Ibn Ezra on Lower Biblical Criticism, part v

The last post in the series. See also parts one, two, three, and four.

The last difference described and explained by Ibn Ezra is that the number of Yishai's sons. In I Divrei Hayamim 2:12-16, Yishai has seven sons and David is the seventh.

יב  וּבֹעַז הוֹלִיד אֶת-עוֹבֵד, וְעוֹבֵד הוֹלִיד אֶת-יִשָׁי.	12 and Boaz begot Obed, and Obed begot Jesse;
יג  וְאִישַׁי הוֹלִיד אֶת-בְּכֹרוֹ, אֶת-אֱלִיאָב--וַאֲבִינָדָב, הַשֵּׁנִי, וְשִׁמְעָא, הַשְּׁלִשִׁי.	13 and Jesse begot his first-born Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimea the third;
יד  נְתַנְאֵל, הָרְבִיעִי, רַדַּי, הַחֲמִישִׁי.	14 Nethanel the fourth, Raddai the fifth;
טו  אֹצֶם, הַשִּׁשִּׁי, דָּוִיד, הַשְּׁבִעִי.	15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh.
טז  וְאַחְיֹתֵיהֶם, צְרוּיָה וַאֲבִיגָיִל; וּבְנֵי צְרוּיָה, אַבְשַׁי וְיוֹאָב וַעֲשָׂהאֵל--שְׁלֹשָׁה.	16 And their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah: Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three.

Meanwhile, in I Shmuel 16:6-12, Yishai sets out his seven sons before Shmuel -- see pasuk 10 -- and only after that brings out David, which would make David the eighth.

ו  וַיְהִי בְּבוֹאָם, וַיַּרְא אֶת-אֱלִיאָב; וַיֹּאמֶר, אַךְ נֶגֶד יְהוָה מְשִׁיחוֹ.  {ס}	6 And it came to pass, when they were come, that he beheld Eliab, and said: 'Surely the LORD'S anointed is before Him.' {S}
ז  וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-שְׁמוּאֵל, אַל-תַּבֵּט אֶל-מַרְאֵהוּ וְאֶל-גְּבֹהַּ קוֹמָתוֹ--כִּי מְאַסְתִּיהוּ:  כִּי לֹא, אֲשֶׁר יִרְאֶה הָאָדָם--כִּי הָאָדָם יִרְאֶה לַעֵינַיִם, וַה' יִרְאֶה לַלֵּבָב.	7 But the LORD said unto Samuel: 'Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have rejected him; for it is not as man seeth: for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.'
ח  וַיִּקְרָא יִשַׁי אֶל-אֲבִינָדָב, וַיַּעֲבִרֵהוּ לִפְנֵי שְׁמוּאֵל; וַיֹּאמֶר, גַּם-בָּזֶה לֹא-בָחַר ה'.	8 Then Jesse called Abinadab, and made him pass before Samuel. And he said: 'Neither hath the LORD chosen this.'
ט  וַיַּעֲבֵר יִשַׁי, שַׁמָּה; וַיֹּאמֶר, גַּם-בָּזֶה לֹא-בָחַר ה'.	9 Then Jesse made Shammah to pass by. And he said: 'Neither hath the LORD chosen this.'
י  וַיַּעֲבֵר יִשַׁי שִׁבְעַת בָּנָיו, לִפְנֵי שְׁמוּאֵל; וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁמוּאֵל אֶל-יִשַׁי, לֹא-בָחַר ה' בָּאֵלֶּה.	10 And Jesse made seven of his sons to pass before Samuel. And Samuel said unto Jesse: 'The LORD hath not chosen these.'
יא  וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁמוּאֵל אֶל-יִשַׁי, הֲתַמּוּ הַנְּעָרִים, וַיֹּאמֶר עוֹד שָׁאַר הַקָּטָן, וְהִנֵּה רֹעֶה בַּצֹּאן; וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁמוּאֵל אֶל-יִשַׁי שִׁלְחָה וְקָחֶנּוּ, כִּי לֹא-נָסֹב עַד-בֹּאוֹ פֹה.	11 And Samuel said unto Jesse: 'Are here all thy children?' And he said: 'There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep.' And Samuel said unto Jesse: 'Send and fetch him; for we will not sit down till he come hither.'
יב  וַיִּשְׁלַח וַיְבִיאֵהוּ וְהוּא אַדְמוֹנִי, עִם-יְפֵה עֵינַיִם וְטוֹב רֹאִי;  {פ} וַיֹּאמֶר ה' קוּם מְשָׁחֵהוּ, כִּי-זֶה הוּא.	12 And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of beautiful eyes, and goodly to look upon. {P} And the LORD said: 'Arise, anoint him; for this is he.'

Ibn Ezra writes:

[Divrei Hayamim] דָּוִיד הַשְּׁבִעִי, he [the anonymous grammarian with whom Ibn Ezra is arguing] says that it should have been הַשְּׁמִנִי, for so is written [in sefer Shmuel] וַיַּעֲבֵר יִשַׁי שִׁבְעַת בָּנָיו [before bringing out David]. 

And many have answered that one of them died, and they are not saying anything [of substance], for in the days of the author of Divrei Hayamim, none of them were alive. 

Rather, it is possible that Yishai had another wife who bore him a son, and so the first pasuk [namely, the 10'th pasuk which gave a figure of seven sons] listed sons from whichever wife there was, while in Divrei Hayamim they were listed as they were from one womb. And like it is [I Divrei Hayamim 8:1] בֶּלַע בְּכֹרוֹ אַשְׁבֵּל הַשֵּׁנִי.

With this, Ibn Ezra ends his discussion of Lower Biblical Criticism, and moves on to the question of whether Biblical Hebrew has contranyms.

Perhaps some analysis in a follow-up post, but I should explain his reference to בֶּלַע בְּכֹרוֹ אַשְׁבֵּל הַשֵּׁנִי.

In  I Divrei Hayamim 8:1-5, the author describes the sons and grandsons of Binyamin:

א  וּבִנְיָמִן--הוֹלִיד, אֶת-בֶּלַע בְּכֹרוֹ; אַשְׁבֵּל, הַשֵּׁנִי, וְאַחְרַח, הַשְּׁלִישִׁי.	1 And Benjamin begot Bela his first-born, Ashbel the second, and Aharah the third;
ב  נוֹחָה, הָרְבִיעִי, וְרָפָא, הַחֲמִישִׁי.	2 Nohah the fourth, and Rapha the fifth.
ג  וַיִּהְיוּ בָנִים, לְבָלַע--אַדָּר וְגֵרָא, וַאֲבִיהוּד.	3 And Bela had sons, Addar, and Gera, and Abihud;
ד  וַאֲבִישׁוּעַ וְנַעֲמָן, וַאֲחוֹחַ.	4 and Abishua, and Naaman, and Ahoah;
ה  וְגֵרָא וּשְׁפוּפָן, וְחוּרָם.	5 and Gera, and Shephuphan, and Huram.

