I· l< : JJ(ibl~:lh 2.S:9_185. S.v , ba-I?od ...~h ba-.~h~vU,

1806, sec his le[]~!.h>·comrnenrs on 8:'1, 5 o . V _ /'!{l-faIM~I! hu-reilxlb,

187. Se-ekash i's (midm~h i . - : -s tyk) delense oJ Lhi~ pn:lorc.dLlfe:ill his OOEmH~nL~10H:5

188. And nnl Anno Mun.ij. ~~ Chavel remarks in hi~ notr-s .0 8:1, unless, of cmw;.~

Noah wax ho rn on Rosh !Iashana h. Sinc(: the calc nd ~r UHlsi~. erl of rwc] ~'C



7 8 TheTorah U-Madda [ournal

month« of tllirty days ~ach and COl,](I therefore lamly have been n lonsr culen-

Jar, or even a lunlsolar one sima~r to !e one inaugurated ,ust before the Exo-

n l . l ~ , ident.ifying ibis caleudai with M1Y of • n e : h i~lo~~c31 .0 \ nno MunJi calendars

pc:r~tf"at(~~ u.c v~ry unuchronisiu Naluuanides is at p;1in~ 1fl di~ vow,189_ Nahmnnidcs' ~I~tifk::ltjon for so doing is ~1~ltijk8m: "since lh4d [nimo;c.li] in other

plat:e~ subjects mldmshirn 10 !';C"".ucllin~ exarnmauon (rtJw!akdek abar mtrirc$l)(?1

M-baggad(lt) :mrl 1~lhnP.iIn ~~phirl LII~ plain meaoJn.g.s of the Scrfpnm~, n r - : h:j~permil1~j us L()do ~J as well, for there arc seventy [H:t=L~ to Torah, ul(l d 1 ! . . ' 1 C ~ rc

many c:onflictin~ nndrashin; in 11K' l; I. 'ord$ of tnc: .~3Y.~."

19(1,Be'~r Y1z07i<1hal ha-l(m~I), by R YI(.I:t~k Horowitz. first pubhshed in Lvov in

lH72i3.

191. tcv 1.~:56,where the erupuon ~[a~1es"1?2. See S l f m 7;7-3, en. Wei~~, 7 ! J r : . _ Aft<=r three weeks- - ~lml;llly. 19 day:<;. since each

week Ix'gin~ aM c :mL~ (In the sun ~ t.by_ ilher the Akrtoo stones nave been

reu roved ,lnd the ~fllpt ion (kl{~~ not return, or the house 11~l$h('"('f\ dismantled.

The COl.5e is rhus ('~

1L)l 'llll~ analvsls i.ilnOfCs th e 5lfm'~ n:.~Ldingof Lhe~ verses, \V hich accounts (or ;-In tll~

rx~';..~ihiliLi~~raised by earlier ~X1ioI1S, Mld ronvr-rts Ihe :;e(1iorl'~ week-pills per

h8~-;motlleHby ~[{~e to < ' three week ...(f~if ~nf.mkr In :-Iu:nlHlULOotbte all [he

~rmuta1 i{ ]n~ involved, 'l'hese Include the status of ~he house when the hll¢llS

r{'"m~irl.~ lLn,lun~l, whsch, on ,m~]ogy 10 n:Ci , i~11m n~c(~s..~:-Iri]r ~ ~iWl ur puruy,

OJ' the t '8oi l1g I:mt n(]1 dlxnppearance of [he Iungus. which, on ;-Ifl:Llngl' 1n 1_"1-6,~

not necessarity a sign of pmily, t;1c For the pO~llJoi]j[ie~ lnvolvcd, sec Mish~a6

,W;Ra'tljl 1}1, and the d~8rt prepared for the Hebrew cunllL~rl[~I)· of R. D. Z.

Hotfmarrn, 286, and rcprndHc~l in !'n;Ll.lj~hin J~K~)h Mjl~r<.:ml"~Lf.':t/itjr.us 1- ( C o ; 1378,

191. Whl(' h, be it norce], h 3"C been accepted bv J ~<.:ul> Mi I~l"OI~l i I) h i~ An ...h or

teuttcus. (lei v, ~_\ 878, 11 i~ jfl1~~re~1n~ 1 .0 nOL~ that .\ti]~l OlH cites Kahma niocs

some hunched tirncs in thi~ wnrl::. 3nd nflcn in hL~C~nnn ~ nL~H)·on the JPS Tomb

com ~m at)·: ," "rjm hrJ rs .rh~l;-Idc1pllia. 19'-)1)).

