Image from The Temple Institute |
INTRODUCTION:
In 1975 Rabbi Yitzchak Shimshon Lange published a collection
of commentaries by R. Yehuda heChasid (1150-1271), a leader of Chasidei
Ashkenaz, entitled Commentaries on the Torah by R. Judah he-Hasid[1].
Despite the rather innocuous-sounding title, this anthology
included three commentaries that suggest that certain sections of the Torah
were added after the time of Moshe Rabbeinu. A fourth commentary suggests that
David removed sections of poetry from the Torah and included them in his book
of Psalms. All this coming from someone like R. Yehuda heChasid naturally
raised some eyebrows.
In this article, based extensively but not exclusively on
the research by Professor Eran Viezel[2],
we examine one of these four commentaries.
THE FOUR ‘OFFENSIVE’ COMMENTARIES:
Lange based his anthology primarily on two manuscripts, one
found in the Russian State Library[3]
and the other in the Cambridge University Library[4].
The four ‘problematic’ commentaries were on the following verses: 1) Genesis
48:20–22[5],
2) Leviticus 2:13[6], 3)
Deuteronomy 2:8[7] and 4)
Numbers 21:17[8].
The commentaries on the first three biblical sections suggest that the relevant verses, or parts thereof, were not written by Moshe but were added later by either Joshua, or much later by the Men of the Great Assembly in the time of Ezra around the fifth century BCE. The commentary on the verse in Numbers suggests that David removed certain psalms of Moshe from the Torah, and incorporated them into his own book of Psalms.
CENSORING THE COMMENTAIES:
As a consequence of these ‘offensive’ suggestions in the
commentary, a huge polemic erupted and Lange withdrew his first edition from
circulation and published a new edition with these offensive commentaries
removed. Effectively the work had now been censored and sanitised.
On the opening page of the new edition, Lange explains:
“I declare that after
consultation with Torah luminaries and on the basis of their decision, I have
deleted a few passages, as it is unthinkable that they might have been uttered
by the sacred mouth of our rabbi, Judah he-Hasid of blessed memory. It must be
presumed that others took command of these writings and
cast their hands upon them.”
Viezel notes that from a reading of the original censored commentaries:
“…the explicit and moderate tone
of the comments illustrated, indirectly, that he [the author][9] did
not consider his views to be especially daring or extraordinary.”
This shows that so much effort was expended on removing
‘offensive’ writing that was obviously not considered by its author as being
offensive at the time of its writing.
A REAPPRAISAL OF THE AUTHORSHIP:
Viezel attempts a reappraisal of the authorship of the
entire commentary attributed to R. Yehuda heChassid. This does mean that he
condones the censorship, but his observations do well for the interests of
honest scholarship in general.
Viezel writes:
“…the attribution of these notes
has affected scholarship on the figure of R. Judah he-Hasid, introducing a new,
previously unattested dimension to his works and views, and influencing the
attitude of scholars to biblical exegesis of Hasidei Ashkenaz in general.”
Some scholars have suggested, based on these controversial
commentaries, that the ‘seeds of [Jewish] biblical criticism’ can now be
shown to have been sown by the great German Pietist, R. Yehuda heChasid.
If it can be shown that the attribution of this commentary to R. Yehuda heChasid is not accurate, then it must be made known.
First of all, the two original manuscripts from which these
commentaries derive, were not written by the hand of R. Yehuda heChasid. Viezel
began to become suspicious of the authorship of these commentaries when he
noticed that the Moscow manuscript clearly attributed the commentary to R.
Yehudah heChasid – while the other manuscript, held at Cambridge, had no such
attribution. Lange obviously noticed this as well and he concluded that both
must have been copied from a third manuscript that no longer exists.
R. MOSHE ZALTMAN:
From both extant manuscripts, it is clear that it is the son
of R. Yehuda heChasid who is doing most of the writing. There are numerous
references to “My father said” and “My father explained”
scattered throughout the manuscripts. Thus, from the outset, the primary author
emerges as R. Moshe Zaltman, the son of R. Yehuda heChasid.