Meanwhile, in Bereishit 46:21, we see these sons of Binyamin:

כא  וּבְנֵי בִנְיָמִן, בֶּלַע וָבֶכֶר וְאַשְׁבֵּל, גֵּרָא וְנַעֲמָן, אֵחִי וָרֹאשׁ; מֻפִּים וְחֻפִּים, וָאָרְדְּ.

21 And the sons of Benjamin: Bela, and Becher, and Ashbel, Gera, and Naaman, Ehi, and Rosh, Muppim, and Huppim, and Ard.

These lists don't match, and Ibn Ezra asserts that the same explanation could apply here as there.

Ibn Ezra on Lower Biblical Criticism, part iv

See part one, part two, and part three.

The context for the next suggested swap is as follows, in Shofetim 14:

יב  וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם שִׁמְשׁוֹן, אָחוּדָה-נָּא לָכֶם חִידָה:  אִם-הַגֵּד תַּגִּידוּ אוֹתָהּ לִי שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּשְׁתֶּה, וּמְצָאתֶם--וְנָתַתִּי לָכֶם שְׁלֹשִׁים סְדִינִים, וּשְׁלֹשִׁים חֲלִפֹת בְּגָדִים.	12 And Samson said unto them: 'Let me now put forth a riddle unto you; if ye can declare it me within the seven days of the feast, and find it out, then I will give you thirty linen garments and thirty changes of raiment;
יג  וְאִם-לֹא תוּכְלוּ, לְהַגִּיד לִי--וּנְתַתֶּם אַתֶּם לִי שְׁלֹשִׁים סְדִינִים, וּשְׁלֹשִׁים חֲלִיפוֹת בְּגָדִים; וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ--חוּדָה חִידָתְךָ, וְנִשְׁמָעֶנָּה.	13 but if ye cannot declare it me, then shall ye give me thirty linen garments and thirty changes of raiment.' And they said unto him: 'Put forth thy riddle, that we may hear it.'
יד  וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם, מֵהָאֹכֵל יָצָא מַאֲכָל, וּמֵעַז, יָצָא מָתוֹק; וְלֹא יָכְלוּ לְהַגִּיד הַחִידָה, שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים.	14 And he said unto them: Out of the eater came forth food, and out of the strong came forth sweetness. And they could not in three days declare the riddle.
טו  וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, וַיֹּאמְרוּ לְאֵשֶׁת-שִׁמְשׁוֹן פַּתִּי אֶת-אִישֵׁךְ וְיַגֶּד-לָנוּ אֶת-הַחִידָה--פֶּן-נִשְׂרֹף אוֹתָךְ וְאֶת-בֵּית אָבִיךְ, בָּאֵשׁ; הַלְיָרְשֵׁנוּ, קְרָאתֶם לָנוּ הֲלֹא.	15 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they said unto Samson's wife: 'Entice thy husband, that he may declare unto us the riddle, lest we burn thee and thy father's house with fire; have ye called us hither to impoverish us?'
טז  וַתֵּבְךְּ אֵשֶׁת שִׁמְשׁוֹן עָלָיו, וַתֹּאמֶר רַק-שְׂנֵאתַנִי וְלֹא אֲהַבְתָּנִי--הַחִידָה חַדְתָּ לִבְנֵי עַמִּי, וְלִי לֹא הִגַּדְתָּה; וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ, הִנֵּה לְאָבִי וּלְאִמִּי לֹא הִגַּדְתִּי--וְלָךְ אַגִּיד.	16 And Samson's wife wept before him, and said: 'Thou dost but hate me, and lovest me not; thou hast put forth a riddle unto the children of my people, and wilt thou not tell it me?' And he said unto her: 'Behold, I have not told it my father nor my mother, and shall I tell thee?'
יז  וַתֵּבְךְּ עָלָיו שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים, אֲשֶׁר-הָיָה לָהֶם הַמִּשְׁתֶּה; וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, וַיַּגֶּד-לָהּ כִּי הֱצִיקַתְהוּ, וַתַּגֵּד הַחִידָה, לִבְנֵי עַמָּהּ.	17 And she wept before him the seven days, while their feast lasted; and it came to pass on the seventh day, that he told her, because she pressed him sore; and she told the riddle to the children of her people.
יח  וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, בְּטֶרֶם יָבֹא הַחַרְסָה, מַה-מָּתוֹק מִדְּבַשׁ, וּמֶה עַז מֵאֲרִי; וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם--לוּלֵא חֲרַשְׁתֶּם בְּעֶגְלָתִי, לֹא מְצָאתֶם חִידָתִי.	18 And the men of the city said unto him on the seventh day before the sun went down: What is sweeter than honey? and what is stronger than a lion? And he said unto them: If ye had not plowed with my heifer, ye had not found out my riddle.

That is, in pasuk 12, Shimshon gives them a deadline of the seven days of the feast to solve the riddle. In pasuk 14, in three days they could not arrive at the answer. In pasuk 15, on the seventh day they spoke to Shimshon's wife. In pasuk 17, she wept before him the seven days, while their feast lasted, and finally elicits the answer from Shimson. In pasuk 18, they answer the riddle before the sun goes down on the seventh.

The difficulties are why they only approach her on the seventh day rather than the fourth. Further, how she is able to cry before Shimshon for all seven days when they only approach her after seven (or at least after the first three days).

The anonymous grammarian suggests that in pasuk 15, it should read fourth rather than seventh. This would be a simple switch of a resh for a shin. Ibn Ezra's words follow:

"[Shofetim 14:15]
וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, וַיֹּאמְרוּ לְאֵשֶׁת-שִׁמְשׁוֹן - it is appropriate to be, according to the opinion of the mahavil [speaking of vanity and striving after wind] to be הָרְבִיעִי, since he found above [in pasuk 14] וְלֹא יָכְלוּ לְהַגִּיד הַחִידָה, שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים [for three days, such that this would be the fourth].

And he is not saying anything, and here is its explanation: They engaged and strove for three days to solve the riddle and were not able, and when they say this, they gave up on it. And once it was the seventh day, they said to Shimshon's wife, 'entice your husband', and because she pressed him sore on the seventh day because of the things they said, so that he would relate it to her, for so it written.