195 . -nlis assumpt lon i. s ma d e by Be 'r]r }"I:r~k on R8~h i, "i_"Ih, in hh ;m;11}'~f.~of Llle

1 Je!;lu,l.

1%. Generally. these ca~ are deah wlth t~· employing rhe technique o r g(?z(?mhsbaoab.

197. (l should he noted that here L(JoO.as ill Ntll~l l7:8, Nahrnanidcs di$tjng\li~n(~~

OCtw(':c.rl ba~j.c ("3!V[::<; ck-att wilh in the WriLten Torah and tile elaboratlons, ,-"hich

are meant for future generations. in the 0 [ " : ; 1 1 one, _)(~~.bt~luw. ~·Iinn VllI, and

see Yehud;l Cooperman, U-hshuto sbe: MilJra (lerusalcrn. 197"), 6<;.

] 9 8 . . { H . o o l 5 :U .199. Sifn:h flt':xitrilily in Lh~~ matters lias al~;J.lJy been demonstrated in irs ('onSlLLK

tion of ~ ~zemh _~/nwalj from .oJ1iv'ab and bi ab; se~ Sifn-l ;:1 ed, Weiss, '3d,

and note the &IIJrS comment ill nmu~Lb- w hen- Ihe apprnpnate word exi_o;L~.

we use iL; U·not, we lise ~tsimibr one! Tbc Rtn1f~ ~(':n~Hivity In 1hi~ probk-rn i.~

evident ill !he sug v a at l ' r:!st:rNm ~;llias l;>.'dl200. 1le points LOutLI~ ·"a~unl translates both Velbs with O $ ( ' . / .2m. That j : o ; . whose blood wa~ .~pr~[]k]~t.l wfilJfn the voJid)af (vss, (i.-U); th;l~ is why

• r . . ; . ) " :-II"(: called "inner" ~:.i(:rifke~.

lI.U, llw xcven bmb~ ~1'Iet:H"lt:din NUlLl 29:fl; ~ ~6ma 70.:._

203. The bull ~ I1d ram of Num 29;8 , 1 1,

2 . 0 4 _ hOl.~1h is ( "ommem< '1 )' 00 Exod JO : 12 .205_ That Lhere was an iulornsal awareness ~Hd u~ of i[~ rcchniqucs C8t) ('~ $il} ' b e

demOrLo;.Irated by ~x<Lmining the ln urg}" wh ich i~ lu11or ~I ui-p~trl]]elistic. po€ti-

~::;Il]~·-bd~htene-d p T O . . ~ _

2 1) 6. S e (': Kugel (above, n, 2.), 97-lCIl}.

21)7, For 500mc re!I~(}n, he did nnt make usc of tile principle in iL~pLlTdy a~4pdlc ,prb,

as ill /lIcl:ilta. perhaps because, as noted a bove, such U5C did not r~.dly h;lvt':

srrucrom I , h ala k l-ii(', c th irn l Of th eo lo gjc al irn plic atio ns.



Yaakov Elman 7 9

2()8. This laner l~clca rly precedented with In d<l~'i-.icalmhbinic lil~:'rdLLm~,

2()9, Thus excludlng 1l:1.~nj's 5.Hi:h't;!;lion ~I F.",-od6.

Ll Q, Though tl ~ n=.~Hmptjve naune of these repetn ion~ rnav ha~'~ ~~C"::1 pc(l him. thol r

repenuvcncss surely would not. gi"~n the ~et'l~Ptidl~ ~ tn lmudic educatlon fos-

ter.<;,ns noted above,2 11 . Sc;C ', for example, Ihe- discussiou c~n1ercci. ,Hollrld H::!~11'~ terse notation ~t Lev 8,2

in (h· 00 1!ayyim und Gu« A_'~'b, tid loc.

2;]2. A.~wlrncss the Itm~ and involved Jis(:Ll:<;.~km~of the why.~ ~n~1wh~rdore~ f)f P < ' T -

liC:Lll~r midrashic halakh ic ~xp~iLions in the oouunent ~ric~ of the b~r 8111n.ol iries

On both these vmrk~,

2]j. Mim('Sl$ (s~ u.n, 14-15,214. The very existence of the del.J~lt'; over S<'qll~IlH.aljry which W~ h~v t~ examined

mdicates that t~t~ Itrcral historK:i!y of the bibllcal na rra rive i~ not .~lways to be

taken fOTgr~nwJ, even in lr~dilion~1 conuuemanrs

215. See Jj;m~ w. Frei, 17M Eclips« ( 1 ' BfbUCll.t iVl.mml(!(': A Siudy of ""IRb/ecnrb and

Nineteentb Cr.mlt~ryItermeneutlcs U...ew 1 bv(·n and London, 197,P, 1-Hi; john

!i.u10n, RMdfn~ tb« csa Tl?Slatlj~'IU: .11~/hrM:t !fl mNifar St1.d~ (Pllll ;l.ddphia. 1(81),

l~G?; J~nle_~ Iiarr, Tbt ' Scopf: und Aillhom), oj ibe mM,> (rltil;td~lphb, 1(00), 1-

1? ("Sl~Jry and Historv in l"lih1 iell Thcoloqy").