This does not mean that R. Yehuda heChasid’s views are not
recorded in these manuscripts, but it becomes difficult to know which are his
pure reflections and which are the views of his son. We know that R. Zaltman
did not always present the views of his father because he frequently interposes
his own contrary views thus arguing with those of his father. It also seems
that R. Zaltman wrote these commentaries after his father’s passing because in
the commentary to Genesis 12:2, he mentions the date of his father’s death[10].
Viezel points out that this style of writing - where an
existing commentary is expanded upon to produce a supercommentary and then an
independent supplement is added by the supercommentator – was common at that
time. It is, therefore, likely that R. Zaltman was also following that style of
supercommentary writing. It is also
likely that the relative anonymity of R. Zaltman was the reason why the work
was attested to his father who, in fairness, is the source of many (most?) of
the ideas found within the work. This practise, an early ‘marketing technique’,
was also common for those times and was not considered disingenuous.
FATHER OR SON:
Lange himself appears to have been aware of many of these
observations and he writes in his introduction to his anthology:
“it is possible that R. Moses
Zaltman added [interpretations] of his own, or that there are other additions.”[11]
He further states that some comments should not at all be
attributed to R. Yehuda heChasid.[12]
However, Viezel takes this acknowledgement one step further
by examining each of the four controversial texts and differentiating between
the words of the father and the son. Viezel shows that both the commentaries on
Leviticus 2:13 and Genesis 48:2–22, where the suggestion that there are
interpolations in the Torah, originate with the son and not the father. The
commentary on Deuteronomy 2:8 also reflects the writing of the son. The fourth
commentary on Num. 21:17 (which does not concern an interpolation), however, is
difficult to differentiate between father and son but nevertheless it seems to
be based on a sound rabbinic tradition.
Let us look at one example of Viezel’s argument, Leviticus
2:13:
LEVITICUS 2:13:
Leviticus 2:13:
וְכׇל־קׇרְבַּ֣ן מִנְחָתְךָ֮ בַּמֶּ֣לַח
תִּמְלָח֒ וְלֹ֣א תַשְׁבִּ֗ית מֶ֚לַח בְּרִ֣ית אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ מֵעַ֖ל מִנְחָתֶ֑ךָ עַ֥ל
כׇּל־קׇרְבָּנְךָ֖ תַּקְרִ֥יב מֶֽלַח׃
You shall season your
every offering of meal with salt; you shall not omit
from your meal offering the salt of your covenant with God; with all your
offerings you must offer salt.
Here is the full
commentary:
ʹולא תשבית מלח ברית אלהיךʹ – אמרו
חכמים זו מלח סדומית שכתוב בו ʹלעברך בברית
הʹ
אלהיך ובאלתוʹ, ומה כתיב שם ʹגפרית ומלח שרפה כל ארצהּʹ, וסיפא דקרא ʹכמהפכת סדום
ועמורהʹ,
כך הגיד לי ריʺם [=רʹ יצחק מרוסיה] משם אבי. וקשה לי, והלא זה נאמר בסוף ימיו של
משה?
ונראה
לתרץ שקיבל משה הכל מסיני שהקʹ תלה [התורה] בזה שאם יעברו הברית, שגפרית ומלח
ישרוף
ארצם
כמו סדום. עניין אחר, שמא מתחילה היה כתיב ʹולא תשבית מלח מעל מנחתךʹ בסתם, ואחר
שמשה
רבינו
כתב זה באתם נצבים, אז הוסיפוּ וכתבוּ מפיʹ מה מלח, ʹמלח ברית אלהיךʹ
I will try to summerise this commentary (as I understand it)
as simply as possible:
·
According to Leviticus 2:13,
the meal offering had to have salt added to it.
·
This salt represented מֶ֚לַח בְּרִ֣ית אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ,
the salt of the covenant.
·
What was the salt of the
covenant?
·
The Talmud (bMen.
21a) provides the answer: it was the salt of Sodom.
·
How do we know to make this
connection between salt of the covenant and Sodom?