[Meanwhile], the meaning of 'and she wept to him for seven days', Scriptures is relating that she, by her own initiative, was crying all seven days in order that he relate to her the [answer to the] riddle, even though no one has asked her to do this."

Ibn Ezra on Lower Biblical Criticism, part iii

See part one and part two.


3) Ibn Ezra continues his response to the grammarian who proposed numerous emendations to the text of Scriptures. The third proposed emendation is the word הַדָּבָר in the following pasuk, which this anonymous grammarian asserts should read הָעָם:

Yehoshua 5:4:

ד  וְזֶה הַדָּבָר, אֲשֶׁר-מָל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ:  כָּל-הָעָם הַיֹּצֵא מִמִּצְרַיִם הַזְּכָרִים כֹּל אַנְשֵׁי הַמִּלְחָמָה, מֵתוּ בַמִּדְבָּר בַּדֶּרֶךְ, בְּצֵאתָם, מִמִּצְרָיִם.	4 And this is the cause why Joshua did circumcise: all the people that came forth out of Egypt, that were males, even all the men of war, died in the wilderness by the way, after they came forth out of Egypt.
ה  כִּי-מֻלִים הָיוּ, כָּל-הָעָם הַיֹּצְאִים; וְכָל-הָעָם הַיִּלֹּדִים בַּמִּדְבָּר בַּדֶּרֶךְ, בְּצֵאתָם מִמִּצְרַיִם--לֹא-מָלוּ.	5 For all the people that came out were circumcised; but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, had not been circumcised.

Ibn Ezra writes:

"וְזֶה הַדָּבָר, אֲשֶׁר-מָל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ -- he says that הַדָּבָר is in place of הָעָם. But in reality it is just as its simple implication, 'and this is the davar -- that is to say, because of this davar [matter] -- Yehoshua circumcised them'. "

And indeed, reading this in context of the next few verses, which explains how and why those born in the wilderness were not circumcised, this makes good sense.

4) The next verse this anonymous grammarian proposes emending is I Melachim 2:28, which reads:

כח  וְהַשְּׁמֻעָה, בָּאָה עַד-יוֹאָב, כִּי יוֹאָב נָטָה אַחֲרֵי אֲדֹנִיָּה, וְאַחֲרֵי אַבְשָׁלוֹם לֹא נָטָה; וַיָּנָס יוֹאָב אֶל-אֹהֶל יְהוָה, וַיַּחֲזֵק בְּקַרְנוֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ.

28 And the tidings came to Joab; for Joab had turned after Adonijah, though he turned not after Absalom. And Joab fled unto the Tent of the LORD, and caught hold on the horns of the altar.

Ibn Ezra writes:

"וְאַחֲרֵי אַבְשָׁלוֹם לֹא נָטָה -- he said that it is [erroneously] in place of 'after שְׁלֹמֹה'.  And there is no need for this, for once the verse stated that he [Yoav] went after Adoniyah, what need would there be to say that he did not go after Shlomo, for this would be immediately apparent to anyone who heard it. Rather, 

the verse comes to explain something else, that Yoav did not go after Avshalom, because he knew that he [Avshalom] was not fit to have the kingship, and thought so as well regarding Shlomo." 

Ibn Ezra on Lower Biblical Criticism, part ii

Read part i here.

This is a presentation of Ibn Ezra's response to a commentator [perhaps Yitzchaki] who suggested switching more than one hundred words in Scriptures. Here, he considers and rejects a swap in parashat Yitro, based on a mismatch of הַגְבֵּל of the nation or the mountain.

Thus, Ibn Ezra continues with the second suggested swap:

"2) Shemot 19:12:

יב  וְהִגְבַּלְתָּ אֶת-הָעָם סָבִיב לֵאמֹר, הִשָּׁמְרוּ לָכֶם עֲלוֹת בָּהָר וּנְגֹעַ בְּקָצֵהוּ:  כָּל-הַנֹּגֵעַ בָּהָר, מוֹת יוּמָת.

12 And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying: Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it; whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death

vs. Shemot 19:23:

כג  וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה, אֶל-ה, לֹא-יוּכַל הָעָם, לַעֲלֹת אֶל-הַר סִינָי:  כִּי-אַתָּה הַעֵדֹתָה בָּנוּ, לֵאמֹר, הַגְבֵּל אֶת-הָהָר, וְקִדַּשְׁתּוֹ.

23 And Moses said unto the LORD: 'The people cannot come up to mount Sinai; for thou didst charge us, saying: Set bounds about the mount, and sanctify it.'


He said that it [the word in the latter verse] ought to be הָעָם.

And he did not say anything, for if one were to הַגְבֵּל the nation, then the גבול [boundary] would be around the mountain, and if one said to place [?] a boundary around the mountain, then there would be not difference between them."

End quote of Ibn Ezra.

In other words, since since the later verse is a rephrasing of God's command, and perhaps because הַגְבֵּל should be taken cause to form a perimeter, both should be the 'the nation'. Ibn Ezra's response is that one need not harmonize to use the same noun in the command and the restatement of the command, because with either word choice, this is a valid way of describing the action.

The Samaritans were also interested in such harmonizations, and they freely emended the text to make it smoother. In this instance, they similarly emended the text. Here is Vetus Testamentum, with the Masoretic text on the right and the Samaritan text on the left. A - means the Samaritan text is identical to the Hebrew, and a * means a corresponding letter or word is missing.

Their solution was to modify only verse 12 so as to make both instances, ההר, rather than העם. This introduces a problem, because of the word לֵאמֹר in pasuk 12. If Moshe were to וְהִגְבַּלְתָּ the nation, then there could be a לֵאמֹר as he instructs the nation. But the text will not flow if Moshe were to וְהִגְבַּלְתָּ the mountain. Therefore, the Samaritan scribe added an extra phrase, ואל העם תאמר, "and you should say to the nation".

Update: Also see Ibn Ezra on the pasuk:

[יט, יב]
והגבלת -שים גבול בהר. ע"כ כמוהו הגבל את ההר וקדשתו לשום גבול בהר. והארכתי כל כך בעבור שאמר המשוגע שהפך בספרו דברי אלוהים חיים, אמר: כי רצה משה לומ: הגבל את העם. ויצא מפיו ההר במקום העם.