~16. Mei. Sternberg, l1.t t ' ~'1ics (i f RI/.Jilca/ Narrutio«; lit(1ofop,fcur /_j{emlurc and tbe

Drama t1Jr~.dIPjR (Bloomington, 198~), E; :;.(:~:-II5o(l~I~ tli~clJ.~~inIlin chapter . 1

("EJe·ok:.gy of Narration ~1J.d [\".'IT~IiolL of Idt'flln.g v '), esp, l'r.'-.k9 ~ 1 \ c 1 , p.;_rticubrly

peru ncnr to our discusslon, 92-99.

217. To employ the iermtnology of [ht:' story of Mooes ~m1 R.. o\kiv::1ill Melw~:m1 2 9 1 : > .

2UI. Iloocrt Ahe:, 'tbe Worlll oj'BfbilCu/!ilf!1Utum (New York. 1(91), 3 - 1 .

219. Thr.~ phrase recurs oftcl1 <"IIl]O[]gthe S(':rI1,~1(1.k ~'mrim, TOI) Lo:ra and R8(bk,

and. when no mur.ilisti(: comment lie~at hand (Jmj b('f/dXl de-ina f{>lmfirtHh .... ),

hy Abarbancl, but n[]1 with 5l1Ch le~ularily that we do E10I lind ('\'('"11 Radak rnak-ing dlo;tinctiOI1S rather than a.::hicviog_ ~}"rumymity by force mafrwp.,

220. The: whole Issue of "rnn lrjplc 1m '11t~ req ui~~ cxaru inmlon. l-or Ilw timl' bei[lg, my

11npublished "The F.xe:!!c~is of kedu ndanr r.,~i.",~~~ll R;lht:df]ic l.irenuure: The

Unfoldiog Man Exegetical Prillcipk' (above. n, 10), mLJ~t~lltfK'e; S~ ulso n. 12.

2 2 1 . A d toc.; s.v, lamat» htllt'i«ln..

n 2 . TIli~ I)rindpk j~ cited ,lglill in Tm ..~fnt. Baca ,11qia 111.... s.v, lamai: bi lMoi: I1 l J .

I::phmim F. Urbach, Ba'alei nmifor' Uerus.aI~IIl. 1900), (i..1()-4H,T'on!cs th.,. thou;L:lt

these: are baslca lly nn;~fot Touq ue, b~.~~d on Tosaloi Sen~, !e redactor :.Hl(k~I

material of hi~ own as we lL Silln~ 1 he Rosh too drew on Tosalot ~n~ (.o;(:cE.

Urbach, ibid., 59f), )9·1,11. 30 ~nu text), .h~t m~~' have IW(·I\ his SOllJ1_~,but ~jn('{'

these wmmc·ms arc oddmes, and not typlcal of N. Shim~llon of S~ilS or the Ri forthat m~tt('"r, that is not overly likdy. Urbach nul.t:~ Ih~t T~~fUl . kl-Ilo~h to) Baoa

MF.zlt:l Me ·lon~T arsd more detailed [han our Tns.~fo){, and m~my cnmm('ntS 8~

cited there ill lllt~ name of the Itivan. rllt" ll'l~hoom, R.tbhenu Tarn, Ri~·.l ~llti I!l(:

Ri which are nor in our TOS8fO(" (5<)5). Among the COlhpil~T-.~nllwr sourc..es ~R:

h i~ L~Ir.hcJ _ th e Maha ram, as wel I ~~ th e connnern ~Tit:~ of Il~h<oll1~nd 1km8 h

Other comiuents of tbis 1ype m8Y have been fllr~r-t~l ou t in .I~ C(JU1;~ uf time.

M~harsh..1:and Mahararu L~) n(~ discuss ttlis 'l'm~lfn1, M ~Il.' l~1"O Slulf mgg(~t~ an

emendation. t() whi ...1l .I~~ ]{,::,~has.hohic'-1.~ On .he ba~i~ of T()5-.,1.(ot,Bass» Kantma

0";:1, s.v, U~h(Oj'. H(l\l,.'C~'f. :..~.ae from 11l~~lLl<?s:1ionof 8uthof~h;r "f II.!:" rejevaru

'j"maflsi (nmm(~n1.~, Il('"Sh8sJl oounrerpov-s """0 Jdl[!"l"(:nt typ('.~ of repetiuons, th()~

which occur in parallehsni ;i.lld tl jose whic-h ()(Hlr in certain (:'xpn.::-:.~km~,whose

speclahzed use for dem.\·bw is clear.