·
Another verse (from Nitzavim
in Deuteronomy 29:11) states, לְעׇבְרְךָ֗ בִּבְרִ֛ית יְהֹוָ֥ה
אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ, ‘To enter into the covenant of the Lord your God’. This
is followed by verse 22 which continues to mention, מֶ֘לַח֮,
salt, and סְדֹ֤ם, Sodom.[13] This style of connecting two seemingly unrelated verses is known as gezeira shava.
·
This is in Moshe’s final speech to his people, on the last day of his
life, and it involved a final covenant before they entered the land. If they
broke the covenant, the land of milk and honey would be rendered unworkable
like the salty land of Sodom and Gomorrah.[14]
·
Thus, the salt of the meal-offering (in Leviticus) alludes to the
salt of the covenant (in Deuteronomy) which references the salt of
Sodom.
What all this means
is that we learn from the later verse in Deuteronomy (from the last
sections of the Torah) a technical detail pertaining to an earlier verse
in Leviticus: that the salt added to the meal-offering must be melach
Sedomit, the specific salt of Sodom.
THE FATHER’S
VIEW:
The commentary is clearly written by R. Zaltman because it states
that this was: משם אבי, the view of his father, R. Yehuda heChasid. His father
was not bothered by a later verse from a period many years after Sinai,
throwing light on an earlier verse, as the Torah was, in his view, one
conglomerate given simultaneously at Sinai.
However, R. Zaltman offers his own interpretation in his own
name. He was not satisfied with his father’s position on the matter. He first
explains his father’s view with ונראה
לתרץ, it is feasible to answer that Moshe received all the
laws simultaneously at Sinai. This alleviated the difficulty of the earlier law
being influenced by the later law.
Then he states, וקשה לי, that his father’s view that all the laws were
given simultaneously, is difficult and unacceptable to him. And he proceeds to
offer his own more daring interpretation, עניין
אחר.
THE SON’S VIEW:
According to R.
Zaltman, the Torah originally merely stated: ולא
תשבית מלח מעל מנחתך, “you
shall not omit from your meal offering the salt” without the phrase:
בְּרִ֣ית אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ, “of your covenant with God”. Then after Moshe had later
written the verse in Deuteronomy referencing the covenant, “they” added the
phrase בְּרִ֣ית אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ to the verse in Leviticus.
R. Zaltman does not
say who “they” are, but is it likely he was referring to the Men of the Great
Assembly in the time of Ezra.
Although Viezel does not suggest the following, perhaps one
can gain some insight into what may have been bothering R. Zaltman. A larger picture emerges because a reading of
the surrounding text in Deuteronomy refers to וְאָמַ֞ר
הַדּ֣וֹר הָאַחֲר֗וֹן,
“the later generation will say” and seems to imply knowledge
(whether projected or experienced) of a later time - after the people had
already sinned and had been exiled. The verses refer to בָּאָ֣רֶץ
הַהִ֑וא, “that land” implying that they had already entered the
land and had been exiled, and they are firmly written in the past tense:
וַיִּחַר־אַ֥ף
יְהֹוָ֖ה בָּאָ֣רֶץ הַהִ֑וא לְהָבִ֤יא עָלֶ֙יהָ֙ אֶת־כׇּל־הַקְּלָלָ֔ה
הַכְּתוּבָ֖ה בַּסֵּ֥פֶר הַזֶּֽה׃
“So the LORD was incensed at
that land and brought upon it all the curses recorded in this book.”
וַיִּתְּשֵׁ֤ם יְהֹוָה֙ מֵעַ֣ל אַדְמָתָ֔ם
בְּאַ֥ף וּבְחֵמָ֖ה וּבְקֶ֣צֶף גָּד֑וֹל וַיַּשְׁלִכֵ֛ם אֶל־אֶ֥רֶץ אַחֶ֖רֶת
כַּיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּֽה׃
“The LORD uprooted them from
their soil in anger, fury, and great wrath, and cast them into another land, as
is still the case.”