Ibn Ezra on Lower Biblical Criticism, part i

In Sefer Tzachot, Ibn Ezra writes at length against a grammarian [מדקדק] who proposed more than one hundred words which should be replaced in Scriptures. Ibn Ezra writes that the book is fit to be burned. (Elsewhere, in his commentary to Shemot 19:12, he labels this fellow a meshuga.) I've seen it asserted, but alas, as I write now can't find the source [update: see here] , that this grammarian is the same as Yitzchaki (whom people identify as Isaac Ibn Castar Ben Yashush of Toledo), who claimed fairly late authorship of a lengthy passage in sefer Bereishit, about whose book Ezra said that it deserved to be burned.

Ibn Ezra's opposition seems somewhat grounded in religious sensibilities --

"Forfend, forfend, for this is not correct, not in non-sacred words and certainly not in the words of the Living God. And his book is fit to be burnt." 

Further, this grammarian describes difficulties in the text which can only be resolved by emending the text. Ibn Ezra argues that with a bit of deeper thought and analysis, many of these difficulties are readily resolved, such that the radical course of emending the Biblical text is unwarranted.

I am going to separate Ibn Ezra's words into several posts, each tackling a different difficulty / proposed change from this grammarian. His words follow:

"Beware and guard your soul exceedingly, that you do not believe the words of the grammarian who mentioned in his book more than one hundred words and said that all of them need replacing. Forfend, forfend, for this is not correct, not in non-sacred words and certainly not in the words of the Living God. And his book is fit to be burnt.

And behold I will explain to you a few of the difficulties he mentioned, due to which he was unable to explain them in their straightforward manner. And they are:

1) [Yirmeyahu 33:26]

כו  גַּם-זֶרַע יַעֲקוֹב וְדָוִד עַבְדִּי אֶמְאַס, מִקַּחַת מִזַּרְעוֹ מֹשְׁלִים, אֶל-זֶרַע אַבְרָהָם, יִשְׂחָק וְיַעֲקֹב:  כִּי-אשוב (אָשִׁיב) אֶת-שְׁבוּתָם, וְרִחַמְתִּים.  {פ}

26 then will I also cast away the seed of Jacob, and of David My servant, [so that I will not take of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; for I will cause their captivity to return, and will have compassion on them.'] {P}
[Note: Ibn Ezra writes יעקב as chaser but it should be malei.]

He says that in place of "Yaakov" [at the beginning of the verse] should be "Aharon", because it states earlier [in verse 24] two families

[namely,

כד  הֲלוֹא רָאִיתָ, מָה-הָעָם הַזֶּה דִּבְּרוּ לֵאמֹר, שְׁתֵּי הַמִּשְׁפָּחוֹת אֲשֶׁר בָּחַר יְהוָה בָּהֶם, וַיִּמְאָסֵם; וְאֶת-עַמִּי, יִנְאָצוּן, מִהְיוֹת עוֹד, גּוֹי לִפְנֵיהֶם.  {ס}

24 'Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying: The two families which the LORD did choose, He hath cast them off? and they contemn My people, that they should be no more a nation before them. {S}

and the reference should be therefore be to two distinct families, not one within the other, and those should be the Davidic dynasty and the Aharonic priesthood.]

And the correct explaination is to leave it in its simple implication [of Yaakov], and the proof is [the continuation of pasuk 26]

מִקַּחַת מִזַּרְעוֹ מֹשְׁלִים
so that I will not take of his seed to be rulers

and its explanation is as follows: 'how shall I [אֶמְאַס] cast away one who is of the seed of Yaakov, after it is stated in the Torah that there shall be no ruling king in Israel except Yaakov? And further, that he is of the family of David.' And so, there are two positives.

And behold, I will show him the like, against his will, which he will not be able to swap out at all, namely [Tehillim 77:16]:

טז  גָּאַלְתָּ בִּזְרוֹעַ עַמֶּךָ;    בְּנֵי-יַעֲקֹב וְיוֹסֵף סֶלָה.

16 Thou hast with Thine arm redeemed Thy people, the sons of Jacob and Joseph. Selah

See also Ibn Ezra's interpretation of this verse in Tehillim, where he also makes mention that this is a good response to Yitzchaki:

[עז, טז]
גאלת, עמך -הוא הפעול כאילו כתוב: גאלת עמך בזרוע נטויה.וטעם להזכיר יוסף עם יעקב כי הוא החיה ישראל, ככתוב משם רועה אבן ישראל. 
והטעם: כי בזכות יעקב ויוסף פדית בניהם וכמוהו גם זרע יעקב ודוד עבדי אמאס, שהטעם מי שהוא מבני נדיבים והעד שאמר מקחת מזרעו מושלים והאומר כי יעקב תחת אהרן, לא דבר נכונה.

Ibn Caspi: Has Elokim essayed to take Him a nation

There is a nice ambiguous set of pesukim in the beginning of vaEtchanan, in Devarim 4:34. A small selection:

לב  כִּי שְׁאַל-נָא לְיָמִים רִאשֹׁנִים אֲשֶׁר-הָיוּ לְפָנֶיךָ, לְמִן-הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם עַל-הָאָרֶץ, וּלְמִקְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְעַד-קְצֵה הַשָּׁמָיִם:  הֲנִהְיָה, כַּדָּבָר הַגָּדוֹל הַזֶּה, אוֹ, הֲנִשְׁמַע כָּמֹהוּ.	32 For ask now of the days past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth, and from the one end of heaven unto the other, whether there hath been any such thing as this great thing is, or hath been heard like it?
לג  הֲשָׁמַע עָם קוֹל אֱלֹהִים מְדַבֵּר מִתּוֹךְ-הָאֵשׁ, כַּאֲשֶׁר-שָׁמַעְתָּ אַתָּה--וַיֶּחִי.	33 Did ever a people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live?
לד  אוֹ הֲנִסָּה אֱלֹהִים, לָבוֹא לָקַחַת לוֹ גוֹי מִקֶּרֶב גּוֹי, בְּמַסֹּת בְּאֹתֹת וּבְמוֹפְתִים וּבְמִלְחָמָה וּבְיָד חֲזָקָה וּבִזְרוֹעַ נְטוּיָה, וּבְמוֹרָאִים גְּדֹלִים:  כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר-עָשָׂה לָכֶם ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם, בְּמִצְרַיִם--לְעֵינֶיךָ.	34 Or hath God assayed to go and take Him a nation from the midst of another nation, by trials, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a mighty hand, and by an outstretched arm, and by great terrors, according to all that the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before thine eyes?
לה  אַתָּה הָרְאֵתָ לָדַעַת, כִּי ה הוּא הָאֱלֹהִים:  אֵין עוֹד, מִלְּבַדּוֹ.	35 Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightest know that the LORD, He is God; there is none else beside Him.

The concluding words are Ain Od Milvado. There is only one deity. This is YKVK, mentioned in pasuk 35 as the only Elokim.