Tosafot's _~ugg~lion was ignored by tll~ AlplUnim. 1ndct~d, 8~ pcrsplcacious :l

commentutor ~I~ Il, Arveh Lelb Zinz. il) his Mu·aY(Ult'l ht' J!olJblt~ab (W~r.<;8W_

50(34) . 95h, :.IftC"l" nming T(J~fur-_~ question, 10laUy ignoses the prof erred sulution

(and the !iugya:~ nssertjon that n~-hd?h and mmhlt ('8nuot be separ; ..H~J) a nd

proposes one that i~ casulsucahy umnisignjIJC;:li 11.While h~~ 5 0 1 ution i.~n(~ with-



80 The Torah fl-Madda journal

oul philolDgic.al merit, ni~ utter dbrcgaru fur Tu~fu"~ solution i~ ~Lrikin~; lie

J{)e~ not trouble Lu refute it.

On L!le other hand, W1~lher Ui tder the infl uence of rlus stra nd of Tosnfist

thlnkil1g, Of,

morelikely,

for·p~~~hl~ni(:·

reusons independent uf llablJotnu Tam,R. Ejlezc1 of Bcnugcncy, in hj~ oorn n}('"nt81)' to T:->;Iah, lDC;i.t(~~ 11\e rmrhel~' tL">e [] f

poetry ill L l~ :-i.<IllLe re;Jlm ,).6 Tosofot docs: 11K; need 10 d~(,5S rhc prophets' fl\(,:,;-

S<"L.h"tf reproof ln atuucrivc !pL"b .0 enhance its rhctoricnl power, ~md Iht:': (k-:<;j~-

abi Iity o r puttl n8 it in a fu rm w hich HxdJ more e~~ilr k remembered , !::e '" n ;~oornments to I~ :;: 1 (~~ John W. NLIt!. (.lmrm"lj/wi~'S Olt I h G " iasor l'ropf)iJ1S b y R.

£loom'· oj'Rea.ug{m.cy, r. Isaiab IEnndon. 1:-l7')], 11). I'm other Iliedleval discus-

slons of such runners, ~(!t!" AA:!dt~~krlin, lJiNi~·uJ f'OOry Ib,·cm.p,bM~>dfCt'af}(:t(!fSb

F. } ' f : ' :S ("R~mingt()n, 1991), though no Ashkenazic sources U~ noted therein.

It is $ignifi<:':lflt thnt Nahrnnn irl('_~dlo;lingLli~llc~ betwee n t!l~ teTIT\_~, in line wilh

his gl~(]c~ally ronscrvanvc ,1ppf(">;l.-h to I...~18kh ic l=t~ However, h i~ f1.'(:ognit ion

uf the util i1r uf synonymous pa r."Ilh::1sm for philj)logfc~ I ~-'U(~)(l5('~ i~ nor i f} CJ.1I(,_~-

tron. See lus rem~trk~ odGen H:18, 2'T' ~n(l F.KOO1<;:0.

22::;. Sife, 1~br,u;fJllJulw!b ben Labra! '1IIIlkliWrt:l'OI f < . l'tl'aWt!! Tiuu. cd. 7_.Pllipow-

sk] (London, 1M5), 1.1-14. 1kmakes ~illlibT renl~i,.k.~on 4'1-45, ),1, <)]-92. See also

Rkll~u·dc. ~.(_;ir.(·r,"~·]t:~minglt:";'~rH~~,_"1~:mingfuln~~~, aru,l ~LLp~r-Me~nin~fuhles~in So::ripLUe" (above. n. 2), 44~, n. ),'). L"ilfUl11I[l~1ely, none of these examplcs

ocn L~ in 8n halak hk: corucx Lor in Pentateuchal LexL~.

ZH . It is not nhogcrhcr clear whnn(·r R~hhcllU Tarn would have ~n(~)r.~~d this .~U]..!:-

gestion ill reg,nd to tcv 2<;:J7; acsrhci ic V8ri~tion in r'HW(·rn~ ix om~ 1h ing, in

Leviticus quue ~nOlller. No!e !hll all [he exa mples ~(ldtlccxl by St('i ncr {~NWC. n.