The English translation of these verses from Deuteronomy
29:26-7, is from Serafia, but the translation is not entirely accurate because כַּיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּה means “to this day”. In other words, the verse is implying
that the people had already been exiled to another land where they
remain to this day. Again, this
verse either projects an expected reaction, or, more daringly, could also imply
a similar alleged interpolation if it was added after the destruction of the
First Temple and after the Jews had already been exiled to אֶ֥רֶץ אַחֶ֖רֶת, another land, namely Babylon. This would have been just before
the time of Ezra and the Men of the Great Assembly. For R. Zaltman, the
interpolation in Leviticus may no longer just be due to a simple gezeira
shava, where the two verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy are joined by the
common word “salt”, but they are connected by a deeper “gezeira shava”
because they originated at the same time, namely, in the post-exilic period.
[15]
In the other two examples which Viezel brings, it emerges
that R. Zaltman - and not R. Yehuda heChasid - similarly suggests that verses
or phrases were added to the Torah after the time of Moshe.
ANALYSIS:
It does indeed seem clear that it is on the view of R.
Zaltman the son, and not R. Yehuda heChasid the father, that some writing was
added to the Torah, centuries later. These may seem like small and
insignificant additions, but it violates the notion that the Torah was never
changed or altered even one iota. This view is often portrayed as a universal
rabbinic belief but as we have seen in Kotzk
Blog: 323) TIKUNEI SOFERIM – CORRECTIONS OF THE SCRIBES:, that is far from
the case.
Regarding the matter of the censoring of Lange’s anthology
by what he calls the “Torah luminaries”, an interesting phenomenon
emerges. In this case, the “luminaries” may have been on the mark. It
certainly appears evident, based on Viezel’s convincing arguments from the
wording of the commentary itself, that, as the “luminaries” suggested, “others
took command of these writings and cast their hands upon them”.
However, the “luminaries”, who seem to have gone on an
instinctive ‘gut feel’ rather than undertake a detailed examination of the
text as Viezel did, responded by recommending censorship.
Ironically, Viezel arrived at the same conclusion as the “luminaries”
without having to resort to such extreme dictatorial measures, and he did so by
applying his mind instead. There was no need, after all, to censor R. Yehuda
heChasid as he did not do the writing. Had it been known that these views were
attributed to his less famous son, the reaction might have been less extreme.
Viezel concludes with this closing verdict:
“At this time, it seems most
responsible to remove ‘seeds of biblical criticism’ from the literary activity
of R. Judah he-Hasid.”
This verdict is most convincing and well-argued. However,
the ‘seeds of biblical criticism’, whether or not one is comfortable
with that notion, are still there, having now been sowed not by R. Yehudah
heChasid but by his son instead.
His short twenty-six-word commentary on Leviticus touched a
nerve because - although introduced by the innocent suggestive qualification of
the word שמא, “perhaps” - it sparked such controversy and resulted in
outright censorship. The sanitised version of the newly published commentary
skirts this issue entirely.
[1] Perushei
haTorah le-R. Yehudah heChasid, I.S. Lange (ed.)
[2]
Viezel, E., 2015, ‘R. Judah he-Hasid or R. Moshe Zaltman: who proposed that
Torah verses were written after the time of Moses?’, Journal of Jewish
Studies, vol. 66, no.1.
[3] MS
Guenzburg 8, pp. 62a–97a.
[4] MS
Add. 669,2 (n. p.).
[5] 1)
Genesis 48:20–22:
וַיְבָ֨רְכֵ֜ם
בַּיּ֣וֹם הַהוּא֮ לֵאמוֹר֒ בְּךָ֗ יְבָרֵ֤ךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר יְשִֽׂמְךָ֣
אֱלֹהִ֔ים כְּאֶפְרַ֖יִם וְכִמְנַשֶּׁ֑ה וַיָּ֥שֶׂם אֶת־אֶפְרַ֖יִם לִפְנֵ֥י
מְנַשֶּֽׁה׃
So he blessed them that day, saying, “By you shall
Israel invoke blessings, saying: God make you like Ephraim and Manasseh.” Thus
he put Ephraim before Manasseh.