If so, what are we to make of  אוֹ הֲנִסָּה אֱלֹהִים? Are we asking whether God with a capital G did this for any other nation? This is possible, if the purpose is to show how unique we are. Hashem did this for us -- unto thee it was shown -- so that we might know this.

But on the other hand, other nations have their own national deities. For instance, Moav had Kemosh. If so, אוֹ הֲנִסָּה אֱלֹהִים might be profane, meaning a god with a lowercase g. No other deity has done this, because those deities do not exist. Hashem took these elaborate steps in order to demonstrate that he does exist.

If the latter is the meaning, then the pasuk is temporarily ascribing existence to those other gods purely in order to dismiss them from existence. They are hypothetical until they are ultimately dismissed. And in the duration, they are discussed as if they exist, but their non-action is noted. This would be from the perspective of the idolatrous other nations, or from the perspective of the Israelites before they have been shown the light.

This latter interpretation is something that might be too difficult for some to allow into the Biblical text. Or, there might be other reasons for disregarding the interpretation. I would like to present Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and finally Ibn Caspi. Because Ibn Ezra and Ibn Caspi sometimes speak cryptically, I cannot say definitively that I have entirely understood their intent. But I present it nonetheless.

Rashi writes that it is profane. Thus:

Or has any god performed miracles to come and take him a nation from the midst of a[nother] nation, with trials, with signs, and with wonders, and with war and with a strong hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with great awesome deeds, as all that the Lord your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes?		לד. אוֹ | הֲנִסָּה אֱלֹהִים לָבוֹא לָקַחַת לוֹ גוֹי מִקֶּרֶב גּוֹי בְּמַסֹּת בְּאֹתֹת וּבְמוֹפְתִים וּבְמִלְחָמָה וּבְיָד חֲזָקָה וּבִזְרוֹעַ נְטוּיָה וּבְמוֹרָאִים גְּדֹלִים כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לָכֶם יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם בְּמִצְרַיִם לְעֵינֶיךָ:
Or has any god performed miracles: Heb. הֲנִסָּה אלֹהִים. Has any god performed miracles (נִסִּים) ?		הנסה אלהים: הכי עשה נסים שום אלוה:

Onkelos takes it as holy:

ד,לד אוֹ הֲנִסָּה אֱלֹהִים, לָבוֹא לָקַחַת לוֹ גוֹי מִקֶּרֶב גּוֹי, בְּמַסֹּת בְּאֹתֹת וּבְמוֹפְתִים וּבְמִלְחָמָה וּבְיָד חֲזָקָה וּבִזְרוֹעַ נְטוּיָה, וּבְמוֹרָאִים גְּדֹלִים:  כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר-עָשָׂה לָכֶם יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם, בְּמִצְרַיִם--לְעֵינֶיךָ.

אוֹ נִסִּין עֲבַד יְיָ, לְאִתְגְּלָאָה לְמִפְרַק לֵיהּ עַם מִגּוֹ עַם, בְּנִסִּין בְּאָתִין וּבְמוֹפְתִין וּבִקְרָבָא וּבְיַד תַּקִּיפָא וּבִדְרָעָא מְרָמְמָא, וּבְחֶזְוָנִין רַבְרְבִין:  כְּכֹל דַּעֲבַד לְכוֹן יְיָ אֱלָהֲכוֹן, בְּמִצְרַיִם--לְעֵינֵיכוֹן.

Ibn Ezra says it is kodesh, and chas veshalom that it is profane!

[ד, לד]
או הנסה אלהים -יש אומרים: 
שהוא לשון חול וחלילה חלילה, רק לשון קדושה.

הנסה -כדרך בני אדם, כדי שיבינו השומעים.

"Or has Elokim tried: Some say that it is profane, and forfend! Rather it is holy.
Tried: In the way of people, so that the hearers may understand."

This is a facet which is new and interesting. That is (maybe), one might object to it being holy, referring to Hashem, based on HaNisa. Or maybe the point is orthogonal to the previous. There is no effort involved in Hashem performing anything, so why use the word HaNisa? The answer is a sort of dibra Torah kilshon benei Adam. Just as people try to do something, or set out to do something. One can thus use this idiom about a possible action of Hashem. And it a useful idiom, for the sake of the audience understanding. But we, who know better, understand that this is just an idiom, and would not ascribe an 'attempted action' to God.

This makes sense to me, even though I would prefer the interpretation of Rashi.

Ibn Caspi writes:

"Did [Elokim] Attempt: the Torah speaks in the language of people. And Elokim is holy [meaning a reference to Hashem, rather than profane, to idols]. Because He is the first Actor, and there are many 'elohim' below him, Yisbarach, working from him."

This is somewhat cryptic, but I think that learning through Ibn Ezra first can help clarify, at least a little bit. This is true in general, that it is important to get a sense of the intellectual climate in which a commentator writes.

I might have thought that when Ibn Caspi wrote "the Torah speaks in the language of people", he was explaining that this refers to their belief in the existence of other gods, which would then (at first) be in contrast with his immediately following statement that Elokim in kodesh, but not in contrast with the last statement (of God being the first Actor atop other Elohim beneath).

But now that I've seen Ibn Ezra, I think that when Ibn Caspi said upon Hanisa that "the Torah speaks in the language of people", he means that the concept and idiom of "attempted action" ascribed to God is the language of people. Further, that Elokim is kodesh, just as Ibn Ezra and Onkelos said.

But then a refinement, possibly motivated by theology or possibly motivated by peshat concerns, I think he is harmonizing this with Rashi. Suddenly, those actors, the אֱלֹהִים, in all those pesukim are actually not entirely God with a capital G. They are the lower actors, secondary causes without free will, all propelled by Hashem who is the First Cause. And that is peshat in all these pesukim. So indeed, chalila that the pesukim would even temporarily posit the existence of other gods, but rather, these do exist, but are part of, an extension of Hashem.

What then to make of the closing line,  אַתָּה הָרְאֵתָ לָדַעַת, כִּי ה הוּא הָאֱלֹהִים:  אֵין עוֹד, מִלְּבַדּוֹ? Isn't the function of this to deny those other beings existence?

No. The purpose is to say that Hashem is the overlord and first cause of those other powers, which are just extensions of His Divine Will. Hashem is those Elohim. There is none beside Him. Those others are not true gods.

Maybe. This is what Ibn Caspi says on that pasuk, 35:

Did Moshe inscribe his staff with locusts?