2). H_\ n, W, occur iu Ploplle~ and B;"IglC'U.l~lph.1,~Il(l Illl' reccnrl v -publishcd

h;.Wl~ll{s of It.l_,benu '....m's conunem.nv on Job, I f tnd("cL11hCy 8 1 ~ " .. - 1H 8 1 1 . , . . hi$,

do I~Ol change the picture. See Beujamln Richler_ "Rabbemu Tarn's 'lost'COlllme[]!:l.I)' On Joh.~ BaTT)' W~lfI.sh, ed., 'Ib...Fr't;mk ~(~/mat,~M~,,~tr)rwl ~'oIu"le

U bib, 199:'.), 191-202:. lIu ....ever, in the liJ.lIH of Il.khler's thesis, [l~ ancnyuious

cornsnernarfes on Joh ci~d in bi~ n. 2 will have to l)e eX;llH~rl~d for ;my !ighl thev

may shed on tnj~ qLl~:>t~{)n,

225, - 'SC(~ M;liml)nid(,:,;' r.LlM~ of tim r'rJr]"lJ('~·ed, U, on the (lifkrcn<"('" ill hllfll;-.n prcocru-

p;tt ions caused by the f.11 I : rather th8 n conoc ming the IHSC lvcs with truth andfalsehood, the hu rnnn (,(~J r1(';were (lmwn to ~ _ I pc:rfici:t!_ conv.~nt~ll:\1 altitLl~

Through the inteltect one dist ingu ishes between tr~[il and [alse hood. and

that was found in i _ . ' u : b m J ill fl~ perfectjon ~lnd irl[e~rhy. I'me ;m.J bad, (If]

the other ha nd, belong 1 .0 the !hi n!!~ !!t~m~mlly :J.CIT.pl-e l ~L~knflwn, not tfl

those ct)gn iLN by tll~ in~lk'a IIII~Il~,{"onvt~nl ional npin ions, 8~ or pt:)(';(~l1n runne-rs of truth nr [11!i<:hood--Y.f •.l. ... Accordingly when man was in

ni~ most po:'1f.:><1 .~Mex ...( ':II~nt .~.~te, i r' I .1('('1)1 d.~llce " '" ' ;{ l lhis inborn ~1bP'O~i-

tion and possessed 01 his imeile...:ru;ll WUr"li[ICTh. _ . . lie h.ul no bcullY that

......s in erl~aJ.,"tJ irl ;,ilL~' W~~' in tlH= (~)Il~id~ rat ion of ):!t~m~::Llly ~Lcn~[lH"f!

thirl~s, and he did not apprehend tlieru .... lWh~rl II~I di~ohey~l the

corumandrneut that "'~a~ imp{]~~l Llpnn him on ;lrcnun1 of h i~ mrr-ll (;("1

~nd, b~cmning en dowe-d w i1h .Ile f8 ("11 11Y of .~PP rc he ndi ng g~nc:r;llty

~ltT~pI~1 thing:<;, he hN·~ nw 8n~fOCci. in j~ldgi Ilg things to Ix: b~d or finc.

S~ 1b~C;ufat:O J {be l'er[lI=I. Imn~ ~ l ' i f l ( ' " S (ChiC<lW l. 1X/i). T. 2·i-2:5.

~26. for divine ~("commC).-btktr1i5m, sec n. 39 above, and, III puulcuku, the l1bCl.!~~iun

in Bcnnin, UO-.~1 .227. 5 0 t e above, n. 10.

aH. See the long aOO ~nli!lht(~ning d~,;,cL1~~~j)1lr these matters in Mlv'a/:?I on this

verse,

l~\l . Rf'1)w~ par, 1 : 1 .

230.. o\pparent1y, in th~ perspective of Israelite h~~tm"}', ~.,,·(:r"}'lhjllg which occurred

before the Exodus was literally pre-hi~Lmy.

2.~1, F.x(Xi 12:;I, "Thi.s njoruh shall be to ~)lJ, ~ "'~I~ not [\{'"('('"S~·ujlr I"CV('::tk:.:! on llo~h



Ya,akoo Nman 81

l-jodc:.o;.h\;i.o ;;an, ~ m t no explicit date is glven, A~ ro ~'1I-~NfIfJ!>b i[] E.lIod 19;1, sec n.1:;() re NL1In 9:1

:l52. Note Ihat (':Vcn were one to auribute these dares, if! the I.\';!,V of some modern

scholars, to 1h~"Prit-~Il}'~ w riter, one w ou ld also ~mrihtJIC lhe pre-E x od us ch to:" lnO -

l(J~k,il JaL~ to the same 5OL1IlX, w-OOJ~m; kr4Shya1~/tjkb/~h---1hc orJgJnal qut'~tlon re-LU[1;_