וַיֹּ֤אמֶר
יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ אֶל־יוֹסֵ֔ף הִנֵּ֥ה אָנֹכִ֖י מֵ֑ת וְהָיָ֤ה אֱלֹהִים֙ עִמָּכֶ֔ם
וְהֵשִׁ֣יב אֶתְכֶ֔ם אֶל־אֶ֖רֶץ אֲבֹתֵיכֶֽם׃
Then Israel said to Joseph, “I am about to die; but
God will be with you and bring you back to the land of your fathers.
וַאֲנִ֞י
נָתַ֧תִּֽי לְךָ֛ שְׁכֶ֥ם אַחַ֖ד עַל־אַחֶ֑יךָ אֲשֶׁ֤ר לָקַ֙חְתִּי֙ מִיַּ֣ד
הָֽאֱמֹרִ֔י בְּחַרְבִּ֖י וּבְקַשְׁתִּֽי׃
And now, I assign to you one portion more than to
your brothers, which I wrested from the Amorites with my sword and bow.”
[6] 2)
Leviticus 2:13:
וְכׇל־קׇרְבַּ֣ן
מִנְחָתְךָ֮ בַּמֶּ֣לַח תִּמְלָח֒ וְלֹ֣א תַשְׁבִּ֗ית מֶ֚לַח בְּרִ֣ית אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ
מֵעַ֖ל מִנְחָתֶ֑ךָ עַ֥ל כׇּל־קׇרְבָּנְךָ֖ תַּקְרִ֥יב מֶֽלַח׃
You shall season your every offering of meal with
salt; you shall not omit from your meal offering the salt of your covenant with
God; with all your offerings you must offer salt.
[7] 3)
Deuteronomy 2:8:
וַֽנַּעֲבֹ֞ר
מֵאֵ֧ת אַחֵ֣ינוּ בְנֵי־עֵשָׂ֗ו הַיֹּֽשְׁבִים֙ בְּשֵׂעִ֔יר מִדֶּ֙רֶךְ֙
הָֽעֲרָבָ֔ה מֵאֵילַ֖ת וּמֵעֶצְיֹ֣ן גָּ֑בֶר {ס} וַנֵּ֙פֶן֙
וַֽנַּעֲבֹ֔ר דֶּ֖רֶךְ מִדְבַּ֥ר מוֹאָֽב׃
We then moved on, away from our kinsmen, the
descendants of Esau, who live in Seir, away from the road of the Arabah, away
from Elath and Ezion-geber; and we marched on in the direction of the
wilderness of Moab.
[8] 4)
Numbers 21:17:
אָ֚ז
יָשִׁ֣יר יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶת־הַשִּׁירָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את עֲלִ֥י בְאֵ֖ר עֱנוּ־לָֽהּ׃
Then Israel
sang this song: Spring up, O well—sing to it—
[9] Parenthesis mine.
[10] Lange,
Perushei haTorah, p. 8.
[11] Lange,
Perushei haTorah, p. 9.
[12] Lange,
Perushei haTorah, p. 10-11.
[13] This style of connecting two seemingly unrelated verses is known as gezeira
shava.
[14] Thus
the ‘salt covenant’ was so called because it reminded Israel that if they broke
it, their land would be turned to salt. Rashi has a more gentle explanation in
that just like salt never spoils, so too should this covenant never spoil.
[15] The
centralisation of worship in the Temple after the time of Josiah’s reforms, and
the intensification of ritual may be related to the detail of the salt. No
longer can just any salt be used with the meal-offering, as R. Zaltman suggests
the verse in Leviticus originally meant, but now only special ‘ritualised’
salt, melach Sedomit, had to be used. This may have been the reason
behind the alleged interpolation.
A further corroboration of the notion of the
intensification of ritual, is the development of the practice to dip bread,
representing the meal-offering, into salt - including the further specification
that (on one view) mayim acharonim (the ‘second washing’ at the end of a
meal) is only necessary when the salt used was melach Sedomit and not
just ordinary salt.
No comments:
Post a Comment