Consider this pasuk in parashat Bo:

יב  וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, נְטֵה יָדְךָ עַל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בָּאַרְבֶּה, וְיַעַל, עַל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם; וְיֹאכַל אֶת-כָּל-עֵשֶׂב הָאָרֶץ, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר הִשְׁאִיר הַבָּרָד.

12 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Stretch out thy hand over the land of Egypt for the locusts, that they may come up upon the land of Egypt, and eat every herb of the land, even all that the hail hath left.'

How can Moshe extend his hand over the land of Egypt with locusts? Is he not extending his staff, rather than extending a locust? Indeed, in the next pasuk, Moshe explicitly extends his staff:

יג  וַיֵּט מֹשֶׁה אֶת-מַטֵּהוּ, עַל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, וַה נִהַג רוּחַ-קָדִים בָּאָרֶץ, כָּל-הַיּוֹם הַהוּא וְכָל-הַלָּיְלָה; הַבֹּקֶר הָיָה--וְרוּחַ הַקָּדִים, נָשָׂא אֶת-הָאַרְבֶּה.

13 And Moses stretched forth his rod over the land of Egypt, and the LORD brought an east wind upon the land all that day, and all the night; and when it was morning, the east wind brought the locusts.

Peshat is to not make a big deal about this and to explain how it means that Moshe really extended his staff. Thus, Rashi writes:

for the locusts: For the plague of the locusts.

בארבה: בשביל מכת הארבה:

The ב in בארבה means bishvil, for the purpose of. We could also say he is stretching his staff and thus extending locusts over Egypt.

Midrash is to read this hyper-literally and assume that Moshe was somehow commanded to extend a physical locust. 

We will see both these ideas in Ibn Ezra's short and long commentary to parashat Bo. To cite Mevaser Ezra, by Rabbi Meshulam Roth,

"In his short commentary to parashat Bo, Shemot 10:12, on the word בארבה, [Ibn Ezra writes]:

בדבר הארבה, ואם כמשמעו יש לו סוד

In the matter of the locusts. And if in its [simple] implication, there is a secret there.

Meanwhile, in his long commentary these are his words:

[י, יב]
בארבה -אמר רבי משה הכהן: 

כי טעם בארבה שארבה שם במטה. 

ואין זה נכון. רק הטעם בארבה בעבור שיבוא.

Rabbi Moshe HaKohen said that the meaning of בארבה is that there was a locust inscribed upon the staff. And this is not correct. 

[Josh: as the commentary Yahel Ohr explains, the position of Rabbi Moshe HaKohen was that Moshe placed images of locusts upon the staff in order to draw with it the upper forces to bring locusts upon Egypt, and according to his words, the bringing of the locusts was via the science of the mazalot and that is why the Chacham (Ibn Ezra) said that this is not correct.]

Rather the meaning of בארבה is so that they [the locusts] will come.

And see Ohel Yosef there who brings the two versions (TODO: copy it here). -- 

And it appears that in his old age, in France, in his long commentary he retracted (/reviewed?) and pushed off the words of Rabbi Moshe HaKohen and cast the "secret" behind his back, so as not to reduce the miracle to bring it closer to the intellect, as was the position of Rabbi Moshe HaKohen which he had maintained at first in the short commentary in Italy.

Or, a student wrote the short commentary from his dictation and added and changed certain matters of his own accord.

And see in parashat Naso, the bitter waters, there is a secret, and this is like this matter. And so too parashat Korach, הקטרת which was known, against the plague, there is a secret, and that is like this.

[Josh: Namely, that the secret is some naturalistic explanation.]

See there in the supercommentators. And all this is from the short commentary, which is associated with sefer Bamidbar.

And see earlier, I wrote in the name of the introduction to Ohel Yosef that Ibn Ezra's way was only to write Chachmeinu or Kadmoneinu, and not Rabotainu, which is not the language of Scriptures, but only the Aramaic language or Talmudic language. However, in the [Josh: long] commentary which he wrote in France, there is found in every place the language of Rabbotainu. (TODO: Record here a few examples.)"

End quote.

This is interesting, to say the least.

At first, I misread the above, thinking that here he backs up the all-too-easy assertion that a talmid toeh wrote the theologically uncomfortable positions in Ibn Ezra, via a linguistic argument. Because we see all these instances of רבותינו, which Ibn Ezra wouldn't write. But this was a misreading, because he suggested that a talmid toeh recorded and added to the shorter version, while the longer version is the one with רבותינו.

So I am not sure what that linguistic argument is, exactly. Maybe that this change in word choice demonstrates that there were two separate authors.

I don't really see much difference between the shorter and the longer versions in this case. In the short version, he decides in favor of it meaning בדבר הארבה, and I would argue that this is simply because it makes for better peshat, while the inscribing locust explanation, labeled כמשמעו, is more midrashic. True, Ibn Ezra does grant it some slight purchase, but I wouldn't say that he endorses it. In the longer version, he more firmly rejects the sod, as well as explains what that sod is. Presumably he cannot reject that sod without making it clear what he is rejecting. So, while there is a change of mind, I would characterize it as a solidification of his position against the sod.

Why conceal the sod in the first place? Yahel Ohr says , ר׳׳ל זה הוא הסוד שאין ראוי לגלותו, שלא יחשבו שזה היה בכח המזל ילא במאמר השם. Perhaps. I would have guessed other answers, that (1) he doesn't want to be put in cherem by his less open-minded contemporaries, or that (2) since it involves summoning powers on high, this is Ibn Ezra's scientific / philosophical mysticism, which is nistar rather than nigleh.

See by the way Rav Saadia Gaon's Tafsir, and how he renders בארבה. I apologize for my lousy transliteration of the Judeo-Arabic:

וַיֹּאמֶר -- vekal
ה -- Allah
אֶל-מֹשֶׁה -- leMusay
נְטֵה -- mid
יָדְךָ -- yedak
עַל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם -- ilay belad Mitzr
בָּאַרְבֶּה -- bisbab al-grad ("because of the locusts")
וְיַעַל -- fi-yatz'id
עַל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם -- ilay belad Mitzr
וְיֹאכַל -- veyakul
אֶת-כָּל-עֵשֶׂב הָאָרֶץ -- gemi' 'ushbeha
אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר -- gemi'
הִשְׁאִיר הַבָּרָד -- bakah al-brad

ACH in אַךְ טָרֹף טֹרָף -- an expression of certainty, doubt, or reduction?

Famously, אך and רק midrashically come only to exclude, to be memaet. And this is interesting because according to Biblical scholars, this usage of אך is only in Rabbinic Hebrew, while in Biblical Hebrew it means "surely", or "indeed". If so, this is an anachronistic sort of derasha, and so one reads in alternate meanings to what would have been intended by the Biblical author.