An ime~~linl:! attem pl Eo ~xp~~in the snucture (Jf EX{Kt 19 has rcocnrlv been

fl)'~OC by Thomas H. IJczem:.m in hi~ t:,.;_~y "Spatial ronn ill I!xw 19:1-ib and in

the l.argt~r Sif\,~i Narrative." Scmcia 46 (J')i'l')} 1:17-101.Dozcman 5U~~!,:,Sls that

some of ~he repetltious in III i~na rrative can be: ell PIaIned as ·~paLial form~

devices" (5(':(' 11 . 68 above for a tkfinilitm of 11li~rcrrn),

Follow-ing: his analyals In detall WL,,,ld l;,h' us too f . . - . af~Jd; the fDlk!wi.li;,

excerpt Irom his C(Jndu~i(]n..~ittu:o;tmtc the usefulness of Ihe idea:

insiead of t"_o;I~lhli~n in!! :-. clea r temporal sequence to the Sinu i n~n~tivc. the

repetitive movcruent of Moses creates . . . , Il~ na rl<ltjve: context for the

rromulg~tion 01 distinct l!':'~~l uKk:<;, w11ch art!" now 811:-'fl('hor~d io theC>fK'" rcvclatlou on Muu[]l Sin.ai__ . . [It] for-n~~ the n:'"¥ic-r "to project n01 90

much k"T'.'o'aru('wh~t happens ncxr') 8.~ ~d{W'lf'd OJ sidewavs" .... 'rile

re ad er re pe ated ly IOOC5a sense of the past, present. aru l fL llu rt'" of narra ted

tune. H ut th i~ Im;_~of rurrrarr-d time- 5('P,iCS a «1 nonical pu rpose. for the

result i~ that the: rc.~dc(s time becomes the ~ign~kant rnnrnenr fm inte-r-

r~ling tho promulgarlou of T01~lh "On 1his thy~ (Dnzcrnan, 97).

As ....c shull s!':'e, [ ' 0 ; aluuunides' anal ).,.;h h~~ p o : l im.~ in ("(>1ll,}1011 w irh IIIis ~u~-

~e~liolt.

233. t -, 'Olo :: -l .h~ l I I le" two are {:unn~cI~d in FJo ."on .~:12.

234. See I"r~nk M. Cm~~, Canaantre MVtb and Helm:,w FPI(. (CiE11l>ridge, 1L)7J), j01-05.

N~hmauldes IlO[!':'~l.hi~ divisson in hl ~ (~)mm(:llt_~ to C en 6;9

235. Note tl L<ll ]{~shh ol iservuuons rt~!l~rtling rhc nscqucnml order of clauses III Gen

6:3 and 18::'0arouse nu ~spom~ rm the p:aT1 of r-..'8nm~nkk·_~, Jn rhc case of

R.;:!shfslOllK discussion of the dmmology of Jao:-oh'~flight to Aram t : 1 0 Gen 3~:29

and Nahmanules' [t';r()n~e. tni~ f~ll~ nC8tly into the- flK.hoxlolo?,i~·al couuuents lj~

makes ~nt~nl T.oI~v16; 1, thl)ugn he do€~ not I~y the g!'Ol.l rid work here, Lou! rather

pmvid('_~ an alrc-rnarc C){rI;Ul;l.ti(>~ for .I~~"d,o r seq ueuiial order, ill line with the

rule adduced d~~·h{·rr., that c8o"h gc ncration's nan ative i. s p€lInille<. .1 to proceed

wHl ll )L lt i nt( 'r n Iprion, despite ihc ch Ionological overlap, See above, 15. .'\gain, he

doc-s not respond to f!.1.sl1j·Sremark 81 ll_xoo 4:W, p~sumahl)' ht~C;HJ~t~h!~ cf)LJld

scaroelv Ji&.;L~r~; but One wonders whr be does not re-mark Ofl th~ Torah's lack

of concern JOT small 1uauers of s~y.uence, ~~ he rcma rh on it_~ lar k of LYln<"(,:m

[Or tuuuers o r runnl ~r in ~~~md [It':rs;-m V(~rb81forms (if] f)L~rommernaI"}' on Gen

HI;.~, s.v. al),

236. S ee Ta:....ta_ I.lilfj~b 2:7, fj{t!1i, J!af!,igub 11h, on the prnllihition of inCJ.Hjrio::-.~c-

g~rding the prt.~hj_~lory of Lht~universe, m~Lypr(Wici.c ~n ~m'ogy.

1.j7. ~e above, n. 15~.l..~~, r-.;t~7.iv,in ni~ nMT\m(~nl~ on Nnrn 9; I, relates the repetition of the phrase 'the sec-

ond· yea r 10 the midrashic source R;.-.shicues, and does nol at ~IIdes1 willi 1he

sequerulal question, lie also iJ.lnOl"!':'sI~ saructural ~spe(:l of 311the pa_o;..~8gC.~i.~-

(tISSOO above,

239 . SeC' Z~m~im 09b, and CUI· Ary.oebad 11; 2 . ( " .s v . .u.:jrj on R<L~lli, s.v, =!n·~~'t.. ed,

F., Hartrrum, vol. 5 (Icrnsalcm. 1992). 213. 11 . lB. Maharal abo ~.'I:pl~irL~c~T1ain d~f-

ferenees in formulation of the prohibition in th(:~t· V(':~(':~.