You could argue and say that the meaning in Rabbinic Hebrew is also the meaning in Biblical Hebrew. This would require analysis of how it is used across Tanach.

There is an אך in Vayigash that caught my eye. Yaakov relates the loss of Yosef, in Bereishit 44:28:

The one went away from me, and I said, "He has surely been torn to pieces, and I have not seen him since."

כח. וַיֵּצֵא הָאֶחָד מֵאִתִּי וָאֹמַר אַךְ טָרֹף טֹרָף וְלֹא רְאִיתִיו עַד הֵנָּה:

Or HaChaim is therefore impelled to interpret it as an exclusion:


"ACH TAROF etc.: He hints, by saying אך, that it is a reduction of טָרֹף טֹרָף, for he [Yosef] is not in the distress of servitude nor in the distress of prison. And that is why he concludes וְלֹא רְאִיתִיו עַד הֵנָּה, behold he is relating that he does exist, but he has yet to see him until now.

Further is intended by אַךְ טָרֹף טֹרָף etc. to explain that אך is a reduction specifically in the tearing [טָרֹף], but regarding that which he said 'a wild animal ate him", which they za'"l said was intended as a reference to the wife of Potifar, in this, there is no reduction, for he was already [????] that which she caused him [Yosef] to lose 10 seons, for he had been destined to raise 12 tribes, as they za'l said, and via this wickedness [??] ten drops [of semen] fell from him and thus only two [Ephraim and Menashe] came from him."

OK, not exactly what I would call peshat, even though it comes from the Or HaChaim. But this sort of close reading / midrashic reading makes a great deal of the Rabbinic understanding of אך.

Onkelos translates this אך as ברם. But is he saying "only" or "indeed"?

Look at Jastrow, who shows that in Aramaic it has both meanings:

Though maybe we should restrict our investigation to Targum.

Rabbenu Yonah Ibn Janach writes as follows, taking this אך as a doubt -- thus, perhaps, a miut -- as opposed to the usual "surely":

"The word אך here does NOT come to relate that it is a certain thing, as it meant in [Bereishit 29:14, Lavan speaking to Yaakov]

יד  וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ לָבָן, אַךְ עַצְמִי וּבְשָׂרִי אָתָּה; וַיֵּשֶׁב עִמּוֹ, חֹדֶשׁ יָמִים.

14 And Laban said to him: 'Surely thou art my bone and my flesh.' And he abode with him the space of a month.

but rather for a doubt. And a proof to this is [the end of the pasuk] וְלֹא רְאִיתִיו עַד הֵנָּה. And had it been the case in truth, it would not have been correct to say this." (Sefer HaShorashim 28)

Presumably, Ibn Janach's reason is that "I have not seen him" indicates some uncertainty. Well, I haven't seen him, so presumably he is dead. And why say this if you saw his bloody clothing? Of course you would not be expecting to see him after this.

But one (meaning Josh) could argue in the opposite direction. For instance: Yaakov is saying that this was what he was convinced of, based on the evidence, at the time. Yes, maybe Yosef could have lost the clothing and survived the attack. But Yaakov is further convinced that his interpretation of Yosef's death was true because Yosef never did surface.

Moreover, one should not ignore the emotion of the statement. This loss / disappearance of Yosef profoundly affected Yaakov, and a grieving father confronted with this loss would say, emotionally, surely this has happened. Whether or not there is absolute hard evidence.

Ibn Ezra, I think, says much of the same thing, though projecting the certainly to the present day:

אך טרף טרף. והעד כי לא ראיתיו עד הנה:

He has אך [certainly] been torn. And the evidence of this is that I have not seen him until now.

Meanwhile, Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi argues, and introduces a safek into the proceedings:

"The import is 'I said, and estimated [J: back then] that he was torn, though this had an element of doubt. But regardless, I have not seen him until now.' And see [says Ibn Caspi] the difference between my position and that of the Chacham Ibn Ezra who said 'and the evidence is לא ראיתיו עד הנה. For this is no evidence at all!"

Where did Aharon die?

Here is a fascinating variant text that the Samaritans have, in Ekev (Devarim 10): The text on the right is our Masoretic text, while the text on the left is the Samaritan text.

The Samaritan text is obviously not the original. It is a harmonizing effort, to bring in the material from Bemidbar 33 and make it harmonious.

That is, we have in Bemidbar 33:

לא  וַיִּסְעוּ, מִמֹּסֵרוֹת; וַיַּחֲנוּ, בִּבְנֵי יַעֲקָן.

31 And they journeyed from Moseroth, and pitched in Bene-jaakan.

which on a surface level seems the opposite direction than in Ekev. And in Bemidbar, it is clear that Aharon died at a much later encampment, at Mt. Hor, rather than in Mosera.

לז  וַיִּסְעוּ, מִקָּדֵשׁ; וַיַּחֲנוּ בְּהֹר הָהָר, בִּקְצֵה אֶרֶץ אֱדוֹם.	37 And they journeyed from Kadesh, and pitched in mount Hor, in the edge of the land of Edom.--
לח  וַיַּעַל אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן אֶל-הֹר הָהָר, עַל-פִּי ה--וַיָּמָת שָׁם:  בִּשְׁנַת הָאַרְבָּעִים, לְצֵאת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַחֲמִישִׁי, בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ.	38 And Aaron the priest went up into mount Hor at the commandment of the LORD, and died there, in the fortieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fifth month, on the first day of the month.
לט  וְאַהֲרֹן, בֶּן-שָׁלֹשׁ וְעֶשְׂרִים וּמְאַת שָׁנָה, בְּמֹתוֹ, בְּהֹר הָהָר.  {ס}	39 And Aaron was a hundred and twenty and three years old when he died in mount Hor. {S}

(So too in Bemidbar 20, the first recording of Aharon's death.)

The Samaritans seem untroubled by it, and just insert the intervening encampments, and put Aharon's death at Mt. Hor.

The contradiction between these two texts (Devarim and Bemidbar) is indeed a difficult one. Someone raised it in the comment section on my previous post, "Deuteronomy based on a different Biblical tradition? Simple vs. Simplistic", as evidence that Devarim was based on different source material.

But Shadal writes something very important, and instructive, about it:

פסוק זה ושלאחיו קשים מאד. 

It is OK to admit that something presents a great difficulty.

Shadal writes:

ו, ז ] ובני ישראל נסעו וגו ': פסוק זה ושלאחיו קשים מאד. כי לא ידענו מה ענינם במקום הזה. ורשב " ם וראב " ע אמרו שהם להודיע כי אהרן לא מת מיד, וזה לא יועיל ולא יציל, כי יודעים היו ישראל כי אהרן לא מת רק זה זמן מועט, ואם היה משה רוצה להזכירם זאת, למה לו להזכיר המסעות ולא אמר כי חי עד שנת הארבעים? ולדברי האומרים כי נוספו אחר זמן, לא הרווחנו מאומה, כי לא יובן מה ראה המוסיף להוסיפם. ואם בטעות לוקחו ממקום אחר, לא נודע מהיכן נלקחו ואיה מקומם. והשומרונים הוסיפו: ובני ישראל נסעו ממוסרות ויחנו בבני יעקן. משם נסעו ויחנו ביטבתה ארץ נחלי מים. משם נסעו ויחנו בעברונה. משם נסעו ויחנו בעציון גבר, משם נסעו ויחנו במדבר סין היא קדש. משם נסעו ויחנו בהר ההר. וימת שם אהרן ויקב שם ויכהן אלעזר בנו תחתינו . - כל זה להשוות הענין למה שכתוב בפרשת מסעי, אבל מה ענין כל זה לכאן?
"And the Israelites traveled...: this verse, and the one after it, are extremely difficult. For we do not know what their function is in this place. And Rashbam and Ibn Ezra said that they are to inform that Aharon did not die immediately. And this does not help or save, for the Israelites knew that Aharon had only died a short while before; and if Moshe wanted to mention this, why should he mention the traveled and not say that he lived until the fortieth year?
And according to those who say that this [text] was added after a time, we gain nothing, for it is not understood what the added saw to addthem.
And if they were taken from another place, we do not know from whence they were taken and where is their [proper] place.
And the Shomronim add [Josh: as above, see text that they add]. And all this is to make the matter equal to what was written in parashat Masei. But what relevance is this matter here?"

End quote.

In my prior post, I discussed many of the supposed contradictions between Devarim and the rest of Torah. To offer a taste of this, here is one purported contradiction:

2. The Court System 

According to Deuteronomy (1:9-13), the court system devised in the desert was Moses’ idea. However, according to Exodus (18:17-22), the idea was not Moses’ but that of his father-in-law Jethro.

I noted that whether or not one believes in Mosaic authorship of Devarim, it makes good sense that Devarim was written for an audience already familiar with the Torah, and that the author has a religious or political agenda to advance.

Since it is not meant as a parallel first-telling of the Biblical story, but as a retelling of the existing Biblical story, the author of Deuteronomy does not have to retell every single darned historical point...

In Exodus 18, the agenda is Jethro's role as visitor and influencer of the Israelites. And so, Jethro proposes this, and in the end, 18:24, וַיִּשְׁמַע מֹשֶׁה, לְקוֹל חֹתְנוֹ; וַיַּעַשׂ, כֹּל אֲשֶׁר אָמָר. We are not told there Moshe's words in instructing the Israelites.

In Deuteronomy 1, Moses does not claim exclusive credit for the idea. He does not mention Jethro because Jethro is irrelevant. Jethro would be a distraction to Moses' exhortation. Rather, he is reporting what he said to the Israelites when he implemented this action (or even, a portion thereof). And the purpose of mentioning this is not dry history, but of the transitioning of power from Moshe to others, in this cases, lower judges.

 This approach works well in the general case. But it does not work so smoothly when it comes to this Ekev /  Masei divergence.

I cannot claim to be able to solve every single divergence. Still, my general observation, about the lameness of many of the purported divergences, holds true.

Here is how I might begin to approach this divergence:

#1, the Samaritans are right. Not that they have the original text -- of course they falsified their Torah text in order to harmonize. But that the author of Devarim was looking to Masei and pulling in selections of that text. And that even though when read literally and uncompromisingly, the text in Devarim says Aharon died in Moserah while in Bemidbar (20 and 33) the text says he died on Hor HaHar -- that is not what the author of Devarim intended.

Further, Devarim is pulling from both Bemidbar 20 and Bemidbar 33, because Bnei Yaakan is only mentioned in Bemidbar 33 and Eliezer replacing is only mentioned in Bemidbar 20.

#2, Ibn Ezra and Rashbam are right about the agenda of the author of Devarim. In the previous perek, Devarim 9, Hashem was wroth with both the Israelites and Aharon:

יט  כִּי יָגֹרְתִּי, מִפְּנֵי הָאַף וְהַחֵמָה, אֲשֶׁר קָצַף ה עֲלֵיכֶם, לְהַשְׁמִיד אֶתְכֶם; וַיִּשְׁמַע ה אֵלַי, גַּם בַּפַּעַם הַהִוא.	19 For I was in dread of the anger and hot displeasure, wherewith the LORD was wroth against you to destroy you. But the LORD hearkened unto me that time also.
כ  וּבְאַהֲרֹן, הִתְאַנַּף ה מְאֹד--לְהַשְׁמִידוֹ; וָאֶתְפַּלֵּל גַּם-בְּעַד אַהֲרֹן, בָּעֵת הַהִוא.	20 Moreover the LORD was very angry with Aaron to have destroyed him; and I prayed for Aaron also the same time.

Yet Moshe interceded, and both were spared. And Moshe continues in that perek with other times he interceded on behalf of the Israelites. Perek 10 returns us to Har Sinai, "at that time", and the chance of a do-over.

And so, the point in bringing in that Aharon died is that he died later, not just there at Har Sinai.

#3, As to Shadal's objection -- why not just say "and Aharon died in the 40th year"?

Recall that this is not a parallel first-telling, but rather a re-telling. The audience is already familiar with the Biblical text, and by channeling parshat Masei, it is effectively quoting to them parashat Masei. This sounds more Biblical, and is along the lines of "as you well know". Thus also the parallel of שם Aharon died.

#4, If so, one could imagine that there is a "Yada Yada Yada" in play, to introduce that they traveled on to other encampments.


With Aharon's death, and the transition of power to Eleazar being the priority, and the death being specifically in הר ההר not really being relevant. This is then mentioned after the first movement in the chain, and is followed by others in the chain to show the movement continued.

After writing this, I looked at Ibn Caspi, who says it is a sort of yada yada yada. Perhaps I will present him

#5, בעת ההיא in Devarim 10:7 means at Har Sinai, not Yatva, just as it does in the first pasuk of the perekm Devarim 10:1. See Bemidbar 3.

#6, Many times, making too much of divergences does not lead us to peshat but to derash. I don't know that it applies here, but maybe.

At the end of the day, I am not entirely happy with this, but I do think that it may form the beginning of an answer.