24(). See above, p. 20 (s.v. "Jo.·bint::lining rnj~"),

241. S!':'!':'us couuuents {InNum £7:9

1.4z. In U-1-'E!!;}mW .rnl!l Mfkm. M1.43. This ~ppli~ a~ w(·11 to thQ~ of the Vlm l~"'OI~. which in ~UlL~ C:.i:;.e~, can o c

Lr~(_.~1even fmtllCf back , Sec Y. Cooperman. Ll-Pesbuto .~!x.,Hfkm, 64 ; Ne:-iv Of)

l.ev Hi: 2.~;~nd l,cl;/llcus RahIM" 21: f, ed . ~brguht'_~, <1M.



82 TheTorah U-Madda/oumal

Ne~i~ also provtdes s~l('h inrc.f"J'rc.rrulon~._~C~, for example, hi.!; comments Lu

T.("I.'L(;;2j (and ~(')(~(mw ~la), hi~ Kidma! m~-'l:;·njd:,his nuroductlon 10 hj~ com

mentary on the .'>bP.'f*OI, Ha'wfwk ,o;b!!'ulub (Viln:.i, 5621; repr, jerusalem, 57m,

and recemlv reprinted l;\,i.h notes in ~m.<;bOI ha-,V~~i[) (jerusalem, 5i~J), l-i2,which provides a qll~sJ-his!orlc~1 5o('h~m~ a~ wdl_ bur, jl sccmx tu me, this does

nol bulk ax l:iTJ<:Cin bis Ha·atllek uauar as in R_Meir Simhahs MrJ,~I)(!~b

I-!di!hmah. Ilow~1jt:r, LhL~mav be because Ne~J".'s oorumeruary is I('~~ halakhn-

ceoutc than R. Mcir Siml:l~h'~, and thus {·ontain~ more non-h~lakhil:: elements,

' J1~ rnauer ~quire~ more examinarion. but Itt.;· ;Lrpt~~r::m("~of hi~!orit:~l consider-

.~Ion~ in the work uf such en unent halakhists ,15Nq.iv and R. Mdr Simhah, ~~

well :L~ lh{]~~ ur R. ~t(ldok haKohen (sec m~· "]1, 7,8(hk H 8Knn~n un the I [iSLUTI'

nf Halakha ," 'rruJihun 21 U985 J - ]-2.{}) and R . M oshe S,1mud CI:l~n(':r (~t~· my

"Fmm the r:;}8C:~of Tradition: R~hbi MUt;~~ S.,;UlLUei Glasner: The Or;ll Tor.~h,"

Traduto» ZS [19901; 63-6'h, not 1n mention [ , 1 . D. z. iLuffman-all III the ~IKl

pan of the nineteenth and firs. QL18rwr of tile twt~n.it:lt~--o;:;m hardlv be comcl-

dental,

244_Dozema», <;Ii, see n. B2 ~hovez . . : l : ; . : - ; t ' " ~ hi~ 1 j-1 -' flS l )~w s lJd A Ukro, 6 . ' 1 - ( i . { j , and h is P lj· l. td M. :"u. '( ) /l!-rl!I·U.I-h ·'M('!ihf!kl~

Hohbm(m ,.1o-1im~b (jerusalem, ':;i36}. subsequently incorpomrcd il)!o In(· ~(~-

(;ruJ ~JiLi{m of Ehe eommentarv (lerusa lem, 198~ r 'l l _ " ; 7')

241'1. li!ernll}" "~~kl: and ~ lhrou~hoUI.

2ri7. Tn~ . ix, in tilt': nook ( ] o f IkutemruJIll}'; / . f~iM~b 6b, il'lu/,Jirfl 11%.

2·18. A.~ ~k~('ri1x'(l ln 2·H l

2-19. from Nahrmnidcs' <":j)fl)mcnl;uy 10 I~~~·~:!, c - d Cha~"t:l, 1(6.

250, Sc:c Me.fb~Jj Hoklmr_ah to DOlt nA, cd, Y . L(]q~m1an, V'l.)L 5 . 15ti, ~n,j s.e~ y _

Cooperman. U !'eslmto sbeJM/~r~, M.

2 51 . •r h is h is to ry of Pem ateucha l 1 <,,,,,, cho es R 1~1(ldok'5 o w n hl51Qriogrnphy; !;C(': my

"K Zadok l!aK.ol~n on [I~ fli~tOrl of I lalakha, + above (n. 2·tH, in particular the-

ch;m~e hom nalakhah as consdtuied in [he desert and trut wh ich W85 in force

wnh LI~ entrance into the Pronnsed Laud, I iU'oI.'ever,K_ 4:adok does (lot, in his

~Iln·i"ing writi ngs, pTo,>~de~ cnnunuous cxnnn ~nLary to tile" Pentateucl I Irom the

pcrspcct iv(,:of 1 1 i~ rarii.... 1 1 i~t()riogmph1c- polrn of view.

25~ . S(':(' Nnm .% , :lflO \'5..~.8-9 in p..U"li,"uI8r, : tnci . tho mbnini(' (li,;.rLl",~ion a t Baoa Batra

I < !o .~ .

253 . II should be noted , however, tll.11 M~imonidC"5 h~(I 8kc~ciy 1)0K d (in the- third

mol of the irurrxhrc lion LO &;(i.'T Im-Mi;'~ot) the existence or tl ji~ Lvpe or halakhlc

matt-rial in the- Torah by e~dLlding i1 from ILL~courn of 6U e+e-rnallv :lpplicab1t':

miZl~N.

2Y i, For the- ['o0flo('(':, sec h j~ comments 011 in Hlddrl.~ht!i Ramhmr 'af Yl!l.'(WrnJ, S7h-88.1._

€ " d . Herschler, cols, 311·12_ ;l.nd in l.liddu.s1:tt'j ~(I Rm jjlx m '(./ M (j:s ~ >I..> b ~/.f uln l~ , ed.

keicl~nl.").n,29-30 uo 101.», contrast the remai ks of l{.~shlxl, ed . Dick 111~n,180 .

255. ~e I':lliol H. WOI[~url, "L~~'Way of Truth: 1\~i~US of "';dllll~rlid~.~· K;ibh~Ii.~ti{:

1len ueneutic, h .VS [.{~·I/t.t~I'14 (J ')fl').f: Hlj-!fI., e"~p.103-0j.

256. ~ the (~)mTT\enl~ of Ikrn;m 1 St"pI imus in bi~ -'(}pt':n Ik bLJ].;~~md (~mc{";lkd

lovt-' N~hm~mid(':<;and In(~ A.mL~lmj8n Tr:;Ldilinn,~ in 1~8(!Orc Twr.rskv, ('d .. 1!(.ljlj~·

MQs(o',~N(I/)maflfdl!s (Ramban): E)o.'Plor~lfrm,~ In JUs R(':lIgfOtj~ a~jd Lnerar»

~'Mun.'fry..' ((:.1.mhriodgc_ 193;\) , l 7· 22.

2~7. S ee Moshe Idel. ~We have No Ktbb.:.!li~lic Tr;..ditiou Of] This.' ill Isadore Twersky,

~{~I;bi Mu:se~ JVUhmmlidi!.~, 51-7_,. 'rnnlLgh Wolf~on argu{~~ for(""ihly forNahrnan i(k~ ~~ ;1 (kabbo Ii 5 1 i C .1 I ly " ) creative reintcrprctcr of oldc r ~rulJdic matei i~l

CBy W8}" of Truth." 153-;8), Ihi~ partkubr ~sp~e[ of his work was limited L[)

Ihose a.!m' ldOi h' hich cou ld be lIl~~ to respond Lo such tream ~Hl. t Lis work of

le g~J derasbo! i~ much mOf"e {:on.~{:r.'~LIvc, ~~nd h:1r{lly served !o exn: nd the

omllhig.nifkalll C~)1-pUS.

2;~_ ~~h i'.adok H3Knn~n (If l.uhl in on Propl1C(Y ~n the Ifalakhi, E'm,(:~~," ,1(>wf$f )

Lan: A~~"Uo"alton Sludj~· 1 (lJW\): 1-] (l; "R 78dok H~I-o:ohcn of Luhlin on tile-



Yaakov Elman 8 3

lI.i.slOr)' uf l!al~kba," (;\hovc, n. 2·1:1): ll-.d ~J1~ lIi~l[Hy of C(·ntilc Wi.soom Ac-

~-":JTt.lingto R. Zadok Hakohon , . , 1 " tl.l>lin." J'-mrnaf () f l'hlf,-,.mpby and J~1t-·R,-b

11mugb{.1 {in press).

2')9. JCf 3 1 :3 3-

lM. Nedar1m <2b.261. Per; ?Uiidfk V (lublin, :WI_:U;rt~rr,Israel, ~9n), ~}l.

Ellman It is No Empty Thing

Documents

Transcript of Ellman It is No Empty Thing